Abstract
Previous research on student involvement suggested that business and engineering students manifest lowest rates of voluntary action. Similarly, it was thought that social science students are the most involved in voluntary action, with students of natural sciences and humanities in the middle. However, there were very few studies that empirically compared these assertions. Furthermore, these assertions were not investigated from cross-cultural perspectives. Based on a study of students in 12 countries (N = 6,570), we found that even when controlling for background variables, social science students are actually less engaged in voluntary action than other students. Engineering students are higher than expected on voluntary action while students of humanities are the most involved in voluntary action. When studying these differences in the 12 selected countries, local cultures and norms form different sets of findings that suggest that there is no universal trend in choice of academic field and voluntary action.
Résumé
Une recherche déjà effectuée sur l’engagement des étudiants a montré que les étudiants en affaires et en ingénierie sont peu intéressés à travailler bénévolement. Parallèlement, il a été montré que les étudiants en sciences humaines sont le plus impliqués dans le bénévolat et que les étudiants en sciences naturelles et en lettres se situent entre les deux Cependant, on ne disposait que de très peu d’études pour comparer de telles affirmations. En outre, ces affirmations n’ont pas été examinées dans une perspective multiculturelle. En se basant sur une étude portant sur des étudiants issus de douze pays différents (N=6,570), nous avons trouvé que même en contrôlant les variables de formation, les étudiants en sciences humaines sont en fait moins engagés dans le volontariat que d'autres étudiants. Les étudiants en ingénierie sont plus impliqués dans le volontariat qu’on ne le pensait, tandis que les étudiants en lettres sont les plus impliqués dans l'action volontaire. En étudiant ces différences dans les douze pays qui ont fait l'objet d'une enquête, les cultures locales et les normes fournissent un ensemble différent de faits suggérant qu’il n’existe pas de tendance universelle quant au choix des matières académiques et l’action volontaire.
Zusammenfassung
Frühere Untersuchungen zur Studentenbeteiligung gaben zu erkennen, dass Studenten aus den Bereichen Betriebswirtschaft und Ingenieurwesen am wenigsten in ehrenamtlicher Arbeit involviert sind. Zugleich nahm man an, dass Studenten aus dem Bereich Sozialwissenschaft am ehesten ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten übernehmen würden, gefolgt von Studenten aus den Bereichen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Allerdings gab es nur sehr wenige Untersuchungen, die einen empirischen Vergleich dieser Überzeugungen vornahmen. Des Weiteren wurden diese Standpunkte nicht unter der Berücksichtigung kulturübergreifender Perspektiven untersucht. Beruhend auf einer Untersuchung von Studenten in 12 Ländern (N=6.570) kamen wir zu dem Schluss, dass selbst bei kontrollierten Hintergrundvariablen Sozialwissenschaftsstudenten tatsächlich weniger ehrenamtlich engagiert waren als andere Studenten. Studenten aus dem Bereich Ingenieurwesen sind mehr in ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten involviert als angenommen, und Studenten aus dem Bereich Geisteswissenschaften engagieren sich am meisten. Bei der Untersuchung dieser Unterschiede in den 12 Ländern führen die einzelnen Kulturen und Normen zu unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen, die darauf schließen lassen, dass kein allgemeiner Trend bei der Wahl des akademischen Bereichs und dem ehrenamtlichen Engagement vorliegt.
Resumen
Anteriores investigaciones sobre la participación de los universitarios indicaban que los estudiantes de empresariales y de ingeniería presentaban un porcentaje de acción voluntara menor. Igualmente, se pensaba que los estudiantes de ciencias sociales eran los más comprometidos con las acciones voluntarias, y que el centro lo ocupaban los estudiantes de ciencias naturales y humanidades. No obstante, la realidad es que muy pocos estudios han contrastado empíricamente estas afirmaciones. Es más, ni siquiera se han investigado desde una perspectiva intercultural. Basándonos en un estudio realizado en estudiantes de 12 países (N=6,570), hemos descubierto que incluso cuando se comparan las variables de educación, los estudiantes de ciencias sociales participan incluso menos en trabajos de voluntariado que otros estudiantes. Los estudiantes de ingeniería participan más como voluntarios de lo que se esperaba mientras que los de humanidades son los más comprometidos en la acción voluntaria. Si examinamos estas diferencias en los 12 países estudiados, vemos que las culturas y las normas locales conforman un conjunto de resultados diferente que sugieren que no hay una tendencia universal que relacione la carrera universitaria con el trabajo voluntario.
摘要
此前有关大学生的研究表明商科和工科的学生中表达愿意从事志愿服务的比例最低?类似的,一般认为社会科学的学生在志愿活动中是最积极的,自然科学和人文学的学生其次?然而,很少有研究从经验上比较这些结论?此外,这些结论并不是从跨文化的视角出发而研究得到的?根据一项针对12国大学生(6570人)的调查研究,我们发现即使考虑到背景各不相同,社会科学的学生实际上比其他学生更少参与到志愿活动中?工科学生志愿活动的参与度高于预期,而人文学的学生参与志愿活动最多?在研究12国的差异时,各地文化和风俗造成了不同的结论——在学术领域和志愿活动的选择上没有普遍趋势?
ملخص
الأبحاث السابقه في مشاركه الطلاب توحي أن طلاب التجاره والهندسه يظهرون أدنى معدلات العمل التطوعي . و بالمثل ٬ هناك فكره بأن طلاب العلوم الإجتماعيه أكثر مشاركه في العمل التطوعي ٬ طلاب العلوم الطبيعيه و الإنسانيه معتدلون .على الرغم ٬ من أن هناك دراسات قليله التي تقارن تجريبيا? هذه المزاعم .علاوه على ذلك ٬ هذه المزاعم لم يتم التأكد من صحتها من منظورات ثقافيه مختلفه . إستنادا? على دراسه من 12 بلد ( ن = 6570 ) ٬ وجدنا إننا عندما نسيطر تماما?على متغيرات الخلفيه ٬ طلاب العلوم الإجتماعيه في الواقع أقل مشاركه في العمل التطوعي من الطلاب الآخرين. طلاب الهندسه أكثر من المتوقع في العمل التطوعي . في حين أن طلاب الدراسات الإنسانيه هم الأكثر مشاركه في العمل التطوعي .عند دراسه هذه الإختلافات في 12 بلد التي تم دراستها ٬ الثقافات المحليه والمعايير من مجموعه مختلفه من النتائج تشير إلى أن ليس هناك إتجاه عالمي في إختيار الميدان الأكاديمي و العمل التطوعي .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 43–65.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966–1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 115–135.
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 251–263.
Bargal, D. (1981). Social values in social work: A developmental model. Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 45–61.
Berry, H. A., & Chisholm, L. A. (1999). Service learning in higher education around the world: An initial look. New York: The International Partnership for Service-Learning.
Campus Compact. (2007). Campus Compact: Educating citizens, building communities. Available online: www.compact.org.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.
Cnaan, R. A., & Amrofell, L. (1994). Mapping volunteer activity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 335–351.
Cnaan, R. A., & Cascio, T. (1998). Performance and commitment: Issues in management of volunteers in human service organizations. Journal of Social Service Research, 24(3/4), 1–37.
Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 269–284.
Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364–383.
Crow, G. M. (2007). The professional and organizational socialization of new English head teachers in school reform contexts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35, 51–71.
Fitch, R. A. (1987). Characteristics and motivations of college students volunteering for community service. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 424–431.
Gidron, B. (1978). Volunteer work and its rewards. Volunteer Administration, 11, 18–32.
Hall, D., Hall, I., Cameron, A., & Green, P. (2004). Student volunteering and the active community: Issues and opportunities for teaching and learning in sociology. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1, 33–50.
Handy, F., Cnaan, R. A., Brudney, J. L., Ascoli, U., Meijs, L. C. M. P., & Ranade, S. (2000). Public perception of “who is a volunteer:” An examination of the net-cost approach from a cross-cultural perspective. Voluntas, 11, 45–65.
Harward, B. M., & Albert, L. S (1994). Service and service-learning. American Association for Higher Education Bulleting, 46, 9–11.
Helms, S. E. (2004). Youth volunteering in the States: 2002 and 2003. College Park, MD: Circle.
Herman, K. C., & Usita, P. M. (1994). Predicting Big Brother/Big Sister volunteer attrition with the 16 PF. Child & Youth Care Forum, 23, 207–211.
Holland, J. (1966). A psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and environments. Waltham, MA: Blarsdell.
Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of career. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, F. (2000). Youth volunteering on the rise. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 12, 36–42.
Kritikos, V., Watt, H. M. G., Krass, I., Sainsbury, E. J., & Bosnic-Anticevich S. Z. (2003). Pharmacy students’ perceptions of their profession relative to other health care professions. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 11, 21–129.
Meijs, L. C. P. M., Handy, F., Cnaan, R. A., Brudney, J. L., Ascoli, U., Ranade, S., et al. (2003). All in the eyes of the beholder? Perceptions of volunteering across eight countries In P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The value of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 19–34). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 71–96.
O’Brein, E. M. (1993). Outside the classroom: Students as employees, volunteers and interns. Research Briefs, 4, 1–12.
Parker-Gwin, R. (1996). Connecting service to learning: How students and communities matter. Teaching Sociology, 24, 97–101.
Pearce, J. L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. New York: Routledge.
Puckett, J. L., Harkavy, I., & Benson, L. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Russell Commission Report. (2005). A national framework for youth action and engagement. Available online: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/Russellcommission/report/index.html.
Sax, L. J. (2004). Citizenship development and the American college student. New Directions for Institutional Research, 122, 65–80.
Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243–263.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225–244.
Trusty, J., Robinson, C. R., Plata, M., & Ng, K. (2000). Effect of gender, socioeconomic status, and early academic performance on postsecondary educational choice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 463–472.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1998). The contribution of social resources to volunteering. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 799–814.
Winniford, J. C., Carpenter, D. S., & Grider, C. (1997). Motivations of college students as volunteers: A review. NASPA Journal, 34, 134–146.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank three anonymous reviewers of Voluntas for their insightful and helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F. et al. Students’ Vocational Choices and Voluntary Action: A 12-Nation Study. Voluntas 19, 1–21 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9052-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9052-1