First, a few organizations that entered the discussion and that international job seekers might be interested in checking out:

• VSO: “the world’s leading independent international development organisation that works through volunteers to fight poverty in developing countries;” based in London
• Cross-Cultural Solutions: “specializes in short-term volunteer abroad programs in 12 countries;” based in New Rochelle, NY
• GlobeAware: develops short-term volunteer programs in international environments that encourage people to immerse themselves in a unique way of giving back;” based in Dallas, TX

Now, to the meat. My goal in starting a dialogue with Alanna RE: voluntourism was, quite simply, to find out more about it. I wanted to learn why an experienced development practitioner (Alanna) viewed voluntourism so negatively. And based on her view of the concept, I also wanted to revisit my initial opinion (I wrote many months back: “Voluntourism strikes me as not only a way to give back but also a means to gain short-term experience working abroad”) and determine if I was perhaps off the mark.

The first aspect of my post that some readers took issue with was nomenclature: “voluntourism” vs. “volunteering.” A few mentioned that voluntourism is in fact not volunteering at all—commenter Steve Jackson suggested they shouldn’t even be “mentioned in the same breath.” I’m respectful of Steve’s opinion, as well as his position as a skilled VSO volunteer, though I’m doubtful of this assertion. I wasn’t purposefully trying to conflate the two terms, or to use them interchangeably. But I did view, and still do, voluntourism as a form of volunteering, which for better or for worse I think many people would consider it to be (the original SF Chronicle article that spawned my first post on voluntourism defines voluntourism as a way in which one might volunteer, not as a wholly separate concept).

Those who stridently oppose voluntourism as wholly unbeneficial and with none of the redeeming qualities we typically associate with volunteer work are welcome to do so, though I’m unwilling to join them in this assessment, largely because I’m reluctant to judge the intentions and benefits of a large group of people and programs that are not all the same. I guess I’d just rather discuss than assume.

All of which leads to the second issue that arose as a result of my post: what does it mean to pay for a volunteer experience abroad?  Or, what do we really mean when we say “voluntourism”?

I get the feeling that some who oppose the notion of voluntourism have a very specific image of who the typical voluntourist is: a rich voyeur who wishes to gawk at the wretched poor and then brag to his friends about his unending altruism, but has no real interest in the people or the cause he is allegedly serving. In essence, a “poverty tourist.”

While this type of person most likely exists, is this the only kind of voluntourist? Or, if a voluntourist is indeed someone who only wishes to gawk and brag, not to help, is every person then who pays for a volunteer experience abroad a voluntourist? I don’t think so, and point to commenter Darin Lim Yankowitz’s experience as an example. Darin details his own “voluntourist” experience, and it hardly seems like poverty tourism. Rather, as Darren tells it, his paid volunteer experience not only benefited those he wished to serve without displacing local workers or otherwise hurting the local community, but also had such a profound effect on him that he wishes to continue such work by pursuing a career in development. This strikes me as an all around good situation.

In addition, it suggests that just because a participant is paying to take part in a volunteer experience does not automatically make what they are doing unbeneficial or make them an unskilled poverty tourist. While some who pay for a volunteer experience may have less than pure motives and be looking only to buy an “authentic” experience, others (like Darin) do not fall into this category. Commenter Raj Gyawali seconds this notion: “How you conduct volunteering / voluntourism makes the difference, not who paid what.”

All of this also suggests that the term “voluntourism” is a loaded one and might be worth avoiding altogether—perhaps the better way to hold the discussion is by comparing “supported” vs. “unsupported” volunteer programs (supported=organization pays; unsupported=you pay). That might relieve the debate of the images, assumptions, and judgments that are attached to “voluntourism.” [I suppose an argument could even be made that those who pay for a volunteer experience and have impure motives and hurt more than help should be termed “voluntourists,” while those who pay for a volunteer experience and have pure motives and help more than hurt should be called “unsupported volunteers.” But judging someone’s motives and whether they are “helping” is so fraught with assumption that I’d prefer not to go there.]

Commenters Matt Kolterman and Brandolon Barnett also raised another issue to debate: what do we mean when we talk about the “effectiveness” of international volunteer programs? As Matt writes, “International development is not simply about results that can be measured, nor is it about skills that can be transferred. Though the work itself is undoubtedly a vital part of an assignment, a large part of the good a volunteer can do is facilitating cultural exchange and promoting a sense of mutual understanding, both on-assignment and back at home.” Brandolon seconds this, noting that volunteer experiences abroad create more globally engaged citizens: “International volunteers maintain higher levels of civic engagement in their home countries and towards their host countries even after returning home.” [As someone who promotes the value of international exchange programs in his daily work, I agree and think Matt and Brandolon make an important point. An example from my life: my brother has done several short-term volunteer gigs in Ghana. His work there mainly involved leading grant-writing courses.  Was he successful? From a “results” standpoint, it’s debatable: he admits his students are not necessarily better grant writers than before (though in some cases they are). But the fact that he now has a group of Ghanaian friends with whom he keeps in regular contact, and that he now better understands and has a deep affection for Ghana (and the same is true of Ghanaian friends and their view of the U.S.) tells me that the cultural exchange aspect of his experience was a great success.]

In the end, I think my initial judgment of voluntourism (“not only a way to give back but also a means to gain short-term experience working abroad”) was too simplistic—I’m not saying I was right or wrong, only that the topic is too complex for definitive answers. This is also why I have been uncomfortable throughout with the pronouncements of “If you are paying, how much good can you be doing?”—because that is also too simplistic. It might be true, but it’s not necessarily true. It’s never as simple as we’d like it to be.

Alanna’s opinions from the initial post are still very important for anyone pursuing an international (development) career to think about. Consider your potential international volunteer options wisely: research the organization, find out the details of the project, how long you will be there, who you will be serving, and how you will be serving them. Think deeply about any potential volunteer experience (whether supported or unsupported) and consider the impact you will have on the project and local community. It’s important to know, as Alanna pointed out, that some international development agencies, whether you agree with it or not, might not look highly upon an unsupported (or voluntouristic) experience on your resume. It’s important to consider the possibility that just because you want to do good doesn’t necessarily mean you are doing good. All of this can’t be boiled down into a set of tidy recommendations, of easy dos and don’ts; rather, they are points that should be considered in the context of your individual and specific situation. Don’t discount a program simply because it’s asking you to pay; in the same way, don’t assume the best about a program simply because it will support you. Reserve judgment of any volunteer program and its efficacy until all the facts are known.

I have to say, I am not impressed by voluntourism. If you have actual useful skills that can help people, then you can be paid to work abroad. If you have so few skills that you need to pay someone to take you, then how much good can you be doing?

A pretty provocative comment, I thought. And even a bit harsh. How can she, or we, judge another person’s intent as they enter a volunteer experience? How do we know they have no skills to offer? We don’t know the circumstances which led them to the particular volunteer program they going through (whether they are paying for that experience or not)—so how can we judge the impact they will have or the benefit they will receive from the experience?

After pondering her comment, though, and then discussing it with her further, I realized Alanna was not being judgmental but rather realistic. It also occurred to me that there’s a general tendency in our fields (the diverse and varied whole of international education, exchange, and development) to view any and all volunteer work as positive—both on a resume and to the organization/project/people being served. But Alanna’s perspective blows that rosy view out of the water by saying “just because you mean well doesn’t mean you’re actually helping.” A cold dose of reality, and one that I think more people—especially more young people looking at careers in development—need to have. Our discussion went something like this:

I queried Alanna to expand on her voluntourism comment. I countered that volunteering is a great way to gain international experience and contacts in the field. In addition, those who volunteer are aiding a good cause and certainly are not without many skills to offer. Alanna countered my optimism with a view from the field:

I think it boils down to this: you cannot do good development work in such short stints. You can’t even contribute to good development work, because the learning curve is so long you’d be gone before you were useful. All you can do is be an extra pair of hands, which displaces local labor. The vast majority of respectable/major development agencies therefore do not use short-term volunteers.

Almost everyone you pay to volunteer with is either a little bit shady, or doing work that doesn’t have much impact. That means your contacts with them aren’t worth much. I am not the only one who holds this view; most everyone I have ever worked with thinks the same thing. I’ve done a fair amount of hiring and reviewing resumes, and for me, voluntourism generally counted against the candidate, not in their favor, and once again, I know I am not the only one who feels that way.

Here was a perspective on volunteer work I hadn’t heard before—a perspective that is not necessarily well or widely heard, I don’t think, outside the experienced development community. But I needed this to be fleshed out more, so I further queried Alanna:

—If short term volunteers are unable to make an impact on a project, what about long-term volunteers?  Are they often used?  And if so, what is the minimum amount of time needed in a certain place/on a certain project in order to make a positive impact on the project?

—I can see how “voluntourism” (i.e., paying for an altruistic experience abroad) could be viewed negatively—but how do you view volunteer work in general on a resume (not voluntourism but legit long-term volunteer work with a reputable development agency)?

—Should young people look for international development experience through long term volunteer work?  Or are they better served looking for internships or paid positions?

Alanna’s thoughts on these subjects went like this:

1) Long-term volunteers are useful. I’d say you need to stay at least 2 months to qualify.

2) You are right that people generally distinguish between paid and “legitimate” volunteer work, and regular volunteer work is viewed positively as field experience.

3) I’m a big proponent of just showing up to get in-country experience, though I think standard volunteer, internship, and fellowship programs are also effective. I actually wrote about these things once. Also, someone also recently commented on my blog and made the great point that you can also volunteer in your home country to build technical skills. Working with immigrants, for example, or women’s health would be skills that could help you get an international job.

I am still a proponent of international volunteer work for the main purpose of gaining international experience and even if there is no more specific strategic goal attached (i.e., I taught English in China, an experience which, while I don’t work directly with China-related issues right now, has played a big role in my movement into work in international exchange and has always looked good on my resume). But Alanna has really provided an impetus, I think, to look beyond the rosy picture of volunteering and view it more critically, both in terms of the benefit it will have on your career and the benefit it will make to the people/project you are trying to serve.