Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Residents’ Agency Makes a Difference in Volunteering in an Urban Neighbourhood

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this case study, we aimed to investigate residents’ agency through their participation in the development of their residential area in the city of Espoo, Finland. With the aid of seven themes, we identified by thematic analysis five types of residents in terms of agency: free floaters, home troops and helpers, representative information brokers, informed reviewers, and change agents. Relational agency, rooted from the cultural-historical activity theory, necessitated recognizing the available resources, understanding the motives of others, and collaborating in joint activities. The results of 30 interviews showed that residents are willing to participate, and they need space and structure to exploit their relational agency in order to build common interests in their neighbourhood. The findings are discussed with reference to the potential of residents’ agency while participating in neighbourhood governance and volunteering. Our study contributes to the understanding of residents’ relational agency in community development and in volunteering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • A participatory Espoo. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.espoo.fi/en-US/City_of_Espoo/Decisionmaking/The_Espoo_Story/A_participatory_Espoo. Accessed 15 March 2017.

  • Anheier, H., Glasius, M., & Kaldor, M. (2001). Introducing global civil society. In H. Anheier, M. Glasius, & M. Kaldor (Eds.), Global civil society 2001 (pp. 3–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, R., Hart, D., & Donnelly, T. (2005). The association of childhood personality type with volunteering during adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H. B. (2005). Among everyday makers and expert citizens. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking governance: People, politics, and the public sphere (pp. 159–178). Bristol: Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H. P., & Sörensen, E. (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21, 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26, 439–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berner, M. (2001). Citizen participation in local government budgeting. Popular Government, 66, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organizations, 54, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. (2010). Towards a theory of hybrid organizations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 46–69). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bobel, C. (2007). I’m not an activist, though I’ve done a lot of it: Doing activism, being activist and the ‘perfect standard’ in a contemporary movement. Social Movement Studies, 6, 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative analysis. Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 749–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin, R. (2005). Democracy and bureaucracy in a community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J. (2014). From third sector to social enterprise: A European research trajectory. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprice and the third sector. Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspectives (pp. 17–41). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C. (2009). Front line workers and “local knowledge”: Neighbourhood stories in contemporary UK local governance. Public Administration, 87, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting lipsky: Front-line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59, 978–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C., Van Hulst, M., Jeffares, S., Escobar, O., Agger, A., & De Graaf, L. (2016). Five ways to make a difference: Perceptions of practitioners working in urban neighborhoods. Public Administration Review, 74, 576–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecklund, E. (2005). Models of civic responsibility: Korean Americans in congregations with different ethnic compositions. Journal for the Scientific Study of the Religion, 44, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 1, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A., & D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition on sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56, 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einolf, C. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37, 1267–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Fishman, P. G., Cantillon, D., Pierce, S. J., & Van Egeren, L. A. (2007). Building an active citizenry: The role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Fishman, P. G., Fitzgerald, K., Brandell, C., Nowell, B., Chavis, D., & Van Egeren, L. A. (2006). Mobilizing residents for action: The role of small wins and strategic supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, D. N., & Weil, M. O. (1995). Citizen participation. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (pp. 483–494). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Introduction of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, H. (2011). Identity and volunteering intertwined: Reflections on the values of young adults. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 852–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haski-Leventahl, D., & Bar-Gal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model: Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61, 67–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haski-Leventhal, D., & Cnaan, R. S. (2009). Group processes and volunteering: Using groups to enhance volunteerism. Administration in Social Work, 33, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, F., & Tops, P. W. (2005). Everyday fixers as local heroes: A case study of vital interaction in urban governance. Local Government Studies, 31, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R., & Handy, F. (2010). Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid map for a complex phenomena. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40, 410–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflective styles of volunteering. A sociological modernization perspective. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14, 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustinx, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2011). Re-embedding volunteering: In search of a new collective ground. Volunteer Sector Review, 2, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out. Chicago: ACTA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledwich, M., & Springett, J. (2010). Participatory practice. Community-based action for transformative change. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, T. (2016). Espoo alueittain 2015: Analyysit teemoittain ja suuralueittain. Tietoisku 7/2016. [Espoo in districts 2015]. Espoo: City of Espoo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontjev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L. (2005). The civil society sector. A review of critical issues and research agenda for organizational communication scholars. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 238–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local Government Act. (365/1995). Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1995/en19950365.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2017.

  • Mäntysalo, R. (2005). Approaches to participation in urban planning theories. In I. Zett & S. Brand (Eds.), Rehabilitation of suburban areas—Brozzi and Le Piagge neighbourhoods (pp. 23–38). Florence: University of Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, W., & Bonjean, C. (1995). Community orientation of higher-status women volunteers. Social Forces, 73, 1553–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 13, 474–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism. An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prouteau, L., & Wolff, F. (2008). On the relational motive for volunteer work. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 314–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, C. (1999). One size does not fit all: Four models of involving volunteers in small voluntary organizations. Voluntary action. The Journal of the Institute for Volunteering Research, 1, 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, C., Paine, A. E., Howlett, S., & Zimmeck, M. (2010). Making sense of volunteering: Perspectives, principles and definitions. In C. Rochester, A. E. Paine, S. Howlett, & M. With Zimmeck (Eds.), Volunteering and society in the 21st century (pp. 9–23). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (1999). America’s non-profit sector: A primer (2nd ed.). New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, M., & Sokolowski, W. S. (2016). Beyond non-profits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1515–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering. A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2008). Volunteerism. Social issues, perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staffans, A. (2004). Vaikuttavat asukkaat: Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina. [Influencing residents: Interaction and local knowledge as challenges of urban planning]. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Studer, S., & Von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 403–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Volunteers. (2012). Report of the secretary-general: Follow-up of the implementation of the international year of volunteers (2012). Retrieved from the www.unvolunteers.org/swvr2011. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  • Van Den Pennen, T., & Van Bortel, G. (2016). Exemplary urban practitioners in neighbourhood renewal: Survival of the fittest…and the fitting. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1323–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hulst, M., De Graaf, L., & Van den Brink, G. (2012). The work of exemplary practitioners in neighbourhood governance. Critical Policy Studies, 6, 434–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation. How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American Review of Public Administration, 37, 17–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, J., & Gooch, M. (2007). Stewardship volunteering by older Australians: A generative response. Local Environment, 12, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, M., & Bekkers, R. (2010). Helping behaviour, dispositional empathic concern and the principle of care. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study is funded by The Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland and the Ministry of Environment through the Development Programme for Residential Areas (2013–2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Metsänpojankuja 3, 02130, Espoo, Finland

    Virpi Lund & Soile Juujärvi

  2. Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning (CRADLE), Department of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Virpi Lund

Authors
  1. Virpi Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soile Juujärvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virpi Lund.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Research was conducted in accordance with research protocol concerning human participants. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lund, V., Juujärvi, S. Residents’ Agency Makes a Difference in Volunteering in an Urban Neighbourhood. Voluntas 29, 756–769 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9955-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9955-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation