The Paradoxical Implications of Voluntary Care Authenticity

Several studies have examined the overlaps, differences, and tensions between voluntary and professional care within various social services (Ganesh & McAllum, Reference Ganesh and McAllum2012; Nesbit & Gazley, Reference Nesbit and Gazley2012; Netting et al., Reference Netting, Nelson, Borders and Huber2004; Overgaard, Reference Overgaard2015; Steimel, Reference Steimel2018; Taylor, Reference Taylor2004; Van Bochove et al., Reference Van Bochove, Tonkens, Verplanke and Roggeveen2018). In these contexts, care is viewed as an interactive logic (Mol, Reference Mol2008), according to which individuals respond to others’ needs with focussed attention and responsiveness through practices shaped by specific goals, styles, and values. Therefore, we can speak of care logics in the plural, capturing the diversity that defines them—whether professional, voluntary, familial, activist, or otherwise.

On the one hand, professionalized care tends to be formalized—primarily task-oriented and driven by bureaucratic and equity standards (Verhoeven & Van Bochove, Reference Verhoeven and Van Bochove2018), as care activities with an institutional mandate must ensure that services are provided fairly and impartially. Professionals are required to manage their emotions to fulfil organizational role requirements and expectations (Yanay & Shahar, Reference Yanay and Shahar1998) and are expected to avoid showing favouritism. In contrast, voluntary care is more relational—person-oriented and flexible—potentially fostering special bonds between volunteers and care recipients (Haubner, Reference Haubner2023; McAllum, Reference McAllum2018; Mellow, Reference Mellow, Benoit and Hallgrimsdóttir2011; Ward & Greene, Reference Ward and Greene2018).

The difference between professional and voluntary care is a cornerstone of volunteer management research (Brudney & Meijs, Reference Brudney and Meijs2014; Macduff et al., Reference Macduff, Netting and O'Connor2009). Brudney and Meijs (Reference Brudney and Meijs2014: 306) emphasize that the most critical distinction between volunteer management models lies in whether volunteers perform tasks identical to those of paid staff or take on complementary roles, a distinction that shapes their role and justifies their forms and levels of involvement in the organization. While in some cases volunteers are used to compensate for shortages of paid staff (Hardill & Baines, Reference Hardill and Baines2011; Muehlebach, Reference Muehlebach2012), in others, their presence is intended to bring a more “human” element to relationships (Villadsen, Reference Villadsen2009), contrasting with the bureaucratic nature of interactions typically performed by professionals. This humanizing quality, tied to the perceived authenticity of volunteers (la Cour, Reference la Cour2019), is, in this respect, a common factor driving their recruitment.

According to la Cour (Reference la Cour2019), volunteer managers perceive volunteering as “authentic” when the relationships formed by volunteers resemble the private care dynamics found in family or friendship contexts. However, this dynamic creates a paradox (la Cour & Højlund, 2009): voluntary relationships do not unfold in an entirely informal setting but within the symbolic boundaries of an organization. As a result, they are perceived as more genuine when they deviate from formal directives, making rule breaking a marker of authenticity. Voluntary care is subject to conflicting demands that are hard to reconcile (Hardill & Baines, Reference Hardill and Baines2011; Van Bochove et al., Reference Van Bochove, Tonkens, Verplanke and Roggeveen2018), as volunteers must adhere to standardized notions of professional care while also being encouraged to engage in authentic relational interactions.

Despite extensive criticism and being dismissed as a “myth” (Villadsen, Reference Villadsen2009), the concept of authenticity holds practical importance, as organizations can incorporate it into their volunteer recruitment and management strategies (la Cour, Reference la Cour2019). In this respect, volunteer management in itself is described as inherently paradoxical (la Cour et al., Reference la Cour, Hustinx and Eliasoph2023), as it navigates conflicting demands, including balancing predictability with spontaneity (Macduff et al., Reference Macduff, Netting and O'Connor2009), flexibility with formalization (McNamee & Peterson, Reference McNamee and Peterson2014), affection with formality (Ward & Greene, Reference Ward and Greene2018), empowerment with autonomy (Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Waele and Delcour2015), and loyalty with disloyalty (la Cour, Reference la Cour2019). Rather than resolving these paradoxes, la Cour and Højlund (Reference la Cour and Højlund2008) argue that research on voluntary care should examine how they are articulated and made productive. As we shall discuss, both volunteers and professionals can use the “friction” between conflicting demands to refine their approach to care, continuously adjusting their “fit” while actively deciding when and how to set boundaries.

Negotiating Differences: The Boundary Work Perspective

To understand how a specific balance among different care logics is achieved in the contexts analysed, we draw on the concept of “boundary work” (Fournier, Reference Fournier and Malin2000; Gieryn, Reference Gieryn1983; Quick & Feldman, Reference Quick and Feldman2014; Van Bochove et al., Reference Van Bochove, Tonkens, Verplanke and Roggeveen2018). Originally coined by Gieryn (Reference Gieryn1983), this perspective shows that distinctions between experts and non-experts—such as scientists and non-scientists—are the result of an ongoing practice of recrafting. The same applies to different professional roles within a field (Fournier, Reference Fournier and Malin2000) and to distinctions between volunteers and professionals, particularly in welfare and service provision.

Boundary work refers to practices aimed at “erecting and maintaining boundaries” (Fournier, Reference Fournier and Malin2000: 69) among groups or sectors. While often used to protect professional territories, boundary work can also mitigate or transcend specific divisions, functioning as “junctures” (Quick & Feldman, Reference Quick and Feldman2014) that facilitate communication and exchange. This perspective highlights how social roles—professionals, volunteers, experts, and governmental actors—are continuously redefined through the demarcation of knowledge, routines, and procedures. Boundaries between professional and voluntary care are, in this respect, constantly (re)produced through interactions, shaped by broader power dynamics, where some actors hold greater influence in shaping boundaries than others.

Van Bochove et al. (Reference Van Bochove, Tonkens, Verplanke and Roggeveen2018), in examining relationships between volunteers and professionals in long-term care and social work, identify two main types of boundary work: demarcation work and welcoming work. Demarcation work represents the more conventional form of boundary work, where professionals exclude volunteers from their “territory” due to a perceived lack of the skills required. Welcoming work, on the other hand, mitigates boundaries to foster collaboration, favouring including volunteers in professionalized settings and domains. Professionals can adopt a top-down approach to selecting volunteers, privileging those with professional skills similar (or different but complementary) to those of paid staff. Acting as gatekeepers, they decide which volunteers can (or cannot) be included—a process that reinforces professional identities, as volunteer inclusion is carefully controlled to align with organizational needs and standards.

However, this is not the only form of welcoming work that can be observed in public services, as the “authenticity” of volunteers (la Cour, Reference la Cour2019), as previously discussed, also justifies an inclusion rooted in appreciation of their spontaneous and unique contribution (Saks & Van Bochove, Reference Saks and Van Bochove2021). Decisions about whether to include certain volunteers, in which tasks, and for what reasons—along with concrete expectations regarding collaboration—serve as ways to observe how boundaries are defined, negotiated, and contested. While these decisions primarily fall under organizational management, volunteers, as we will discuss, also resist and challenge the efforts of professionals to constrain their actions.

Welcoming Volunteers in Professionalized Settings

In this section, we explore the value that, according to our interviewees, volunteers can bring to professionalized contexts of reception and show how the boundaries between the different care logics of professionals and volunteers are both recognized and mobilized in the interest of the service.

The opportunity to build unique and authentic relationships (la Cour, Reference la Cour2019) with migrants not only motivates volunteers to participate but also legitimizes their acceptance by professional staff, as volunteers are seen as representing a welcoming side of Italian society and being genuinely concerned about migrants’ well-being. A key initial distinction, in this regard, lies in how volunteers and professionals describe their relationships with migrants.

It is not uncommon for volunteers to use an emotional lexicon in describing their relationships with migrants. Friendship—or sometimes even (maternal/paternal) love—is one of the keys that some volunteers use to engage with the people they have chosen to care for, and this lexicon gives meaning to the commitment and circulation of resources and support in which they are engaged, as this volunteer clearly explains:

Unlike professionals, who are expected to manage their emotions to maintain effectiveness in their role and prevent burnout (Yanay & Shahar, Reference Yanay and Shahar1998), volunteers are drawn to the emotional and empathetic bonds they are willing—and expected—to build with migrants. In doing so, they can positively support the organization by alleviating migrants’ frustration and the negative atmosphere that arises during the prolonged uncertainty of asylum claims, thereby easing the emotional strain that is often directed at professional staff:

As noted by an operator in a small-scale reception project, the relationship between guests and volunteers is generally less hierarchical, characterized instead by greater closeness and trust. This is also viewed as a valuable asset within the organizational framework, as it fosters a different perspective on migrants’ lives, aspirations, and needs:

While monitoring guests falls under the institutional mandate and responsibility of the staff, encouraging intimate and friendly relationships with volunteers helps to “soften” the control that inherently characterizes governmental logics of reception. Moreover, through their diffused relationship of closeness and proximity, volunteers can support the staff in identifying potential situations of suffering and discomfort, as was well explained by this volunteer:

All of these exemplify forms of welcoming work founded on the recognition of difference, rather than on the expectation that volunteers should mirror the behaviour of professionals (as seen in the contexts analysed by Van Bochove et al. (Reference Van Bochove, Tonkens, Verplanke and Roggeveen2018)). And even when volunteers are engaged in quasi-professional tasks (e.g. teaching Italian), the focus is typically still on the “relational” aspect of their involvement—such as attending football matches or visiting museums with the class on Sundays after lessons. These informal yet meaningful activities are seen as particularly beneficial, as they can effortlessly bridge social divides and help migrants experience the everyday aspects of Italian life and society:

As the interviewee explains, volunteer care often extends beyond the institutional spaces of the centres, reaching into the intimate, domestic space of the home (Bassoli & Luccioni, Reference Bassoli and Luccioni2024; Boccagni & Giudici, Reference Boccagni and Giudici2022). This benefits migrants by providing an alternative channel through which they can access useful information and resources (such as knowledge of the Italian language), potentially supporting their autonomy trajectories (Bontenbal et al., Reference Bontenbal, Calo, Montgomery and Baglioni2024). As one professional responsible for a reception project centred around a local parish noted, volunteers’ personal connections and resources can play a crucial role in potentially fostering refugees’ occupational and housing pathways:

While professionals focus on empowering migrants through formal training, skill building, and job placement, volunteers provide more informal, direct, and personalized support. This approach can be especially effective in labour and housing markets, where supply and demand often rely on informal networks, as is frequently the case in Italy. Furthermore, connecting migrants with volunteers helps integrate them into a network of relationships that can extend beyond the reception period, not only spatially but also temporally, offering continued support even after they have left reception (Dotsey & Lumley-Sapanski, Reference Dotsey and Lumley-Sapanski2021):

The collaboration between volunteers and professionals should also be contextualized in light of the increasingly contentious and polarized debate around migration and refugee reception. As anticipated, the (often sudden) establishment of large reception centres housing several hundred people frequently triggers adverse reactions from the local population, and involving volunteers as witnesses ensures openness and transparency, while also providing local communities with a means of participation and oversight over contexts and actors that are perceived with suspicion, as this professional explains well:

The disinterested and authentic role of volunteers makes them ideal witnesses to the work carried out in these centres, opening spaces that, as in this case, risk segregating migrants both spatially and socially (Agier, Reference Agier2019). At the same time, it promotes forms of contact and interaction that can overcome stereotypical representations conveyed by hostile media or political discourses by offering concrete and direct testimony derived from relationships built in everyday life, which could be shared across local communities:

In this respect, what volunteers choose to share about the migrants with whom they have built relationships within reception settings holds special significance because of the direct, unmediated, selfless, and authentic nature of their testimony.

The recognition of a beneficial complementarity between voluntary and professional care is not, however, the only form of boundary work observed in the context of refugee reception. In the next section, we discuss how emerging demarcations between volunteers and professionals reveal potential conflicts and frictions among different care logics that can prompt a reflexive process of (re)defining one’s role on both sides.

Demarcating Care Through Criticisms

In some cases, professionals and volunteers may find themselves at odds, questioning how each side approaches its relationship with migrants, and these disagreements can sometimes escalate into harsh criticisms of each other’s actions.

As one professional pointed out, a common concern arises when volunteers become overly proactive, making decisions or taking initiatives without consulting the staff. The worry is that improper care from volunteers might undermine their efforts to enhance migrants’ autonomy, potentially fostering relationships where migrants become too dependent on these volunteers:

The next interviewee, on the other hand, believes that professional care should focus on achieving fairness and empowering individuals to exercise their rights. She sees the pursuit of a “thank you” from some volunteers as not reflecting the logic of rights allocation, but rather turning care into a discretionary and individualized act of charity—an act that reinforces the inequalities between donor and recipient that are typical of humanitarian action (Sandri, Reference Sandri2018):

The spontaneous emergence of special relationships of sympathy and affection between volunteers and some of the facility’s guests can also turn against the principle of equity and impersonality that guides professional care, as well as an excessive shift of these relationships into the emotional framework of intimacy:

Some of the volunteers, in turn, criticize the fact that professionals view personal relationships as being less important:

These narratives reveal how both volunteers and professionals define and shape their caregiving roles through boundary work by distancing themselves from elements perceived as ambiguous or improper in each other’s actions. These reciprocal critiques serve as processes of reflexive demarcation between their different care logics, which, as we discuss in the next section, can also lead to the emergence of individual and organizational rules and practices of (self-)discipline, with the aim of synchronizing these two distinct care logics more smoothly.

Negotiating Boundaries: Making Care Neither Too Similar, nor Too Different

As previously mentioned, the logic behind volunteer care can differ from that of professional care, leading to both recognition and appreciation, as well as potential tensions in the examined contexts. In these settings, professionals hold considerable power over volunteers, openly acknowledging and even leveraging the distinctiveness of voluntary care. However, when it becomes “too different”, they may seek to discipline it by setting some boundaries, as explored in this section. This is first evident at the organizational level through the development of training courses, regulations, protocols, and other practices aimed at monitoring and governing volunteering. From this perspective, it is insightful to examine how two different organizations in our sample have attempted to make volunteer involvement “less dysfunctional” and the resistance they encountered in these efforts.

The next interviewee, who is responsible for the recruitment and engagement of volunteers for an organization that employs its own volunteers within its facilities, has responded to emerging tensions over recurring issues by enhancing volunteers’ awareness through training and supervision programmes. These efforts are aimed, first, at clarifying the institutional framework and mandate within which they operate, helping volunteers understand “how the system works”, including the slow, frustrating, and often harsh conditions of asylum proceedings, as well as the selective and time-bound nature of institutional reception. Second, they focus on establishing the “right distance” that operators expect volunteers to maintain towards the guests.

The operator stresses the need to carefully manage volunteers’ proactivity, emphasizing that while close relationships with guests are valued, they must be regulated to align with the organization’s goals. Volunteers are not expected to solve migrants’ problems directly and personally but they are expected to identify and report them to the staff, who are primarily responsible for their well-being. The aim is to limit volunteers’ autonomy, subordinating it to the organization’s chain of command.

Another interesting case is that of one organization that operates more independently on the “fringes” of the reception system. It recruits and manages its volunteers autonomously while collaborating with the governmental reception system to promote the hosting of refugees in private homes once their official reception period has expired. Over time, reflecting on some unsuccessful cases and driven by a desire to better define their role and mission, the organization has shifted to a more systematic approach, establishing a protocol to define legitimate recipients and clarify the appropriate timing of interventions.

As this interviewee explains, sharing this protocol with volunteers is challenging, as some actively resist the organization’s selective approach regarding who should be supported (first), for how long, and which needs should be prioritized. This process is managed with great care and sensitivity by an organization that relies almost exclusively on volunteers, as excessive conflict could undermine the latter’s motivation and, ultimately, the sustainability of the organization.

In this respect, even independent volunteering organizations operating within (or cooperating with) the reception system might decide to establish their own rules to ensure that their relationships with professionalized actors run smoothly. For instance, volunteers from an organization in the sample dedicated to teaching Italian in a reception centre had to manage a tense situation when some volunteers were accused by the staff of engaging in romantic relationships with the guests. In response to this allegation, and to eliminate any potential doubts about the volunteers’ ethical conduct, the organization developed an internal code of conduct. As one informant from this organization notes:

For volunteers, there can be varying degrees of “acceptability” regarding protocols that restrict how they choose to engage with migrants. The inherently relational nature of volunteering may in fact be openly asserted, in contrast to the overly institutionalized and bureaucratic approach to care required in some organizations, as this volunteer explains clearly:

Reflecting on the reasons behind his preference for the current organization over others with whom he has previously interacted, this volunteer emphasizes that the risk of overly “institutionalized” volunteering is that it limits the spontaneity and autonomy of volunteers. This, in turn, restricts the personal connections that volunteers can form with migrants. Volunteering is, in fact, seen not just as an opportunity to offer resources for inclusion—such as local knowledge, language skills, information, and social customs—but as a way to establish meaningful relationships that can lead to lasting connections for both parties.

These narratives reveal constant self-reflection and self-regulation regarding the proper ways to perform volunteer care in professionalized settings. While volunteers are encouraged to form meaningful and authentic connections, they are also expected to manage their conduct, informed by the gaze of the professionals with whom they cooperate, showing how boundary work is a continuous process of negotiation and adjustment that is never fully resolved, at least to the extent that the sense of collaboration is precisely to safeguard the plurality of care logics.