Making sense of motivation in a community of practice with an ever changing population by ALERT

MAKING SENSE OF MOTIVATION IN A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE WITH AN EVER-CHANGING POPULATION MAJA CHRISTENSEN, 191194-1208 STU: 85.878 DATE: 31.05.2017 SUPERVISOR: SINE NÃ&#x2DC;RHOLM JUST

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIOLOGY

ABSTRACT Focusing on the case of Antelope Park, this paper researches how volunteers make sense of their motivation to participate in a community of practice with an ever-changing population. Moving from the specific case to more general conclusions, the paper hopes to be able to contribute to the academic conversation surrounding volunteer tourism.

The theoretical foundation is three-fold: Karl E. Weickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory on sensemaking, Etienne Wengerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory on communities of practice and Frederick Herzbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory on motivation and hygiene factors. To answer the research question observations were made during a four-week stay at Antelope Park. Further, three rounds of interviews were conducted with volunteers; first on arrival, second halfway through their stay, and third and last upon their arrival home. This was supplemented by interviews with staff members. To analyse the data first and second cycle codding were utilised. In the first cycle holistic coding was used to gain an overview of the data, then in second cycle pattern coding was used to code after the three theories.

Findings showed that there is a strong relation between sensemaking, communities of practice and motivation in volunteers at Antelope Park. The volunteers use the community of practice to help make sense of their motivation, more than that the way the volunteers make sense helps motivate individuals and keep the community of practice running.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 5 SENSEMAKING ................................................................................................................ 5 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE ........................................................................................ 8 MOTIVATION ................................................................................................................. 11 METHODS ........................................................................................... 13 GENERAL APPROACH ................................................................................................... 13 CASE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 13 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY .................................................................................... 14 Data collection instruments ........................................................................................ 15 Sampling criteria ......................................................................................................... 16 Empirical data sources ................................................................................................ 18 METHODS FOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 18 Coding ........................................................................................................................ 18 ANALYTICAL STRATEGY................................................................................................ 22 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 22 SENSEMAKING AT ANTELOPE PARK ........................................................................... 22 ESTABLISHMENT OF ANTELOPE PARK AS A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE ................ 26 MOTIVATION IN VOLUNTEERS AT ANTELOPE PARK.................................................. 30 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 35 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 40

INTRODUCTION Antelope Park is home to phases one and two of the Lion Rehabilitation and Release into the Wild program in conjunction with African Lion & Environmental Research Trust (ALERT), and is therefore also working towards ALERTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision; to ensure viable populations of African lion are maintained as an integral part of functional ecosystems (Antelope Park n.d). At Antelope Park this is done by providing a place to live for more than a 100 lions, bringing in economic help by acting as a popular destination for tourists, and lastly by bringing in volunteers from all over the world to help on the different programs. As approximately 500 volunteers pass through Antelope Park every year, and their permanent workforce consist of around 120 people, volunteers act as a big part of the workforce. In June 2014 I went on the adventure of my life when I decided to go to Zimbabwe to walk with lions. During my stay at Antelope Park, I quickly felt the bond with the other volunteers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we were all there to help, we were all there to make a difference. This wish to help and make a difference was only furthered by the passion of the people who worked there. I myself have felt how motivated you get within the short period of time you spend at Antelope Park, as well as how you become a part of the community there. Due to this experience, Antelope Park presented itself as an interesting case to look into sensemaking and motivation in communities of practice with an ever-changing population. And so I returned to Antelope Park in January 2017, two and a half year later and this time as a researcher, and I again witnessed the motivation and community feeling, in spite of a completely new set of volunteers and even a change in management. So how is that possible? How can an organisation with such a big turnover keep, or recreate, a community of practice again and again? How do they keep the volunteers motivated during their short-term stay, where they also experience a turnover in peer volunteers? Beginning with Antelope Park this has led me to the research question of; How do volunteers m ake sense of their m otivation to partake in a com m unity of practice with an ever-changing population?

In an attempt to answer this research question a theoretical framework will firstly be explained, next the methods applied will be presented, and lastly an analysis and discussion will be conducted, before concluding.

LITERATURE REVIEW Volunteering is emerging as an interesting and important field of research in its own right. Within this field, researchers have paid attention to what being a volunteer actually means (McAllum, 2013). Furthermore volunteers’ motivation has also been a popular research field with e.g. Valérie Millette and Marylène Gagné (2008) looking into motivation amongst volunteers through their job characteristics and finding that the job characteristics were related to volunteers’ autonomous motivation, satisfaction and performance, meaning that the job itself worked as a motivator for the volunteers. Gerrit J.M. Treuren (2014) created motivation profiles of volunteers through cluster analysis of 488 event volunteers and found there to be six different profiles; three types of enthusiasts who love different aspects of the volunteering experience; two types of conscripts, who serve with varying degrees of reluctance; and instrumentalists, who choose to volunteer to obtain some form of material benefit.

More than that, researchers are looking in to temporary volunteering on projects abroad, what has been termed volunteer tourism; instead of going on a holiday when travelling, people travel to volunteer, much like at Antelope Park. On this specific field Stephen Wearing and Nancy Gard McGehee created a review in 2013. In this review they pinpointed four streams of research when it comes to volunteer tourism; motivation of the volunteers with e.g. focus on extrinsic versus intrinsic and altruistic motivation (Callanan, M. & Thomas, S., 2005), the organisations as agents of change where it is underlined how important the organisations are as gate keepers for the community (McGehee & Andereck 2008), more than that they also focussed on the relationship between host community and guest, and finally the volunteers return home, that is not always easy (Grabowski & Wearing 2011). These four topics are where the typical research on volunteer tourism lies and they also represent some of what my research is looking into; the motivation of

the volunteers and their return home. However, I study motivation through the lens of sensemaking; how do the volunteers make sense of their motivation. And where the research on the return home has been more focused on how the volunteers deal with their return home, I will instead look at how they perceive, how they make sense, of their experience upon returning home. Wearing and McGehee conclude that the study of volunteer tourism stands on the cusp of opportunity but that additional theoretical contributions are necessary. I will add to this theorization on the field by means of the concepts of sensemaking and communities of practice.

Neither of these two concepts are entirely new to the field: Just as there is research on volunteer motivation, sensemaking in organisations has also been thoroughly researched (e.g. Sally Maitlis & Marlys Christianson 2014) and moreover there is also research on sensemaking and volunteer motivation, but from a managerial perspective (Liao-Troth, M.A. & Dunn 1999) where it was found that, unlike with supervisors and paid employees, the volunteer managers had the same sensemaking schema as the volunteers when it came to questions of motivation.

Communities of practice have likewise been of interest to many researchers, also when looking at NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (e.g. Reza Hasmath & Jennifer Y.J. Hsu 2015), and â&#x20AC;&#x153;grassrootâ&#x20AC;? organisations (e.g. Sarah Bradbury & Lucie Middlemiss 2013) where the results were that learning in the community of practice appeared to help the organisation sustain itself in the long run.

So motivation, communities of practice, sensemaking and volunteering have been researched on many different levels and in different combinations, but my research fills in the research gap of the combination of all of them. Motivation has been looked at in both long- and short-term volunteer organisations, but usually with either the volunteer as an individual in focus or with the organisation as a whole. With my research I will combine this, as well as combining motivation with sensemaking and communities of practice. This means I will be looking at sensemaking in a community of practice with an ever-changing population and how it relates to motivation in temporary volunteers.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The following sections will present the theoretical framework necessary to answer the research question. Firstly Karl E. Weick’s concept of sensemaking will be outlined through his seven properties of sensemaking, next Etienne Wenger’s concept of communities of practice will be explained, and lastly Frederick Herzberg’s theory on motivation will be presented.

SENSEMAKING To gain an understanding of the volunteers perception of the experience Weick’s theory on sensemaking as introduced in his 1995 text, ‘Sensemaking in Orgaization’s, will be utilised. Sensemaking is an ideal theory to bring into play in this specific case because the volunteers are suddenly being put into a community of practice, and just as suddenly leaving it behind, and; “To understand sensemaking is also to understand how people cope with interruptions” (Weick 1995, p. 5). Sensemaking is chosen, as opposed to e.g. understanding, because with sensemaking you are a part of the creation, not just the discovery; “sensemaking is about authoring as well as interpretation, creation as well as discovery” (ibid, p. 8).

In ‘Sensemaking in Organizations’, Weick introduces the seven properties of sensemaking; identity, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, focused on and by extracted cues, and plausibility rather than accuracy. These seven properties are the process that makes sensemaking stand out compared to other explanatory tools or processes such as understanding or interpretation (ibid, p. 17). The seven properties are all concerned with action and context, which is a crucial part of sensemaking. Furthermore they are all connected; “People concerned with identity in the context of others engage ongoing events from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively, all the while enacting more or less order into those ongoing events” (ibid, p. 18). All these properties intertwine and interact when an individual is trying to make sense of an experience.

The seven properties will now be presented and it will be explained how they concretely can be used in an empirical study such as Antelope Park. Who people think they are and how they see themselves in the context shapes how they interpret an event; “people learn about their identities by projecting them into an environment and observing the consequences” (ibid, p. 23). How people see the situation and make sense of it all depends on the identity they adopt when dealing with it. When it comes to the volunteers at Antelope Park that means looking into whether they truly identify themselves as volunteers and if they identify themselves with the project. But according to Weick one can only truly understand an event, when said event has passed; “people can know what they are doing only after they have done it” (ibid, p. 24). This simply means that the volunteers at Antelope Park will not truly be able to make sense of their experience of volunteering until they have returned home. To better understand what individuals think of a certain experience, they enact their environment through dialogues and narrative. They gain an understanding of their experience by talking about it and creating narratives; “people create their environments as those environments create them” (ibid, p. 34). By the way the volunteers act, they create an environment that in turn helps shape them as individuals; the materials they create become their constraints and opportunities. This also helps explain how sensemaking is a social activity; stories are shared and preserved. What individuals think affect how they act socially, and their social environment affect how individuals think; “human thinking and social functioning… [are] essential aspects of one another” (Resnick, Levine and Teasley 1991, p. 3 as quoted in Weick 1995, p. 38). So the narratives created and the stories told at Antelope Park is of great importance when it comes to the volunteers’ sensemaking. Weick moreover points out that what is important to sensemaking is not necessarily that there is shared meaning, but more that there is shared action. Even though the experience has to have happened for individuals to truly make sense of it, sensemaking is also ongoing. Individuals simultaneously react to and shape their environment and experience, meaning the volunteers’ as a unit help define the experience. Furthermore as humans we are always in the middle of things, which means sensemaking never truly starts nor ends, it is an ongoing process of people chopping out moments of a continuous flow and defining those moments as a certain event. “An interruption to a flow typically induces an emotional response, which then paves the way for emotion to influence sensemaking. It is precisely because ongoing flows are subject to interruption that sensemaking is infused with

feeling” (Weick 1995, p. 45). To gain a better understanding of what is occurring individuals will look at extracted cues from the environment. These extracted cues are familiar structures that function as small seeds from which the individuals can develop a larger sense of what is going on. These extracted cues are very much affected by the context in which they are presented; “first, context affects what is extracted as a cue in the first place… second, context also affects how the extracted cue is then interpreted” (ibid, p. 51). So extracted cues can have different meanings in different context, however they also function as a tool in understanding what is occurring in that exact context. The volunteers are on unfamiliar grounds but will be looking for small things they feel they can make sense of, to try to make sense of the experience as a whole. The last, very important property, as described by Weick, is plausibility. With this property Weick simply points out that accuracy in sensemaking is secondary; what actually happened is not what is important, but rather the focus should be on how it is experienced. “The strength of sensemaking as a perspective derives from the fact that it does not rely on accuracy and its model is not object perception. Instead, sensemaking is about plausibility, pragmatics, coherence, reasonableness, creation, invention, and instrumentality” (ibid, p. 57). This matches up with the property of retrospective; since the event has to have occurred before we can truly makes sense of it, there is always a risk that what we remember is not what in fact happened, but what makes sense is what is believed as a result of the event occurred. So when the volunteers return home, what has actually happened will not be as important as what they remember.

So with sensemaking it is important to look at how the volunteers at Antelope Park see themselves at the project, how they look back at the experience, how they interact and create narratives during their stay, but most importantly that the depiction of the experience does not have to be accurate, it has to be what they experienced it as; “in short, what is necessary in sensemaking is a good story” (ibid, p. 60).

These seven properties will be used in the analysis of how volunteers at Antelope Park make sense of their short-term stay at a community of practice; therefore the next section will introduce the concept of exactly this.

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE Communities of practice, as described by Wenger in ‘Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems’ from 2000, are seen as the basic buildings blocks of social learning systems, since they contain all necessary characteristics of such a system. Therefore, looking at Antelope Park as a community of practice also means looking at Antelope Park as a social learning system. For individuals to feel like they belong in a social learning system, at least one of three modes of belonging – engagement, imagination or alignment – has to be operational. Usually all three modes of belonging will be present in a social learning system to some degree and in different combinations, but one will dominate and therefore provide a different quality to the social structure (Wenger 2000, p. 228). Engagement is the mode of belonging you will usually find in a workplace. It entails doing things together, helping each other out and talking, and all this helps shape us as individuals; “the ways in which we engage with each other and with the world profoundly shape our experience of who we are. We learn what we can do and how the world responds to our actions” (ibid, p. 227). On the other hand we have imagination, which does not connote fantasy as opposed to factuality, rather it is constructing an image of ourselves, our community, even of the world as a help to reflect on our situation and see other possibilities. This mode of belonging is often seen in nations where you are not able to see or talk to all your fellow citizens, but this mode of belonging is again essential in how we see ourselves, but also our role in society; “These images of the world are essential to our sense of self and to our interpretation of our participation in the social world” (ibid, p. 228). The last mode of belonging, alignment, is, as the others, seen to some extent in all social learning systems, however alignment is more focused on aligning the activities in the one social learning system so they realize higher goals. “The concept of alignment as used here does not connote a one-way process of submitting to external authority, but a mutual process of coordinating perspectives, interpretations, and actions so they realize higher goals” (ibid, p. 229). The volunteers have all travelled to Zimbabwe from all around the world, to help at exactly this project with exactly this cause. Therefore the hypothesis is that the dominating mode of belonging in most volunteers will be engagement.

So theses social learning systems are made up of communities of practice. Participating in the communities is essential for our learning; “It is at the very core of what makes us human beings capable of meaningful knowing” (ibid, p. 229). Competence in any given situation is something we define together, through participation in these communities. This definition is made by combining three elements; enterprise, mutuality and repertoire. In the first element, enterprise, Wenger points out how members of communities hold each other accountable to their joint understanding of the essence of their community. Furthermore there needs to be an interest in keeping learning relevant in the community and at the same time knowing and recognizing the gaps in the knowledge of this community; “to be competent is to understand the enterprise well enough to be able to contribute to it” (ibid). The second element, mutuality, reflects more upon the interactions between the members, and how it is necessary for these to reflect mutual engagement. This mutual engagement is what creates a sense of community over time, and a trust between members, that all members are capable of helping and pulling their weight. “To be competent is to be able to engage with the community and be trusted as a partner in these interactions” (ibid). The third and last element, repertoire, concentrate on the communal recourses of the community such as language, artifacts, stories, etc. This communal repertoire is what embodies the community’s history and perspective on the world. There needs to be a selfawareness of this repertoire to understand the community’s place in the world and understand how to move forward. “To be competent is to have access to this repertoire and be able to use it appropriately” (ibid). In communities of practice there are other important elements; events, leadership, connectivity, membership, learning projects, and artifacts. Events can come in all forms; informal or formal meetings, problem-solving sessions, or guest speakers, and they are necessary to bring the community together; “… if they are well tuned to the community’s sense of purpose, they will help it develop an identity” (ibid, p. 231). Leadership is something a community of practice depends on. Several forms of leadership are necessary; they can be concentrated in one person or distributed amongst several people of the community. “The role of ‘community coordinator’ who takes care of day-to-day work is crucial, but a community needs multiple forms of leadership: thought leaders, networkers, people who document the practice, pioneers, etc.” (ibid, p. 231). A

community of practice is also very much dependent on the connectivity amongst the members. This could involve brokering between people who need to talk or people who need help and people who can help. “Building a community is not just a matter of organizing community events but also about enabling a rich fabric of connectivity among people” (ibid, p. 232). It is also important that the members of the community are clearly defined, so that the boundaries do not get too diffuse. This can be facilitated by the existence of a process that newcomers need to go through to become full members. “A community’s members must have critical mass so that there is interest, but it should not become so wide that the focus of the community is diffuse and participation does not grab people’s identities” (ibid).

Furthermore, it is important for the

community to evolve. This can happen through learning projects, which can push their practice further. “Communities of practice deepen their mutual commitment when they take responsibility for a learning agenda, which pushes their practice further” (ibid). Lastly, it is important for a community of practice to have artifacts such as stories, symbols, clothing, website, etc. (ibid, p. 231-232). As already discussed above, there need to be boundaries in a community of practice, membership need to be attained. But it is at these boundaries that the community can develop, that learning can take place. At the boundaries, people from other communities bring new knowledge or competencies; “learning at boundaries is likely to be maximized for individuals and for communities when experience and competence are in close tension” (ibid, p. 233). This is something that is very likely to be seen at Antelope Park since volunteers, and even staff members, come from all over the world, meaning they bring very different cultures, experiences and opinions. An important part of the analysis will be to establish Antelope Park as a community of practice, where after it will be explored what motivates the volunteers to participate in this community of practice on such short terms.

MOTIVATION To gain an understanding of what it is that motivates the volunteers at Antelope Park, Herzberg’s theory on Motivation-Hygiene will be introduced. This theory builds on the idea that what creates job satisfaction is motivators, but the lack of motivators does not create job dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction is dependent on hygiene factors; “The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction” (Herzberg 1968, p. 56). Herzberg’s theory therefore is that the factors that bring upon job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are of different nature and are not dependent on each other. In this section these factors will be introduced and related to the specific case of the volunteers at Antelope Park.

In Herzberg’s theory he states that two different types of needs of man are at play; one set can be thought of as the animalistic needs and the other set relates to the unique characteristic of man – achieving and through that experience psychological growth. With the animalistic needs also follow all the learned drives that become conditioned to the basic biological needs; “for example, hunger, a basic biological drive, makes it necessary to earn money, and then money becomes a specific drive” (ibid, p. 57).

The stimuli for the psychological growth lies in the job content, meaning it will be intrinsic to the job. These stimuli, the motivators are as follow; achievement, recognition for achievement, work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth. Many of these factors are something that could be expected at Antelope Park; a feeling of achievement whilst working towards the greater goal of the park could be expected, the question is just if they truly feel this achievement, when the goal won’t be achieved during their stay? The work itself is something the volunteers have signed up to do, and have paid to do, so that could be expected to be something they are excited about. And after an experience of volunteer work in Africa, one could possibly expect some personal growth.

The stimuli for the pain-avoidance behaviour, on the other hand, lies in the job environment, meaning it is extrinsic from the job itself. These stimuli, also called hygiene factors could be as follow; company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status and security (ibid). These factors will of course also be found at Antelope Park, but factors like salary, status and job security will not be of relevance for the volunteers. They are paying to be there, volunteering to work, and therefore it is implied that there will be no salary, and therefore no problems with this should be expected. And since it is on a temporary basis status will not change and job security will not be an issue; the volunteers have decided themselves where they want to work and for how long.

The stimuli for psychological growth are called satisfiers or motivators because; â&#x20AC;&#x153;if they are present in appropriate amounts in any organization, they bring about work motivation as a corollary to their creating positive attitudes of job satisfactionâ&#x20AC;? (Herzberg 1974, p. 18). On the other hand are the pain-avoidance stimuli, which are know as hygiene factors because they are representing preventative and environmental conditions at work. They are the factors that determine if you are unhappy and are decided by how good or bad you are treated at your job. All these hygiene factors are of the same importance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all dependent on circumstances. But with the motivational factors, the least important once will most likely occur more often, whilst the most important once will occur less often. This is simply because the least important once are the starting point for the end goal, which are the more important motivational factors (ibid, p. 20). So achievement is the starting point for the final goal of personal growth, therefore we will see more examples of achievement than of personal growth. At Antelope Park, this means that during their stay more examples of achievement will most likely show, and by their return home personal growth will hopefully be reached.

METHODS

GENERAL APPROACH This project takes on elements of hermeneutics by first interpreting rather than explaining the experiences of the volunteers (Egholm 2014, p. 88), however it begins to take on elements of phenomenology when trying to understand how the individual volunteers understand/interpret their experiences (ibid, p. 102). That is, it moves from a study informed by the researcher’s preconceptions to one that seeks to free itself from them.

A research proposal had to be submitted to ALERT to get permission to conduct the research. Here, it was proposed that the field be explored with the theories of Wenger and Weick in mind. Through observation, Wenger’s six dimensions of communities of practice were actively researched, and the choice to conduct the interviews over three rounds was made to accommodate Weick’s assertion that sensemaking is both ongoing and retrospective. However, an attempt to gain an understanding of what actually mattered to the individual volunteers was also made, and here a new theme that deserved attention presented itself. This meant that the motivation theory of Herzberg was added to the project, which therefore takes on an abductive approach of moving back and forth between data and theory (ibid, p. 170). In more practical terms, the project, with its choice of Antelope Park as the site of research, takes the form of a case study.

CASE DESCRIPTION From my previous experience, Antelope Park presented itself as an interesting case because, it from my own hermeneutical preconceptions, appeared as a community of practice despite having new members coming in every two weeks and typically staying for between two and four weeks only. This means that there, in the four weeks I stayed at Antelope Park, at all times was around

25 volunteers working hard, cleaning enclosures, maintaining the grounds, prepping meat and feeding the lions if they were on the lion program. The volunteers can also choose to be on the community program, where they help out at medical clinics, schools and a drop-in centre for homeless kids. Lastly they can choose to be on the stables program where they every day help take care of the park’s more than 40 horses, which includes cleaning the stables and washing and grooming the horses every day.

The case presented itself as an intrinsic case, based on my pre-existing knowledge of the organisation. This means that; “first and last, one wants better understanding of this particular case” (Stake 2000, p. 245). Antelope Park presents itself as an interesting and quite unique case, but the goal is that from the work on this particular case, a better understanding of temporary volunteer work, in more general terms, will arise.

DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY To increase verification of the findings triangulation was attempted at in several ways. There are numerous ways to triangulate; ...by data source (which can include persons, times, places, etc.), by method (observation, interview document), by researcher (Investigator A, B, etc.)” (Miles et al 2013, p. 299). This research made use of triangulation of data source by interviewing three different staff member and five different volunteers over three rounds, and moreover participant observations were conducted over a period of time of four weeks. Furthermore triangulation of methods was made through the several rounds of interviews and backing up this data through participant observation. Lastly, in an attempt to increase verification, minimize my own preconceptions about Antelope Park and thereby stay as objective as possible, an agreement with a fellow student and researcher was made (see appendix 6). This agreement allowed the other researcher full access to all data and findings, and no conclusions were drawn without consulting said researcher.

Due to the nature of the research question it was decided that qualitative research was the correct way to go. The research focuses on rather intangible topics such as sensemaking and motivation. Interviews were used to gain an understanding of the volunteers and staff members individual perception of the organisation and their experience there; “By assessing actors’ life histories, stated beliefs, and folk theories of social structure, interviews offer a window into the normative and cognitive frames that actors use to explain their actions and anchor their identity” (Jerolmack & Khan 2014, p. 189). Three separate rounds of interviews were conducted with the volunteers; round one on arrival, round two halfway through their stay, and third and last round upon their return home (here Skype was used). The interviews allowed for the subjects to explain their experiences and further reflect upon them.

However; “from interviews alone, we cannot know what actually happens in interaction, but only what people think about situations and how they feel about them” (Jerolmack & Khan 2014, p. 184), and therefore ethnography was utilised. Throughout the four weeks at Antelope Park I participated in all the volunteers’ work and thereby conducted one long participant observation. The choice to conduct participant observation and not simply observe the volunteers was made to interfere as little as possible with the natural setting, and thereby not have the volunteers, consciously or unconsciously, act different around me.

Data collection instruments Since three rounds of interviews were conducted with the volunteers, three different interview guides were created for this. Furthermore a separate interview guide was created for the interviews with the staff members, all tailored to fit them separately. All interview guides were based on the same structure of five different sections; introduction, ethics, warm-up questions, main body of interview, and cool-off question. The interviews were, however, semi-structured, meaning that the discussion was not bound by the interview guide. The ethics section was particularly important since the interviewees here had to confirm that they had read the information sheet on the research and signed the consent form (see appendix 4 and 5) as was a

requirement from ALERT. In the same section it was agreed that all volunteers would be mentioned by first name only, and all staff members by position, not name. Another consideration in the interview guide was to not impose anything on the interviewees. Therefore there were no concrete questions of sensemaking nor communities of practice (motivation was not added as a theory until after all interviews were conducted), the interviewees were simply asked questions about life at Antelope Park.

The transcription guide was made up of a header to be filled out with relevant information about the interviewee, place, time etc. Additionally it was decided that all transcriptions should be made in verbatim, (i.e. all speech with nothing left out), with the intention to manipulate the data as little as possible to increase validity.

Extensive fieldnotes were always written after tasks, meals, events etc. not during. Even though most volunteers and staff members knew I was doing research at the park, I decided to not write notes in front of them to interfere as little as possible with the natural setting. However I always made sure to not wait too long to write fieldnotes to keep them as detailed as possible.

Sampling criteria As Antelope Park have a wide variety of volunteers from all over the world with different educational and cultural backgrounds, it was important to gather a varied sample, to get the richest data possible. Therefore the five volunteers selected for the interview process were five very different people, representing five different nationalities, both male and female, and ranging in education level from newly graduated from high school to a teacher and a law student on last semester. Furthermore the volunteers range in age from 19 to 45, despite the average age at Antelope Park lying around 20.

To also gain perspective on how the organisation view the volunteers and the role of them, interviews with three staff members at different hierarchical level were executed; one with the general manager, one with the volunteer manager and one with one of the lion handlers living on site.

Table 1. Sample for research and justification for choosing the subjects Subject

Sam pling Argum ent

Camilla Jesika

The five volunteers were chosen to get a varied sample. They had

Rahel Steffen Heather

different length of stay, five different nationalities, different educational backgrounds and levels, varied in age, and were connected to different programs at Antelope Park. As the GM deals with the everyday management of the entire park

General Manager (GM)

he could give an insight into how the volunteers fit into the big picture, and what exactly their role is. The VM plans the volunteersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; daily work and is in charge of the daily

Volunteer Manager (VM)

meetings; therefore she deals with the volunteers closely on a daily basis. The lion handlers are the staff members that work closest with the

Lion Handler

volunteers and therefore the lion handler could give an insight to the role the volunteers play directly on the project.

Even though there were around 25 volunteers at Antelope Park at all times during my stay, these five volunteers represent the group as a whole through age, gender, background, program and attitude towards the organisation. The clear majority share attitude and narrative with four volunteers (Camilla, Rahel, Steffen and Heather) and Jesika alone represent the minority. I could have interviewed more volunteers but it would have left me with more repetitions and less rich data on the individual volunteers. Furthermore I observed all the volunteers through four weeks and through that confirmed the shared attitude and narrative.

Empirical data sources 13 interviews were conducted with five volunteers over three rounds. All five volunteers were supposed to have participated in all three rounds, but Rahel had to leave Antelope Park suddenly because of her health and therefore did not participate in the second round of interviews, and Jesika made it clear upon arrival home that she was not interested in participating in the third round of interviews. Even though the data on Rahel is less rich because of the lack of participation in round two, the time perspective is still relevant since she participated in first and third round. Therefore this was deemed non-problematic. Since Jesika represented the minority narrative her data was still deemed relevant. The retrospective interview was not conducted, but her lack of interest in participating in the third round of interviews is interpreted as her keeping her more negative narrative towards Antelope Park.

Furthermore three interviews with three staff members were conducted; here an interview guide was again used as a base for semi-structured interviews. However each interview was fitted to the interviewee and their position in the organisation as well as their role with the volunteers.

My four-week stay at Antelope Park was essentially one long participant observation. I worked, lived and socialized with the volunteers and staff every day for those four weeks. I made sure to work just as hard as any other volunteer and not draw too much attention to the fact that I was conducting research. This led to the volunteers treating me as any other volunteer and my presence at any event or job did not disrupt the natural setting.

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS Coding To gain a deeper insight into the collected data, an analysis was necessary. For this analysis coding was chosen as the analytical tool; â&#x20AC;&#x153;...coding is analysis (...) we believe that coding is deep

reflection about and, thus, deep analysis and interpretation of the dataâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meaningsâ&#x20AC;? (Miles et al 2013, p. 72). Following the example of Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman and Johnny SaldaĂąa the coding process was divided into two sections; first cycle coding and second cycle coding. First cycle coding are the initial, and typically quite superficial, codes assigned to the data, thereafter the second cycle of coding will take over and go more into depth with the collected data. In the following section of the paper these two cycles of coding will be presented, with first cycle making use of holistic coding and second cycle utilising pattern coding.

First cycle coding: When first looking at the collected data, it was decided that first step of coding should be holistic coding. This was used to gain an overview of the main themes and topics of the data and to see if any were repeating throughout the data. To do this, larger sections of data was looked at, at a time. Holistic coding was utilised by reading through the collected data, and attaching a code describing the theme of the selected section of data. Every time a change of topic would appear, a new code would be attached. These coded would be written in the margin of the transcript.

Diagram 1. Example of holistic coding in margin, from round 1 interview with Camilla

The first cycle coding was used on all interviews from all three rounds and served as a preparatory tool for further and more detailed analysis (SaldaĂąa 2009, p. 118). For this reason, second cycle coding was conducted as well.

Second cycle coding: The second cycle coding, like the first cycle, follow the example of Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman and Johnny SaldaĂąa. The second cycle works from the overview provided by first cycle coding and from that dive deeper into the data and provide more detailed information on this.

Pattern coding was chosen as the method of second cycle coding. This simply means, as the name indicates, to code the collected data in patterns. In this specific case three patterns, based on the three theories presented earlier, were worked with. Because of this the second cycle was broken in to three rounds of coding; first round coding for sensemaking, second round coding for communities of practice and lastly, third round coding for motivation.

In the first round, coding for sensemaking, the codes worked with was simply Weickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seven properties of sensemaking; identity, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, focused on and by extracted cues, and plausibility rather than accuracy.

Diagram 2. Example of the sensemaking codes identity, retrospective and ongoing, from round 3 interview with Heather

In the second round, coding for communities of practice, the codes were Wengerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s six characteristics of a community of practice; events, leadership, connectivity, membership, learning projects, and artifacts, along with the three modes of belonging; engagement, imagination and alignment.

Lastly the third round, coding for motivation, was based on Herzbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hygiene-motivation theory and the codes were the hygiene factors; company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status and security, and the motivation factors; achievement, recognition for achievement, work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth.

After coding each interview separately all the coded data for respectively sensemaking, communities of practice and motivation were collected in a coding sheet.

Diagram 3. Example of coding sheet, from the motivation coding sheet showing hygiene factors

All fieldnotes were also coded according to each round of second cycle coding, this was simply done in hand (see appendix 3).

ANALYTICAL STRATEGY The analysis section of this paper will be split in the same three sections as the coding; sensemaking, communities of practice and motivation. Sensemaking will function as the starting point for the further analysis, and will establish the overall framework of the analysis. This will be done by analysing the narrative the volunteers create through sensemaking in especially second and third rounds of interviews and fieldnotes. In the second part of the analysis, the goal is to establish Antelope Park as a community of practice, through quotes from all three rounds of interviews with volunteers, quotes from the interviews with staff members, and fieldnotes. Likewise in the third and last part of the analysis, where the motivation of the volunteers at Antelope Park will be analysed, all data sources will be brought to use.

ANALYSIS SENSEMAKING AT ANTELOPE PARK When looking at the volunteers at Antelope Park and the collected data it is clear to see that Weick’s seven properties of sensemaking are at play. This will now be presented in form of an analysis of the way the volunteers make sense of their experience. From both interviews and observations it became clear that there is a majority narrative about Antelope Park that is very positive, however there is a minority narrative, represented by one interviewed volunteer, which is more negative. This difference in narratives also became clear in the way the volunteers made sense of their experience, which the analysis will portray.

The identity of the volunteers is of great interest when looking at sensemaking and in the specific case of Antelope Park it turned out to be a quite telling factor to look into when it comes to the two different narratives. Jesika, the volunteer and interviewee who represented a clear minority, had a strong tendency to describe herself as someone who did not really fit in; “… everything here is so routine and I am not a routine kind of girl”, “I think people [the other volunteers] just find it hard to understand me, so they’ll just assume whatever. I don’t care” and “I’m a very

independent girl and I do my own thing so when people are needy of time and can’t do their own thing uuuuuh I find that very hard to deal with” (Jesika interview round 2). At the same time, as it is seen in the quotes above, she also described ‘the others’ a lot, and thereby did not include herself in the community; “I don’t think it’s funny, but the other girls did” (Jesika interview round 2), at the same time she expressed a wish to in fact exclude herself from the community, several times; “I love my own time, so if I could just have my own time for half an hour instead of going to the meeting” and “I just need a day to myself to, I don’t know, write or read. I do find it frustrating” (Jesika interview round 2). This is put in contrast to the majority narrative, which is represented by the four other interviewees, where there is a clear association with the program, Antelope Park in general and the overall goal by usually using the pronoun ‘we’ instead of ‘I’; “we had a lot of information meetings”, “we had induction days”, “we help with the cubs when we pay to stay here we help the park keep doing what they’re doing” (Steffen interview round 2), and often describing a connection to the group they arrived with; “we arrived together, we were the freshmen together and we had the induction together, we lived together in the same room” (Rahel interview round 3), “we were a group around eight people who came together and have become really close, and I’m hoping to keep in touch with them when we all get back home” (Camilla interview round 2). In general the majority narrative is just that the volunteers enjoy spending time together; “we eat breakfast, lunch and dinner together and sit at the bar together. We do quite a lot of things together. It’s great fun” (Steffen interview round 2). Furthermore the volunteers seemed to identify with Antelope Park and the greater goal they are working towards; “we made a small difference and every volunteer who make a small difference, makes a greater one collectively” (Heather interview round 3), “They need all the help they can get and everyone who helps participates in getting these lions out in the wild again. So yeah I think that. I’m a part of it!” (Camilla interview round 3). Heather even suggested that the stay at Antelope Park had made a permanent impact on her identity; “it was a great life impacting and life changing experience for me […] I don’t think you can experience that without having it change you” (Heather interview round 3). The general manager also states that this change is something several volunteers take with them and implement in their lives back home; “I’d say 99% of the volunteers that come here, almost have a change in their thought pattern when they leave. […].

And I know a lot of volunteers have actually changed their directions and their careers after they’ve been here” (interview general manager).

So the way the volunteers see and identify themselves play a big role in how they make sense of their experience, but another important factor in this is the very way they make sense, and here there was yet again a difference between the two narratives represented by the volunteers. Jesika, representing the minority, and negative, narrative, seemed to mostly be using Weick’s sixth property of sensemaking, extracted cues. She assumed a lot of things and acted according to that, an example being her feeling she had to ask the staff permission for everything; “you always have to ask permission and tiptoe around them [the staff]. Like that’s how I feel” (Jesika interview round 2), whereas the others all answered no when asked if they felt they had to ask permission to do anything; “You just have to say it like the day before” (Steffen interview round 2): Jesika was also the only interviewee who felt like there was a hierarchy; “I: so you feel like there’s a rank, a hierarchy? J: Yes!” (Jesika interview round 2). The majority of interviewed volunteers all answered no when asked if they saw the staff as their bosses; “I don’t even see [the volunteer manager] as the boss” (Camilla interview round 3), “I feel like we can kind of do what we want if we want to change things up, and do things a little bit differently. So we [volunteers and staff] are kind of equal on that. So working as partners” (Heather interview round 2).

Jesika’s interviews showed use of very different extracted cues than the others. Amongst the other interviewees and the volunteers in general there was a greater use of Weick’s third and fourth properties of sensemaking, enactment and social, which was seen by the volunteers sharing their stories and creating this positive narrative around Antelope Park. This was underlined by how, as mentioned previously, they identified with the volunteers as a group and how they created strong bonds amongst themselves. This sharing of stories is seen both in interviews; “we talk about what has happened [that day], and sometimes talking about the next day” (Heather interview round 2), “and then in our room we talk until like 23” (Camilla interview round 2), and in observations; “Dinner: todays events are discussed amongst new and old and stories are compared” (fieldnotes 17.01.2017), “in general mealtime is used to share stories – own experiences (at AP and other places), and stories the vols have heard from other vols or staff”

(fieldnotes 21.01.2017). Especially when the volunteers had to make sense of specific incidents they would talk a lot about it, one example being five volunteers getting stuck in a vehicle in the release site where there are wild lions. This event was talked about many times and for several days; “This story is all that’s being talked about at the dinner table, and more and more details are added and pictures and videos are shown” (fieldnotes 20.01.2017), “At all meals the events of yesterday are brought up” (fieldnotes 21.01.2017). Furthermore it is also evident that the volunteers use each other and the staff when making decisions, and often make decisions as a group: “All the vols are discussing whether they should ride the elephants. There’s a common discourse that maybe they shouldn’t. they talk to VM who tells them the elephants are treated well and that they shouldn’t worry. This calms them down, and after also talking to the handlers all vols go on the ride” (fieldnotes 18.01.2017). This is seen again later; “one girl starts talking about changing program à all the girls are now considering it à common discourse à following the pack” (fieldnotes 19.01.2017). The need to talk about their experiences and share their stories become evident again when the volunteers are leaving Antelope Park; “we had, six hours [at the airport] I think, together. So we just got food and talked about our time” (Camilla interview round 3), “As we get to Johannesburg we have a few hours before the first two vols are leaving. They are spent talking about what an amazing time we have had at AP” (fieldnotes 13.02.2017). Most of the volunteers also stayed in contact because as Camilla put it; “When you come home, you can start telling people how these experiences are, but it’s a lot more fun talking to someone who was actually here. No one will really understand it” (Camilla interview round 1).

The seventh property of sensemaking is plausibility rather than accuracy; the story does not have to be true, it just has to be what the individual experienced and this was perfectly showcased in Steffen’s last interview, when he very quickly dismissed critique he had read about Antelope Park; “You know after I arrived home I did some research of AP, just some facts and it was like, some were saying they were doing some bad things, but what I experienced didn’t match that. It was just a bit weird after, like did I miss something? But I didn’t really believe it” (Steffen interview

round 3). The experience Steffen had could simply not be changed by something he read online whether it was true or not.

Throughout their stay at the park the volunteers started to get used to the routines there, get familiar with life at Antelope Park; “I’ve gotten completely used to [living here] […] I feel very comfortable here” (Steffen interview round 2). This perfectly showcases Weick’s point about sensemaking being an ongoing and never-ending process, meaning the volunteers are making sense of their experiences as they are happening. However, as Weick also points out, one can never truly make sense of an experience until that experience has past. Therefore the volunteers were also interviewed weeks after their return home. And in all these interviews it is clear that Antelope Park still is on their mind, and they are indeed continuing the sensemaking; “But I feel like it was a magical place and I just have great feelings and memories” (Heather interview round 3). The volunteers keep thinking about, and making sense of their stay at Antelope Park after they have returned home, and even as they get some distance from it, they maintain the majority positive narrative.

ESTABLISHMENT OF ANTELOPE PARK AS A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE It has now been analysed how the volunteers of Antelope Park make sense, and it has become clear that the majority does this in a very social way. But what is this social setting then? Is Antelope Park in fact a community of practice? That is what will be established in the following section by looking at fieldnotes and quotes from interviews with both volunteers and staff members, to see if Antelope Park fulfils the important elements of a community of practice; events, leadership, connectivity, membership, learning projects, and artifacts, and figuring out which mode of belonging the members of this community of practice fall under.

Events are a big thing at Antelope Park. First of all there is a daily meeting that all the volunteers have to be at, to talk about the day and learn about the next day. But more than that there is also announced an event planner of the week, every week, who is responsible for arranging at least

one event. This can be anything the volunteers want it to be; during my time at Antelope Park I experienced a game night, a culture night, and a quiz night. The event is for all volunteers and the event planner can further choose to invite staff as well; “The event planners of the week have planned a game night and have invited staff, including handlers and kitchen staff” (fieldnotes 04.02.2017). There is also a monthly award show where the accomplishments of the month are presented and all volunteers receive an award: “In the afternoon all the vols are gathered and the managers of the different programs goes through the achievements that have been made in January – what have they done, how many hours of work had been put into it […] the vols on the lion project are especially praised for the high number of snares found in the past few weeks à reminded once again how they make a difference” (fieldnotes 03.02.2017). Furthermore during my time at Antelope Park there were also arranged talks with the general manager and the owner of the park, which seemed to really catch the attention of the volunteers; “the owner and founder of AP is talking about his and AP’s story. It was only supposed to be for a few vols who had requested it, but all vols are interested and he ends up talking to all. The room is completely quiet while he talks, RESPECT” (fieldnotes 20.01.2017). This observation of a great interest form the volunteers’ side was confirmed by Jesika in her second interview; “…we had like a meeting with Mr Connolly, where he just talked about the park. I really enjoyed that, he could have spoke for hours and I would still be listening”.

When it comes to leadership at Antelope Park, there is the general manager, who has the general responsibility, and then leadership is further distributed to the volunteer manager who is directly responsible for the volunteers, and the project managers who have the responsibility of the separate projects; lions, horses and community, as well as department heads of the different departments at Antelope Park. This was described by the general manager; “they [staff] all come under their department, each department has a head, an HOD, head of department, which I work through most of the time. We have daily management meetings where we update each other on what happened yesterday, what we expect to happen today” (interview with general manager). The general manager explains how the leadership is essentially his, however it is distributed amongst departments that then report back to the general manager. It is a collaboration. More than that it seems the leadership, the staff, are behind the community feeling at Antelope Park;

“We [the staff] have developed into this family type unit, and I think that’s quite unique” (interview with general manager), and the majority of volunteers have nothing but positive things to say about the staff; “the staff really made the trip” (Steffen interview round 3). The population at the park is ever-changing, except for the staff, and it seems to be very dependent on them whether the community of practice works.

Connectivity, the third factor Wenger presents, was exhibited several times at Antelope Park; volunteers moving rooms to make them feel more comfortable; “But then the next day I said to Rosa; ‘I can’t stay in a room with six other girls, it will drive me crazy’. I’m more like a lone wolf person. Like I’ll socialize, I like socializing, but I also like a bit quiet at the end of the day I suppose. So I’m over here now” (Jesika interview round 1). Furthermore a few volunteers changed programs during their time at Antelope Park because they found a greater interest in another program; “two of the vols do in fact change programs, and this is done without any problems. [VM] simply sent them to [stables manager] who’s now in charge of their program” (fieldnotes 20.01.2017). Lastly a few volunteers were in need of medical help during their stay and the staff made sure they got it; “actually I was kind of sick when I came to AP, […] but my disease got worse, so we decided to go a doctor in the hospital in Zimbabwe and he gave me antibiotics” (Rahel interview round 3).

The fourth factor, membership, is quite clearly defined at Antelope Park. The new volunteers have to go through a few days of induction before they can start working on their respective programs; “we had an introduction meeting when we got here […] So they just told us what AP is about […] And then the first four days, I think, you have like an induction, I call it an induction week, where you get to see all of AP” (Camilla interview round 2). Especially when working with the animals it is very clear that the volunteers have to go through this training before they are trusted; “If they are on the lion project, or lion related projects, we do training lion walks. That’s to make sure they fully understand the safety on the walks, so they can go by themselves with the handlers, but without a guide” (Interview volunteer manager), “I feel like they’re more lenient with you now, that you can do more stuff” (Camilla interview round 2). Therefore there is also a clear distinction between the volunteers and the tourists at Antelope Park; “When there were tourists the staff is

more alert, like paying a lot more attention, a bit more careful” (Steffen interview round 3), “Because as a volunteer you don’t really act as tourist with the lions, you can get closer to them” (Camilla interview round 2).

Wenger’s fifth factor of a community of practice, learning projects, is likewise represented at Antelope Park. The first big learning project is the continuous research that is being conducted on the lions, which the volunteers are also a big part of; “then you get to feed the lions and see how they act around the meat” (Camilla interview round 2), “The vols got to work in collaboration with the handlers on making toys for the lions […][and] got to see lions playing with their toys to see how they act” (fieldnote 18.01.2017). But more than that there is also continued learning on the organisational aspect of the park, which also comes from the volunteers; “At the daily meeting a group of vols who were sent on a new activity this morning are asked for feedback. As they report back that they felt the activity was pointless VM removes it as a future activity” (fieldnote 23.01.2017). Furthermore all volunteers have to do a mid-stay evaluation; “There’s a mid-stay evaluation meeting led by VM. Here the vols are asked to share concerns about everything, ask any questions they have, suggest improvements and share highlights” (fieldnote 30.01.2017), and as the general manager explains it; “We do a mid-stay and an end-of-stay feedback so I can gage the performance of my team, and make sure volunteers are enjoying their experience here and feel they’re impacting in our projects and they are also benefitting themselves in experience and learning about Africa” (interview with general manager).

When it comes to artifacts Antelope Park has its own textile department where they create clothes available for both volunteers and staff members. All the staff members wear clothes with the parks logo on it and all this is also available for the volunteers to buy, which many of them do; “The new vols have decided to buy AP sweaters à all the old vols already have them and wear them all the time” (fieldnote 20.01.2017). It is even possible for the volunteers to get their names on the clothes, and you can get anything from hats, t-shirts, sweaters, cups, bracelets etc.

So Antelope Park does in fact have all the characteristics of a community of practice. Now the next step is to figure out how the volunteers relate to the park, what mode of belonging is the

dominant one. The hypothesis was that since the volunteers have travelled to Zimbabwe from all over the world, the mode of belonging would be engagement. This is confirmed several times in both interviews; “I feel good about doing it (hard work), because it obviously helps the handlers, and the lions […] I mean it is hard work but I think it’s fun! […] You’re here to help out. And you’re rewarded for your hard work by going on the lion walk” (Camilla interview round 2). And in fieldnotes; “Today all the vols are doing a snare sweep […] they are all excited […] so even though the sweep meant walking a lot in the bush with thorns, tics, spiders and possibly snakes, they all did it without complaining” (fieldnote 23.01.2017). However, as Wenger also indicates to be more likely, signs of another mode of belonging are also found, imagination. This is seen by the volunteers identifying themselves with all volunteers coming through Antelope Park and thinking about the greater goal they are all helping towards; “we made a small difference and every volunteer who make a small difference, makes a greater one collectively” (Heather interview round 3), “They need all the help they can get and everyone who helps participates in getting these lions out in the wild again. So yeah I think that. I’m a part of it!” (Camilla interview round 3). So even though they won’t experience the goal being realized during their time at the park, they still feel a part of it.

MOTIVATION IN VOLUNTEERS AT ANTELOPE PARK It has now been established that Antelope Park has all the characteristics of a community of practice, and through interviews with both volunteers and staff and the observations made during my stay at the park, it is quite clear that the volunteers have quite the impact on this community of practice: “You’ve seen for yourself how hard they [volunteers] work here […] so you know they’re a huge advantage, not only for the financial contribution they make, but also for the contribution they make to our project aims […] [it] wouldn’t be done so efficiently without the volunteers” (interview volunteer manager).

That the volunteers are an essential part of the project was confirmed by one of the lion handlers who work closely with the volunteers every day; “I think the volunteers are much of the big bond of the project. If you take the volunteers from the project… I don’t see that […]… the volunteers make the project to be what it is” (interview lion handler). The volunteers themselves share this thought, that they are needed at Antelope Park; “the handlers couldn’t do what we do by themselves, so it definitely makes a big difference to have volunteers” (Camilla interview round 3).

Even though all volunteers are different, most are hard working; “the volunteers come with different expectations. Some come to have fun and some want to work hard. [But most] want to maximize their time” (interview volunteer manager). But the volunteers are not being paid for their hard work, in fact they are paying to work, so what motivates them? In the following section of the paper that is exactly what will be investigated, through an analysis of both interviews and fieldnotes, based on Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory, as presented earlier in the paper.

When looking over the data there seems to be a clear overweight in motivational factors compared to hygiene factors. However some hygiene factors do present themselves, the clear majority of these being on the interpersonal relationships; “It’s been one of the highlights of the trip. Just getting to know people from all over the world, even though it’s been highly Scandinavian (laughs)” (Heather interview round 2), “I feel like it’s impossible not to be social here, even if you don’t care. I think you’ll get good close friends here that you’ll experience these things with” (Camilla interview round 1). The volunteer manager confirms this perception that the relationship between the volunteers play an important role in their stay; “You see the friendships that people have formed, you see these volunteers crying, and it’s just emphasising the impact they’ve all had on each other. As well as obviously on the projects here” (interview volunteer manager), and the general manager; “you just have to be in the car park on a Sunday or a Monday when these kids are leaving and see the emotions, to see what a special place it has become” (interview general manager).

However the interpersonal relationships are not the only hygiene factors present in the data. There are signs of hygiene factors on company policy and administration; “I’ve been really

impressed with the way the program is run […] I feel like this program is doing a really good job” (Heather interview round 2). Also on status; “I like how they don’t see us as slaves, they see us as a helping hand. So when we come they see it like they don’t have to do anything, they just see it as ‘we can do it faster’ “ (Camilla interview round 2). And on the conditions; “it was a wonderful place to stay. The accommodation, the food, the time we were able to spend with the animals, the staff, the people” (Heather interview round 3). And especially the conditions could be thought to provide an issue or two since we are dealing with an NGO in a developing country, and a country in deep economic crisis. But all the volunteers seemed to take the broken vehicles and shovels as well as getting stuck in the terrain as a part of the experience; “5 vols […] [and] their truck got stuck in the mud and so did the vehicles that came to get them out, so in the end they had to jump through the window of another car as shots were fired to keep the lions away […] the vols are laughing about it and showing pictures and videos” (fieldnotes 20.01.2017), “the other vols talk about the work of today and how both shovel and vehicle were broken. They are all laughing about it and one says ‘well it is Africa – it is a part of the experience” (fieldnotes 24.01.2017). So again the hygiene factors are presented in a positive light and do not seem to demotivate the volunteers.

The majority of volunteers present as having few hygiene factors, and the ones present do not seem to demotivate them. However the minority, represented by one interviewed volunteer, present as having more hygiene factors than motivational factors. This is seen in the form of dissatisfaction with status; “you always have to ask permission and tiptoe around them (staff). […] I was under him [...] I felt like I was a bloody minion” (Jesika interview round 2). With supervision; “we’re so looked after. Too much I think. I don’t know it’s just not my thing […] I feel like a child” (Jesika interview round 2), conditions; “I didn’t think it was going to be so intense. But it’s a good thing I suppose, I’m always busy, never bored. I just assumed it would be a bit more chilled, just because it’s Africa (laughing)” (Jesika interview round 1). And lastly relationships; “I think people just find it hard to understand me ´, so they’ll just assume whatever. I don’t care. Half these people that I don’t get along with I’ll never see again, and people I really get along with, if I bump into them in the future, that’s just a bonus” (Jesika interview round 2), “Uhm I don’t really speak to anyone else from community” (Jesika interview round 2). So here, not only are the hygiene factors

in surplus, they are negatively charged and clearly indicate that the volunteer is in fact demotivated.

Furthermore the same volunteer and interviewee additionally present the few

motivational factors in more of a negative tone, especially about the work itself; “I did two weeks of stable which I hated”, “everything here is so routine and I am not a routine kind of girl” (Jesika interview round 2). This is a clear indication that these factors are not functioning as motivators for her.

However, when looking at the clear majority, the same motivational factors seem to in fact motivate them, especially the work itself; “so even the elephant walk tomorrow, I am just so excited because I’ve never been that close to an animal like that” (Camilla interview round 1), “you can get in close contact with the lions, that was a huge plus for me” (Steffen interview round 1), “there is a lot of options and we kind of get to choose where we want to be, which is nice, so that we can do areas that we are more interested in” (Heather interview round 2). It is evident that all the volunteers are excited about the work they are doing and it definitely seems to be motivating them. But the work itself is not the only motivational factors present in the data. The volunteers seems to respond well to responsibility; “we’ve been given a lot of responsibilities like lesson planning or organising. I feel like we can kind of do what we want if we want to change things up, and do things a little bit differently” (Heather interview round 2), and growth; “I am going to learn a lot in the healthcare program. How to work and interact with people, but also then afterwards in my horse internship, that I know better how to teach a horse, so to work with young horses” (Rahel interview round 1). Also very important is recognition for the achievements the volunteers make. This is both important for the staff; “the managers of the different programs go through the achievements that have been made in January […] everyone gets an award” (fieldnote 03.02.2017), and the volunteers; “they tell us how the different activities help AP and the program and the lions in general […] I think that’s really nice” (Camilla interview round 2). But even without the acknowledgement, the achievement in itself seems to be a huge motivator for the volunteers; “second snare sweep. Volunteers not nearly as excited as first time. Trying to get out of it. As soon as the first snare is found attitude completely changes” (fieldnote 30.01.2017).

The last, but important, motivational factor seems to not lie in the work content but the work length, the fact the volunteers are only “employed” short term. This seems to motivate the volunteers to work harder, since it is just temporary; “I feel like when I’m here I actually want to do something which is not relaxing” (Steffen interview round 2), “that’s what you do. You’re here to help out” (Camilla interview round 2). They have a limited amount of time to help, a limited amount of time to make a difference, so they want to make the most of it; “I just want to make the most of this short time” (Heather round 1). In fact this seems to not only be a motivator but actually a requirement for the work to be of interest for most of the volunteers; “I think she (animal manager) has the most amazing job ever, and I would like to be that person, but I don’t think it’s realistic, I think I would miss home too much” (Camilla interview round 3), “[I enjoyed it] because I knew this was my working holiday and that when I come home I have my… it’s not my other life, but it’s my normal life, my real life. It was working but it was like holiday” (Rahel interview round 3).

Another interesting finding to look at is that the fact that the volunteers have paid for their stay, seem to sometimes work as a hygiene factor, and the volunteers use the payment as an excuse to not work as hard; “we have to remember we have paid to be here. We are volunteers, not staff” (fieldnote 05.02.2017), this thought is expressed several times during the stay. However all the volunteers, even the more negative minority, are all happy to pay the price of the stay; “It’s worth it definitely” (Jesika interview round 1). It seems that they all consider it a donation to the project; “I work for them so they should be paying me, but I am paying them as a donation” (Rahel interview round 1), “I figured that a lot of the money would probably go to like charity, to this program” (Camilla interview round 1). Moreover the volunteers are willing to pay for the experience; “you know it’s something different. Not a lot of people get to do it. And you know you get a lot of good experiences, so you sort of pay for the experience. And you know meet a lot of new people and experience more of a new culture” (Steffen interview round 1), “it’s a way to see the country, to interact with the people, have a place to stay, meet the locals that are guiding and saying; “don’t do this, let’s do that”. So I’m willing to pay for that too” (Heather interview round 1).

DISCUSSION Through the analysis it becomes evident that the majority of volunteers are highly motivated to work hard during their short stay at Antelope Park. The volunteers in fact pay to be there, and to work. It seems that the volunteers are willing to pay to work for two reasons; first they see it as a donation, and second they are willing to pay for the experience. This is also part of what motivates them. By working hard at Antelope Park they get to be part of making a difference, they get to save the world, while enjoying themselves and having an amazing experience. So the motivation of the volunteers seems to be a mix of personal interest and a wish to make a difference, meaning it is a mix of extrinsic1 and intrinsic2 or altruistic3 motivation. When reflecting on their stay at Antelope Park, what seems to be most important is the amazing experience they have had there and the fact that even though they do not get to see the end result of their work, they feel like they have been a part of the greater goal of Antelope Park; releasing lions back on to the African savannah. Even the volunteers who did not work directly with the lions considered themselves a part of this.

The fact that they only have a limited time to experience this, a limited time to save the world, seems to be a huge motivational factor; and the majority have an attitude of; ‘we need to work as hard as we can while we are here’. Further, the temporariness of the experience actually seems to be a requirement for most volunteers; it not only intensifies their commitment, but makes it possible for them to commit in the first place. They enjoy their stay, but see it as a break from reality and all talk about returning to their “real life”.

A big part of this sense of having made a difference, which is of great importance to the motivation of the volunteers, is the relationships made at Antelope Park. Both relationships between volunteers and staff, seem to be of great importance at Antelope Park, and even though

The motivational factors are outside the work itself, e.g. good grades or a nice CV (Callanan, M. & Thomas, S., 2005, p. 184)

The motivational factors, or the reward of the work, lie in the work itself, e.g. personal growth (ibid)

A selfless wish to help. Putting others need above own (ibid)

interpersonal relationships are a hygiene factor it greatly influences the volunteersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motivation, because they experience personal growth through the relationships. Therefore, the interpersonal relationships, as a hygiene factor, are the base for the motivational factor of personal growth.

The foundation for these relationships, lies in the community that Antelope Park has build. A community that has all the characteristics of a community of practice, but yet somehow also has characteristics of a mechanistic organisation built on predetermined tasks, structure and hierarchy, which the volunteers recognize, but the majority just accept. They mention that they are getting used to the routine that is life at Antelope Park, but see it as a positive thing. From a critical perspective these mechanistic characteristics, could be a sign that maybe there is not really a community of practice between the staff and the volunteers, maybe it is more of an illusion created for the benefit of the volunteers? I do believe that the paid staff at Antelope Park has in fact created a community of practice, or at least something very close to it. But for the volunteers to be a part of this, the staff has to let them in, and more so, the volunteers have to accept the terms of this community of practice; that they have an impact on things, but within a certain limit, set by the members of the staff. But if the volunteers accept these terms they can enjoy all the benefits of a community of practice, and most volunteers do in fact seem to do so. Even the one volunteer who in her sensemaking started questioning the hierarchy and the overall way the staff was running the organisation seemed to accept the existence of a community of practice, even though her participation in it was limited compared to others. Even though this one volunteer questioned the organisation in her sensemaking, the majority of the volunteers let the perception of Antelope Park as a community of practice help them make sense of their experience there and, further, it also seems to motivate them. The high turnover in volunteers, which could seem like an impediment to a community of practice, is actually part of what makes it work, along with the structure and hierarchy, which is also not common for a community of practice. But the structure and hierarchy is what keeps the community of practice in place, and the high turnover lets the organisation continue with the majority of volunteers never getting to the point where they start to question the structure and hierarchy.

But this is exactly where Antelope Park could run into problems. The way the volunteers make sense have a huge influence on the creation, or acceptance, of the community of practice, and the other way around; the way they make sense affect the community of practice and the community of practice affects the way they make sense. But more than that, both these factors seem to affect volunteer motivation. The analysis above presented the majority of volunteers as making sense of their experience at the park with a very positive narrative, and that is what makes this constellation work; a positive narrative reinforces the community of practice, which again reinforces the sensemaking through a positive narrative, and this brings with it, motivation. But a small minority was represented in this one volunteer who created a rather negative narrative. During my stay, it was exactly that; a very small minority. But that could change and here is where, according to my analysis, the one potential problem for Antelope Park lies. Since there seems to be a culture for sticking together as volunteers and following the pack, if one volunteer, who had the right social position, started questioning the way things are run, questioning the validity of this community of practice, a bigger group of volunteers could easily follow. Because of the big turnover in volunteers this might not be a big problem since it could be just one group of volunteers over four weeks who would be asking questions and doubting the community. But since the park gets new volunteers every two weeks, or even every week in high season, there will be overlaps between volunteer groups. Therefore, it is important for Antelope Park as an organisation, to not ignore these potential â&#x20AC;&#x153;problem volunteersâ&#x20AC;?, but to learn from their experiences and do something about it. A way to do so is to try and participate in the volunteerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sensemaking; talking to them, listening to them, and moreover make them feel part of this community of practice, let them participate.

Through the research it has become evident that there is a clear connection between sensemaking, communities of practice and motivation for temporary volunteers. The strength in this connection, but also the potential weakness in it, are findings that could be of interest for other organisations with similar set-ups, but also for researchers with interest in this field.

CONCLUSION Through my own experience, Antelope Park presented itself as an interesting case to look into sensemaking in communities of practice with an ever-changing population. Investigation of the collected data, then presented the theme of motivation. Therefore Karl E. Weick’s theory on sensemaking, Etienne Wenger’s theory on communities of practice and Frederick Herzberg’s theory on motivation and hygiene factors shaped the research question and serve as the theoretical foundation of the project. To investigate this case I stayed at Antelope Park for four weeks and observed the behaviour and conversation of the volunteers and the staff. Furthermore three staff members were interviewed to gain an insight into the community of practice, and how the organisation views the volunteers. Lastly five volunteers were selected to participate in three rounds of interviews; one at arrival, the second halfway through their stay, and the third upon their return home. This was done to gain an understanding of their sensemaking over time, and turned out to also bring great insight into their motivation.

To analyse the collected data both first and second cycle coding were utilised and led to codes based on the three theories. Through this coded data it became evident that there is a connection between sensemaking, communities of practice and motivation at Antelope Park. The fact that the volunteers experience a feeling of community seems to motivate them and also help them make sense of their experience. But on the other hand their sensemaking helps create or continue this community of practice, which is dependent on the staff members’ willingness to let the volunteers in and the volunteers’ acceptance of the terms of the community. The volunteers are only there short term and that seems to be why they are willing to accept the terms, but also why they are willing to participate in the first place.

In conclusion the volunteers make sense of their motivation to participate in a community of practice with an ever-changing population, with direct reference to the temporary aspect of their participation; the temporality in their participation is exactly what motivates them. More than that, the community of practice is in itself a great motivation for them and helps them make sense of

not only their motivation, but also their entire experience at Antelope Park, by not having to experience it alone, and to share the experience and stories with likeminded people.

This research indicates that there are strong ties between the volunteersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sensemaking, the community of practice and the volunteersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motivation. This can be of great interest for organisations with a similar structure to Antelope Park, since it can be a great strength for the organisation when volunteers are creating positive narratives and accepting the terms of the community of practice. But this could also turn into a weakness if the volunteers instead started asking questions about these terms and therefore started doubting the community of practice. Exactly this is a matter for further studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Antelope Park (n.d) “About Antelope Park”, < http://antelopepark.co.zw/about/ >

Bradbury, Sarah & Middlemiss, Lucie (2013). “The role of learning in sustainable communities of practice”. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, vol. 20, issue 7, 2015

Egholm, Liv (2014). “Philosophy of Science: Perspectives on Organisations and Society”. Latvia: Hans Reitzels Forlag

Hasmath, Reza & Hsu, Jennifer Y.J. (2015). “Communities of Practice and the NGO Sector in China”. Stockholm: International Society for Third Sector Research Conference

Herzberg, Frederick (1968). “One more time: How do you motivate employees?”. Harvard Business Review January – February 1968

Herzberg,

Frederick

(1974).

“Motivation-Hygiene

Profiles:

Pinpointing

What

Ails

the

Organization”. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 3, 1974

Jerolmack, Colin, and Khan, Shamus (2014). “Talk Is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy”, Vol. 43, pp. 178-209. Sociological Methods Research

Liao-Troth, Matthew A. & Dunn, Craig P. (1999). “Social Construct & Human Service: Managerial Sensemaking of Volunteer Motivation”. Springer, vol. 10, issue 4, 1999

Maitlis, Sally & Christianson, Marlys (2013). “Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward”. The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 8, issue 1, 2014

McAllum, Kirstie (2014). “Meanings of Organizational Volunteering: Diverse Volunteer Pathways”. SAGE journals, vol. 28, issue 1 2014

Miles, Matthew B., Huberman, Michael., & Saldaña, Johnny (2013). “Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook”. pp. 69-105 & 107-120 & 275-322. SAGE

Millette, Valérie & Gagné, Maryléne (2008). “Designing Volunteers’ Tasks to Maximize Motivation, Satisfaction and Performance: The Impact of Job Characteristics on Volunteer Engagement”. Springer, vol. 32, issue 1, 2008

Saldaña, Johnny (2009). “The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers”, pp. 45-184. SAGE Publications

Stake, Robert E. (2000). “Handbook of Qualitative Research” In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln. No. 2, pp. 435-454. London: SAGE Publications, Inc

Treuren, Gerrit J.M. (2014). “Enthusiasts, Conscripts or Instrumentalists? The Motivational Profiles of Event Volunteers”

Wearing, Stephen & McGehee, Nancy Gard (2013). “Volunteer tourism: A review”

Weick, Karl E. (1995). “Sensemaking in Organizations”. California: SAGE publications, Inc

Wenger, Etienne (2000). “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems”. SAGE, vol. 7, issue 2, 2000