SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropist Podcast with Roger Davis. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this week is the 13th in our partnership series with the European Research Network on Philanthropy, or ERNOP, where I talk to academics whose work has been featured in the latest edition of ERNOP's Research Notes series, where they produce practitioner-focused versions of sort of summaries of academic research that's been going on about philanthropy, civil society, and volunteering all around Europe. And this time I was joined by, well, first of all, Lauren Doeller from Binghamton University, State University of New York in the States, and Laurie Parlberg, who is from Indiana University, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, there. And it's a paper that they co-authored with Emoleo Adieri. And it's all about power and foundations. So the paper is titled Philanthropic Foundations and the Exercise of Power, an integrative, let me try that again, an integrative literature review of the many faces of power. Not necessarily an easy title to read out, but a really interesting paper and sort of fascinating conversation with Lauren and Laurie about that. Next up, I spoke to Marius van Dijker about a paper that he wrote with Gees van Hauelingen, and that's called Cognitive Abstraction Increases Pro Sociality When Loyalty is valued lowly, but decreases pro-sociality when loyalty is valued highly. So very much tells you what to expect from that paper, the title, although Marius will obviously explain what some of those terms mean and what the findings are when we come to hear from him. And I should say that Marius is from the Rotterdam School of Management. And then last but not least, I spoke to Otto Potluka about a paper that he co-authored with Lenka Svekova, Eva Blahova, and Natassa Dietkova. And apologies to any of them if I have butchered your names. I didn't have the opportunity to ask you in person how to pronounce them, so I have done my best. And that paper was titled, Do formal and informal volunteering compete for engaged individuals? And Otto is based at the University of Chemistry and Technology Prague in the Czech uh Czechia. And that's at the Department of Economics and Management. So we'll hear from Otto about that in a bit. Well, without further ado, let's get into the conversations. As I say, we'll hear from uh all three, well, all four academics, uh both Lauren and Laurie together, um, and then from Marius and from Otto about their papers, and then I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Laurie Palberg and Lauren Douler. Hi to both of you.

SPEAKER_03 3:34

Hello. Hello, Rodri.

SPEAKER_00 3:36

Hello. Well, great to have you on the podcast. Um, and yeah, so this is one of our Earn-Op episodes. So we're here to talk about a paper that you have featured in the latest uh release of Earn Up Research Notes. Uh and the paper in question is titled Philanthropic Foundations and the Exercise of Power, an integrative uh literature review of the many faces of power. Um obviously, you know, to do with foundations and to do with power. Um, so fascinating topics. But maybe the best place to start if you could tell us all a bit about what the research is about, how it came about, and what some of the key findings are. So uh Laurie.

SPEAKER_03 4:09

Yeah, so Roger, um, this paper began in 2021. Our research team was inspired by a network of community foundation leaders who were grappling with a really critical question. What role do community foundations play in addressing systemic racism and in perpetuating this? And at its core, they recommend they recognize this as a fundamentally an issue of power. So they posed to us what we seemed like what seemed like to us is a straightforward question. How do we understand power and foundations? So, but as we began to investigate, we discovered just how vast and fragmented the academic literature on this topic truly was. I was scattered across disciplines, fields, making it difficult to draw coherent conclusions. So we turned to an existing power framework and organizational studies developed by Freming, Fleming, and Spicer. It allowed us to integrate the academic literature, looking at sites and faces of power to 16 distinct types of power. And as Lauren's gonna discuss, we reviewed more than 200 articles with this multidimensional framework, and it highlighted the complexity of power relationships and has implications for both scholarship and practice. So I'm gonna turn it over to Lauren now. I love that, Laurie.

SPEAKER_02 5:31

So what I would say is out of these 200 plus articles, um, the faces of power are interesting because they start with locations. Um, the idea of power happening within an organization, through the foundation itself being used on other uh grantees or other nonprofit organizations, power acting over through regulatory agencies on foundations, and also societal impact on foundations and the activities that they take. And then within this, we broke it down with these faces of the idea of dominance, manipulation, coercion, and subjectification. So we were able to kind of map out all these articles within each of these categories in some way. Sometimes, you know, they fell in within more than one category in terms of how they were discussed. Um, what's really interesting to see is the majority of articles really talked about how foundations dominate other organizations through kind of developing this hegemony of ideas and agenda setting and moving discussion of other organizations of grantees toward their own interests, toward things that they were interested in focusing on. Um, I could honestly say over 60% of articles focused on that type of power relationship. Um, what we were really interested in also seeing are some of the missing elements. Um, you know, we have concepts of uh regulatory agencies working uh to uh influence foundations to keep back some of their power, right? To to uh prevent them from having too much influence over society. Um but then we also see them working with government agencies in kind of interorganizational um you know networks. And one of the things we propose is actually more of a fifth area of power that just isn't discussed in the literature as much. Um, this concept of power with. So organizations, foundations working through networks, um, and also working with the grantees themselves to, you know, enact policies, you know, push programming, uh set agendas, and do this type of work together. So that was an area that we really found was not discussed. Um, we wouldn't say it was totally lacking. There were, we found it because we were seeing more pop up in some articles. It just wasn't there as much or focused on as much. So uh definitely an area that we're interested in kind of pursuing further, this idea of power with. Um, and it's these ideas and concepts of power, it sounds so pejorative that foundations are you know doing these awful things and trying to control what you know nonprofits are doing or uh, you know, creating these networks of social identity. It doesn't have to be a negative thing. Um, it doesn't necessarily have to be um looked at as a problem, but it should be something we're aware of. Um, and that foundations should be aware of their own influence when we look at some of these relationships.

SPEAKER_00 9:37

Yeah, absolutely. I'd I'd love to come back to that idea in a minute about kind of what people working practitioners in the sector can take from some of this in terms of uh making their own thinking uh on the question of power more fine-grained. I think one other thing I wanted to ask is in terms of the um the actual literature review itself, um, I think it's really interesting to see that you've kind of read across a wide range of sources because you know, one of the challenges, it seems to me, is there isn't necessarily you don't just go to the foundations section of your bookshelf or you know to the journal that's about foundations because it doesn't work like that. So, where did you find that the kind of discussions of power and foundations were largely situated? What kinds of literature were you drawing on?

SPEAKER_02 10:20

So, really, uh a bulk of the articles kind of came from interdisciplinary journals. So it would be like agriculture and sociology, these combinations, these were brought in elements of environmentalism and sociology or environmental and economics. Um it was very interesting to kind of see that. International studies was another area that was pretty uh prominent, which is interesting because most of the geographic context of all of the articles focused on North America. Over about 67% of articles were focused on North American foundations. Um, but we were finding, you know, still the second most in international studies journals. Um, so I think there was that dynamic of looking at um how these North American large foundations might be influencing other areas around the world. Um, sociology was huge. Um so it it though there was a lot of interdisciplinary areas, I mean, we could talk about a dozen different uh different areas and journal type that we pulled from.

SPEAKER_00 11:41

Yeah, absolutely. Um and one thing I would ask you, you mentioned um before in terms of the uh the faces of power framework that you used, that there's there's a few different dimensions to that, but one of them is in terms of the the location. So this idea that you can have power in or through um you know over and against, and you suggest a fifth one. In terms of the existing literature, do you think um that uh a lot of the focus has been skewed towards thinking of the power that's exerted through foundations? And actually, it do you have any sense that that is shifting or needs to shift? And that actually in the world we live in now, the idea of power over foundations, perhaps by the government or by regulators, as you said, or against foundations by social movements or grassroots organizers are increasingly important.

SPEAKER_02 12:31

Definitely.

SPEAKER_03 12:31

Uh Lori, did you want to talk to any of that? Um, sure. I think Roger, that's a really interesting question because we I think that we were surprised by the dominance of the concept of power through. Uh, there's very little on how decisions are made in foundations, so power in, which is a fascinating area that needs to be explored further. But increasingly, I think the concept of social movements, whether we're going to talk about effective altruism or the big tech movement and the influence that that has had on foundations, clearly is worthy of additional study.

SPEAKER_00 13:08

Um I I really think there's something still fascinating, as you say, the decision-making within foundations uh about the role of the people who lead foundations and I guess work within them, the sort of philanthropoids and the the effect that they have on shaping the distribution of resources that might not necessarily be theirs. So I think it's a really interesting um area. Um I guess the the other thing I just wanted to ask a sort of bigger picture question about power. Um do you, you know, in the literature, is there a sense that um people are viewing foundations largely as reflections of existing power dynamics within society? So to some extent they're kind of symptomatic of something that's already there, or is it that actually foundations are tools for shaping and wielding power? So they actually kind of determine where power sits.

SPEAKER_02 13:58

Um I would say both. You you see both coming up in the literature. You definitely see the influence of you know, movement society changing. I mean, there was a lot of literature on the civil rights movement and um how foundations were kind of pushing, you know, for certain democratic uh efforts through the civil rights movement, but then also that pressure over foundations to not overstep their roles as foundations, to not get too involved, to move toward a more mainstream take on how to push civil rights in the United States. Um, so you would see these things happening kind of simultaneously where they're trying to set the agenda, but then also being influenced by outside agencies, uh, the government, uh, popular uh understandings of things to perhaps change their direction. It actually influenced how they approach their programming.

SPEAKER_00 15:12

And Laurie, do you want to add to that?

SPEAKER_03 15:14

Yeah, just to add, Lauren, great job, but just to add to that, you know, the very recognition that foundations are creatures of capitalism and capitalist systems, right? That was inherent in the literature.

SPEAKER_00 15:24

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I just wondered, uh, obviously the focus of this research notes series is about links between academics and practitioners. What kind of insights do you think this paper can offer for practitioners in particular?

SPEAKER_02 15:38

I think I I mentioned I touched on it really briefly a moment ago. Um, this kind of positionality that foundations have, um, that individuals working in that field, you know, understanding the roles their foundations play, um, you know, having that self-reflection of exactly what kind of power we're seeing, and understanding that movement of power with, um, that is something that is, you know, a growing concern. And we even see that in practice in practice, right? More foundations um looking to hear what their grantees have to say about their programming, wanting to engage in those conversations rather than just dictate. Um, while there was mentions of that in the literature, it was a gap. Um, it was an area that still needs to be looked at, but it's definitely happening, and it's also probably something that you know can be looked at as another way to approach power for foundations, another way to approach their grantees.

SPEAKER_03 16:52

Uh Lori? Sure, Lauren. I agree with you on that, on the practical implications for how we manage grants. I would also say that um an understudied question remains the role of foundations in the policy process and having a better understanding of how networks of foundations, whether they're mainline liberal or conservative foundations, are engaging in networks both to shape public policy and societal attitudes. And I think that policy question has important implications for how we regulate and think about foundations in the process. So I'm going to take it in a different direction from management to policy.

SPEAKER_00 17:34

Yeah, absolutely. There's all these different dimensions to it and agreed. Um, and I guess the the final question is obviously that talking to people about the the papers in this research note series is always inevitably slightly backward looking because it's research people have already done, and you often that's of sort of a few years uh ago. Just really interested in what you're both working on currently. What's what's your sort of main focus? Does it follow on from this, or are you kind of looking at other areas around philanthropy at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 17:59

Oh Lord, go for it. So many, so many papers, so much research that has come out of this approach, just looking at power in terms of also democratic movements. So, as Lori was saying, how is policy kind of influenced um by foundations? Um, this power looking at you know current democratic backsliding and how are foundations responding to that? Are they responding to that? Um, really understanding the historical influence of a lot of social movements kind of working against uh efforts by foundations to you know enact some of these more active democratic programs, um, and whether or not you know, these headlines that are like, can philanthropy save democracy? How accurate is that? Um, you know, what does history actually say about the role of philanthropy in that uh arena? So those are big questions we're kind of diving into with um a wide array of different takes and looking through a few different theoretical lenses.

SPEAKER_00 19:24

Yeah, really, really interesting. Uh and Laurie, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that as well.

SPEAKER_03 19:29

No, just that the current political movement leads a lot of opportunities for research on power and philanthropy.

SPEAKER_00 19:36

Absolutely. And I yeah, as you say, all of those topics you talk about there are really important in this current moment. Uh just remains to say thanks ever so much to both of you for uh coming on the podcast. It's great to hear about this paper and about the sort of wider research that you've got going on. Um and yeah, wish you all the best of the future.

SPEAKER_03 19:52

Thank you for having us.

SPEAKER_00 20:02

Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Marius van Dyker. Hi to you. Hi. Uh well, great to have you on the podcast. Uh, and yeah, we're here to talk about a paper um that you've got featured in the latest research uh notes released by Ernop. And the paper in question is uh titled Cognitive Abstraction Increases Pro Sociality When Loyalty is valued lowly, but decreases pro-sociality when loyalty is valued highly, which is a very helpfully explanatory title. But maybe the best place to start is still just to tell everybody listening what the research was all about and what some of the key findings in it were.

SPEAKER_01 20:35

Of course, happy to uh happy to to to to tell, of course. And and and whenever I'm not clear, just uh just ask me to clarify, of course. Um the the basic idea of the research is that we want to understand uh why why people donate to to good causes, right? That's uh that that's a really important topic. Uh prior a lot of prior research has um um identified uh what you could call um um individualized victims uh as as as as as as as as uh as a proof of stimuli uh in research terms. So um I'm more help I'm I'm more willing to help um uh when I see a a photograph of an individual little boy being hungry than when I learn about um uh when I learn about abstract statistics about uh hunger in the world, right? So we we we we we we've known that for a long time from from from from other from private research, right? So individualized um uh uh an individualized focus of work. Okay, so that that that we knew. Now uh or at least we thought we knew. Now there's also a more recent stream of research showing that sometimes cognitive abstraction being in an abstract mindset, thinking more about um why we do things or why I do things rather than the knitting. Grid you of how I should do things, right? Um, can also actually make people more pro-socially uh inclined. So um and that's great that these two research streams exist and separate from each other. Um, but when you read carefully what they both do, they predict the exact opposite. Um uh so that that is weird and it's also not very actionable for for practitioners, I guess, if uh two research streams uh predict the exact opposite for what once you do. So we thought, okay, how is it possible that they do predict the exact opposite? One. Secondly, is there a a means to to tell when one of the research streams is right and when the other is right, right? That would be theoretically very informative, and it would also be uh useful for practitioners. So that that that's the basis. What we come up with then is the individual difference factor of of loyalty, right? Finding it important to be loyal towards towards friends and others. Now, most people think of loyalty as something important, right? When I have a friend and that person is in need, I should help that person. Um, when I have a family member, obviously, who's in need, I should help that person. When my country needs me, uh, for instance, in times of war, it gets a bit more shaky here, perhaps, but I would be inclined to to to help my country. But still, there is quite some clear variation in terms of how important exactly people find loyalty, right? And those who find loyalty really, really, really very important, these are the people who are more uh geared towards individualized the individualized folk, right? The photo of the individual hungry boy uh needing food rather than in the abstract statistics. And um for those who find loyalty just a little bit less important than average, then they might still find it important, but a little bit less than average. Um, these people respond more positively to um uh you could say to abstract statistics. Well, that they have it, that's the uh that that's that's the research.

SPEAKER_00 24:03

Yeah, it's really really interesting. And I guess one sort of top-line question that occurred to me, there's there's a long-standing sort of framing around charitable giving, which is about the you know, at times it's about head and at other times it's about heart. So it's sort of about empathy and emotion versus rationality. It feels like this is kind of another aspect of that framing. Does that is that a kind of accurate way of understanding uh well, you know, one way of looking at this?

SPEAKER_01 24:28

Um, yeah, I I I I I I guess and and and I would say it's um, but but feel free to disagree, of course, but I would say it's even a little bit more novel on research, right? It's not about hats versus hearts, because if you look at what uh the individualized victim type of research has done, it has really focused on hats and heart. When I see this photograph of an individual little boy being very hungry, it touches my heart. But it also um uh resonates with my hat, right? Better than these abstract statistics. So that that that is quite clear. Um so what what what what what what we show is that uh sometimes abstract statistics uh can actually resonate with can in some way touch my heart and resonate with my head. So the difference is it's it's it's even bigger than you than you would seem to suggest.

SPEAKER_00 25:21

Yes, yeah, absolutely. I think that's really interesting. Um and a couple of other things I wanted to pick up on from reading the paper. So one one was I I was curious actually whether the findings suggested that somebody who an individual who had a strong bias towards loyalty, for instance, so was sort of heavily on that end of the spectrum, if if they are subjected to abstract reasoning, does that actively decrease their prosocial behavior, or does it just merely not increase it? So is it just ineffective or does it actually dampen their willingness to give?

SPEAKER_01 25:53

Our data is not conclusive on that conclusive on that matter, right? We have we have suggestive evidence showing that it actively decreases or makes them respond in in less positive or more negative ways. Um but in some studies it it it just doesn't affect them, and in some studies it um uh it it it affects them negatively, so to say. So that's uh that's I I I I can't give you a straightforward answer to that one. But there's some suggestive evidence to say that for these people who who really strongly value loyalty, you should certainly not present these people with statistics because they might really respond very negatively to that.

SPEAKER_00 26:31

Yeah, interesting. And potentially an area, I guess, for sort of further research to uncover that. And one thing I wondered actually, I guess in terms of the practical implications of this, is as you said, it clearly does have um ramifications for organizations that are trying to get people to donate. I wondered whether individuals generally tend to know themselves whether they value impartiality or loyalty more highly. Is it something that we know about ourselves, or is it something that other people have to kind of work out about us?

SPEAKER_01 27:01

That's a new that's I have to say a fresh or novel question. Um I think that all of us tend to think of ourselves as as loyal, most of us at least. The large majority of us would say when you, for instance, when you have children, I'm loyal to my children, and when you have friends, you're loyal to your friends. So the distinction uh between people is actually more subtle. Some of us are really, really, really very loyal, and others just a little bit less loyal. But I would all of them still consider themselves loyal. And that's also a clear element of social desirability here, right? We be we should be loyal. That's that's I'm I mean I'm I'm not saying I'm not trying to say anything normative here, but we we together believe that we should be loyal.

SPEAKER_00 27:43

And and I guess that's interesting because I suppose if if there's a socially normative element to thinking that we should demonstrate loyalty, but then in reality, people who are more uh who sort of incline more towards utilitarian thinking that might take you away from that, they wouldn't necessarily explicitly say that. It's something I suppose that we have to discover. Did you again it might not be something that came out in in the design of these experiments, but do you have any sense more broadly of what the proportion of people who are likely to respond who are more likely to value loyalty and more likely to value impartiality are? Because again, I suppose if you're thinking about operationalizing this and you need to segment, is it is it sort of half and half, or is it actually only a small group of donors that are likely to show this impartiality bias?

SPEAKER_01 28:30

No, it's really a good question again from a from from a practical perspective. And there's some information in the paper uh on that, because we do present uh analysis about the percentages of people who respond positively, right? And the percentages who respond negatively. Um, but you should certainly not think 50-50, right? You should think about 10 or 20 percent or so, the people that uh respond really positively, and and even fewer people who respond really negatively. Um so it's it's it's it's it's in that area, but on the other hand, um so we did this research doesn't explain everything, clearly it doesn't, um but prior research also never explained everything, right? Also, if you if you look at the identifiable victim effect, that's that's the classic one, but it has quite small effect sizes, right? We we tend to respond more positively when we see that that that little hungry boy then towards uh uh abstract statistics, but people also still very often respond positively to abstract statistics, right? Because we well we we are well capable of mentally simulating uh what what that must mean. Um so yeah, um uh this this research presents some some some some some tangible um means to to to influence potential donors, if you if you want to put it that way, but this is not gonna change the world uh uh for the better uh in in in every respect.

SPEAKER_00 29:51

Yeah, and I think yeah, that sort of corrective or at least you know addendum to the identifiable victim effect from this paper is really interesting because it's sort of often presented as if, you know, here's this finding and this applies across the board. But actually, what you're saying is it's not as straightforward as that because in some cases that that doesn't apply or may even actively sort of reduce people's likelihood to give. Um, it's really interesting. I just want to zoom out a moment and just ask you. Obviously, you know, the the backdrop to this Earn Up Research Notes series is about trying to make sure there are better links between academia and practice when it comes to philanthropy. What has your experience been through your work of those links? Do you find it easy to engage with practitioners in the field when it comes to trying to find data and ideas for your research? And and conversely, when you're trying to disseminate findings, do you find that that it's a kind of willing audience?

SPEAKER_01 30:46

Um, well, first of all, for this data, um, I was not, I did not really need um uh, let's say, the field of philanthropy. Uh I I I uh well, the the studies really ask people, do you want to donate um some of the money that you earn with this research to a good cause? Right. So that's also the context of the study, of the studies. Uh it's also the limitations of the studies. I I I immediately agree, right? So uh I mean, although it's a quite common context, right? You ask people to donate some money um and they they do it or they don't, uh it's certainly not the only philanthropic context that matters. So so I I I can't say that I I I need it um I need it the field for this research. On the other hand, when it when it comes to um uh to outreach, well I have to say that um we are talking now, so I guess I guess that's that's a good thing. Um you reached out to me and and and several others uh were interested in the topic. So I guess there are people who who read this stuff and who want to disseminate it. So um in that sense, my experience is very positive.

SPEAKER_00 31:52

Yeah, great. And I guess that's you know encouraging since the whole point of the the research note series and of this podcast is to try and provide more and more ways where people in practitioners who might find value from these kinds of insights can get hold of them without necessarily having to uh to go to the academic literature, which is sometimes a bit of a barrier. Um, I just wanted to ask finally, um, obviously, when people come and talk about their research on the podcast, often because of the nature of academic publishing, it's a few years in the past that they've done that research. So I'm just interested what it is that you're working on now. What's your current area of focus? Is there anything that sort of follows on from this work in particular?

SPEAKER_01 32:29

Yeah, um to be honest, um, research on, let's say, uh philanthropy or donations to me is a little bit of a side project. I am uh currently involved in one super interesting research project on philanthropy, and that is um uh I work with a PhD student and and and and another food professor as as as also as an advisor on uh trying to understand um how and why the medium rich um actually uh the structure they're giving, right? Um there's a lot of studies as you as you as you may know on what what normal people like you and me, or at least like me, let's not talk about you, I'm not um, but not the not too obviously rich people do with our money, right? We understand a little bit about their motivations and and and so on and the various we know quite a lot about the super rich, right? The Bill Gates types of people, um, and what they do and why they do what I do. But there's a large, large number of people who actually uh earn or possess between, let's say, five and fifty million dollars. I mean it's a it's a lot of money, but you're not super rich, and you're not clearly not more. What what motivates these people? And we I think we show that uh we we we are beginning to show in this research that these people very often you could say donate their professional knowledge and their skills uh uh to the process rather than focusing uh solely on on money. So that is that that is the next a next step in this research. So don't only focus on psychological motives that um motive psychological processes involved in the motivation of let's say ordinary people, but try to understand this the the the this the these people who sit together on a huge amount of money um uh and and and see how how how we can reach these people better or motivate these people better to uh to donate.

SPEAKER_00 34:21

Yeah, really interesting because as you say, in my experience, there is there's a real gap in this sort of long tail of philanthropy between the the ultra-wealthy and what we know about them and everyday giving. And there's this sort of hidden mass of people giving very large amounts at aggregate, but often we don't really understand it very well. So um, yeah, we'd really interested to hear more about that in the future. Um just remains to say thanks ever so much, Maris, for finding time to come on the podcast. Really interesting to hear about the research and wish you all the best for the future.

SPEAKER_01 34:47

Thank you, and thanks for inviting me.

SPEAKER_00 34:58

Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Otto Potluka. Hi there to you.

SPEAKER_05 35:01

Hi.

SPEAKER_00 35:02

Hi, well, great, great to have you on the podcast. Um, and yeah, we're here to talk about a paper that you've got featured in the latest uh release of Earn on Research Notes. Uh and the paper in question is titled, Do formal and informal volunteering compete for engaged individuals? Which, yeah, really interesting and very clear question there. Um, but maybe the best place to start is if you can just tell everyone listening what the research is all about, how it came about, and what some of the key findings are.

SPEAKER_04 35:28

So I will start uh what was the main idea uh the research? So uh there are two points. The first is that we had the unique data set from the Central Europe. So uh countries Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. Those are about 35 years uh new democracies in the Central Europe. And this is it is reflected in lower engagement uh in volunteering. So, for example, in these societies, trust uh among people is lower in comparing to West European countries. This unique uh data set about volunteering was uh one reason, and the second one when we looked at the uh inconclusivity in studies about whether formal and informal volunteering compete or uh support each other. So, with this sample, we decided let's test it here because uh if volunteering is a scarce uh resource for nonprofits uh or in the society, so if those two types of volunteering compete, you can quickly see it on this uh dataset. Then we progressed with the data and we uh uh tested in a model where we checked whether availability of time and wealth uh in people have influence on formal or informal volunteering and whether these two types of volunteering compete or support each other. And uh uh concerning the uh results or uh the main findings of our study, so uh I would say first uh it's a positive relationship between formal and informal volunteering. It means if people start informal uh volunteering, because it's much easier, there are no formal rules, uh, you know some friends in need, so you help them and you don't need any training, uh, simply help them. So that might be a start for formal volunteering in the future. Because when you start and then you continue. The way can be also opposite. If people volunteer for some organizations, they get some knowledge, some skills, and they can use them even they don't volunteer for uh an organization. So, for example, in our paper, we we show that there is a potential uh in aging societies uh when the population uh aging comes. Simply, if people are trained by uh some nonprofit organizations, they can uh help relatives uh or friends uh to take care and if need to call the professionals uh so they can take the knowledge from the formal volunteering to informal volunteering. That was the first finding, and uh the the second finding uh relates to uh relationship uh in resources and volunteering. So, first uh that was relating to time, uh, because if people are busy or they don't have time, uh they they don't have time to volunteer either. Uh and uh we find out that uh uh uh informal volunteering is more sensitive on availability of time than uh informal volunteering, but uh uh time is uh less sensitive uh factor for volunteering comparing to wealth. This is our third um uh finding that uh simply having resources uh uh and uh uh supports uh uh engagement in formal volunteering, uh uh and in informal volunteering and even informal volunteering. In volunteering for uh, for example, nonprofit organizations, it's a very supportive uh uh uh factor to volunteer. The opposite way, if people lose wealth, they they stop uh uh quickly uh engage themselves in nonprofit organizations, and uh but they still continue dropping uh their informal engagement. So these are the three uh conclusions from from this paper. And uh I'm glad that we could uh test this model uh and this information on uh Central Europe because, as I mentioned at the beginning, uh comparing to Western countries, uh voluntaring is not so common uh in in comparison to Western countries. So it means uh it shows if people engage, they really want to engage and uh uh simply formal and informal vulnering do not compete each other.

SPEAKER_00 40:26

Yeah, absolutely. It's really interesting and good, as you say, to have those findings. Um I guess in terms of talking about formal versus informal volunteering, we all have an intuitive sense of what that means. But is there anything more to be said about what how you apply the distinction in the paper in terms of where the boundary is between what counts as informal or formal, or is it more of a spectrum?

SPEAKER_04 40:48

We explicitly ask for the respondents whether they engage informal, it means for an organization. It can be non-profit organizations or any organization. Important uh aspect is simply it's organized by an organization. Contrary to informal volunteering, where it's simply uh beyond the household uh those respondents live, like it can be wider family, uncles, uh aunts, uh cousins, uh simply not people who live in the same household. Uh, it can be for friends or neighbors, and we explicitly ask uh and define uh uh formal and informal volunteering this way because we found uh also some surveys in Central Europe where this question was not clear enough and people were confused. So, for that reason, uh with this knowledge, we told exactly what we mean by uh formal and informal volunteering. Simply, are there organizations organizing volunteering? And if not, uh so we go to informal volunteering.

SPEAKER_00 41:57

Yeah, absolutely. And I noticed one of the things that you mentioned a few times in the paper is the importance that trust plays as a factor in determining whether people volunteer. Perhaps you could say a bit more about that. What kind of trust are we talking about? Is it trust between individuals or trust in organizations or institutions and how big a part does it play?

SPEAKER_04 42:17

So actually we work with both types of trust. Uh uh and uh simply in in the previous research in the literature you can find uh many cases how social capital of which uh trust uh is uh uh important part improve uh ability or willingness of people to uh to engage. And uh simply people use both trust in people, trust in institutions, and if people have uh trust in these two uh types uh of organizations and people, they are willing to help. It raises also strangers if uh anybody needs help, so people if they trust, they they they engage and help. If they don't trust, so they hide them so at home and uh they they leave it as it as it is. So trust was an important factor uh to build the uh social networks, and from the literature you you can easily find that networks are very important uh to build the ties and uh get the information about the possibility to volunteer and uh uh engage to help to uh to other people in both formal and informal uh way.

SPEAKER_00 43:40

Yeah, absolutely. And and the other thing I wanted to ask, you noted before that the particular focus of the paper is on Eastern Europe, so Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Um and you know, that's really interesting in itself. I'm sort of curious about whether that particular context that you note, the fact that these are countries with sort of post communist legacies. Where perhaps civil society was weaker for a period of time and is rebuilding. Does that mean that the findings are quite specific to that context? Or do you think they can be generalized more broadly, or do you think this is a sort of question that should be tested in other contexts as well?

SPEAKER_04 44:15

We simply use these countries as countries where the trust is lower in comparison to other countries. If people don't trust and the volunteering is at the lower uh level than the others, so uh as a resource, volunteering uh as a resource, so the organizations uh have to compete for it, so that the specific uh circumstances were advantages for the research. And uh I spoke about those countries as a region, but there are differences across these countries. So if you have a look at the uh international surveys, so you see that the Czechs are behaving differently than the rest of the those uh countries, because the Czechs are uh more engaged in in philanthropy, spending more money, uh providing more time for volunteering. And at the beginning of the 90s, uh there were not such uh huge differences, but it developed, and uh currently uh you can see that the Czechs are engaged more than uh the other nations in in Central Europe. Uh so this is uh uh topic for another research. So it was not the case, uh case here, but uh it is these countries are specific groups and uh they even at the political level they uh uh collaborate together a lot. So during the last few years it changed uh uh as that there are tendencies to uh not to collaborate anymore or uh less intense collaboration uh appeared uh during the last two, three years.

SPEAKER_00 45:56

Yeah, absolutely. And and just sort of zooming out a little bit, I'd be interested in your experience. Obviously, the the idea behind these earn up research notes is to try and build links between academics and practitioners. In your work, have you found it easy to engage with practitioners either in terms of doing research or disseminating findings of your research?

SPEAKER_04 46:19

So for the practitioners, especially nonprofit organizations, so uh it makes sense if they train volunteers, the volunteers will not disappear. They they will continue their work either in the organizations or by themselves, uh and in both cases it makes sense. Uh uh simply if the organizations organizations have their mission, so even if people follow the mission without the organizations, in my perspective, it makes sense for the organizations. And the opposite uh perspective, if uh nonprofits see uh people engaged uh uh informally, they can uh gain them for formal volunteering because they already know what it means to help someone else, uh it takes time. Uh and for practitioners, the the reason is if they ask people they can transform their informal volunteering to formal volunteering, and uh the practitioners uh in non-profit organizations in these countries, uh, if uh uh for example, when we spoke uh about time, uh so they they can help them uh to organize that the time because sometimes uh if I hear questions from nonprofit organizations, oh we we need uh we need uh uh volunteers who come regularly, for example, on on Thursday afternoon, every Thursday afternoon, but for people in current societies, they they need flexibility. It makes uh problems to nonprofit organizations. But on the other side, if they make this uh uh flexible volunteering more available for volunteers, they it means they uh need to uh more organize the time schedules uh for the volunteers, for more volunteers, but it it can it can work. Simply having uh looking and at the uh results of our research from the perspective of practitioners in nonprofit organizations, they can gain volunteers by helping them with time availability. Uh and uh if some people are not healthy uh wealthy enough, like for example, it costs some fuel uh commuting to a central to help. So they can provide such services like uh taking people from various places with a small bus, uh bringing them to the center, and let them uh help the nonprofit organization. So that there are ways how to uh see volunteering through uh our research uh from the practical perspective.

SPEAKER_00 49:13

Yeah, absolutely. And then just finally, I'd be interested. Obviously, when we're talking about these papers, often the research in question has been done a little while ago. I'd just be interested to know what you're currently working on, whether it relates to this or whether you're looking at other areas.

SPEAKER_04 49:28

Uh uh I continue uh doing research on volunteering. Uh and for example, one of the current papers is uh actually based on this uh data set uh about religion. Uh how religion influences uh willingness of an actual volunteering uh in people, because as I mentioned, the differences in philanthropic behavior uh among those countries. Uh on one side the Czechs they are the most engaged, but on the other side uh only about certain uh Czechs are religious in comparison to Slovakia or Poland, which is about 75%. And this makes the thing uh interesting. The secular nation engage more philanthropically than the religious nations.

SPEAKER_00 50:22

Yeah, that is really interesting and kind of counterintuitive. So I'll be really interested to read more about that when it's ready. Um just remain to say thanks ever so much, Otto, for finding time to come on the podcast and talk about your work. It's really great to hear about it and wish you all the best in the future.

SPEAKER_04 50:36

Thank you very much for listening to me, and uh I'm looking forward actually to hear the postcard. And uh uh if you are interested in some more research about volunteering, let me know.

SPEAKER_00 50:48

Great. Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Lauren and to Laurie and to Marius and to Otto for finding time to come on the podcast. Really interesting to hear about all of their research. I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find the papers in question and also the Earn-Up research notes that are based on them, uh, and where you can find all of the other Earn Up research notes. And of course, there are now uh many, many editions of this podcast uh partnership as well, when you can hear from other authors whose work has been featured in those Earn-Up research notes. Uh, and I'll put links to where you can find some of those, but they're all there on the website. Uh if you're interested more broadly in philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. Loads of articles there, lots of news updates about things that I've been doing, shorter guides to interesting issues in philanthropy and civil society, and obviously all of the back issues of this podcast. So um, you know, spend many happy hours there digging in if that takes your fancy. If you want to follow me uh for shorter updates, you can do that on LinkedIn and also on Blue Sky, where I post uh uh semi-regularly on that one and fairly regularly on LinkedIn. Uh if you've got ideas for people that I could talk to on the podcast or topics we could cover when we're not doing these Earnot Research Note uh partnerships, uh, do drop me a line. You can find my contact details at the website. Always great to hear from people with suggestions. Um if you want to get involved in the Earnot Research Note series, I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can do that. Um certainly as a practitioner, if you're interested in participating by producing uh a research note as part of that series, I'm sure Earnot would absolutely love to hear from you. Um other than that, it just remains to say thanks ever so much for listening. Uh, if you like the podcast and you think other people might, please do recommend it to them. Tell that you know, spread the good word. I think that goes a long way. Uh and other than that, I will see you next time. Bye.