- Email: [email protected]
Effective use of volunteers in hospitals, homes and agencies
SC. S:i. & Med. 1972, Vol. 6, pp. 771-781. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain.
BOOK REVIEWS Effective Use of Volunteers in Hospitals, Homes and Agencies by HAROLD P.Kuarzand MARGARETBURROWS. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111.119 pp. (Not priced). Ih: TIMES of crucial social change almost every piece of seriously intended writing is liable to include content about vital issues other than the topic with which it purports to deal. This hidden agenda is often of greater significance than its more obvious counterpart and a fair review must spend as much time on the latent as on the manifest theme. Between this book’s 119 pages on the use of volunteer labor in medical settings lie important, if unintended, statements about two much more fundamental social themes-namely, the current rickety organization of heaith care deiivery in the United States and the glaring mis- or under-utilization of willing and available woman power in this understaffed area of human concern. Because of its split-level message the book ends up as an ambiguous and unequal product, making it difficult to guess the readership it hopes to impress. Especially weak is the confused role ascribed to volunteer labor within the complex settings of modern health care, particularly the polarization of duties between trivial “busy work” that the authors endeavor to endow with significance and responsible tasks that are more properly the province of formally trained, paid help, given this society”s prevailing ethic which measures accountability to efficient work performance by financial reward. This contradiction informs the entire book from the r\nmn;n,- ~‘u#ue10~“‘” ..oW.nr..n~r r.rh;,-l? 0mni3.,r;-m rur,,~>r,‘,r,r,‘ZrJ rnm,.l,WWnnt~~i Y&,C”,L’S Ill,.*,, .#Ur~,,aJ,rr skills applied to enhancing the quality of care to subsequent references to the important supplementation of vital labor which volunteers conveniently provide-such as making good a shortage of nurse aides, repairing equipment and taking electrocardiograms. This reviewer has considerable reservations about the utilization of this free (hobby) labor at a time of increasing unemployment, which would seem to reflect the contradictions inherent in our current value system as shown by expenditure priorities. Imagine, for example, volunteer labor being used on an ABM program, in the manufacture of chemical warfare products or even in the Lunar Space Program. Equally shaky is the way in which the helping potential of women volunteers is presented, revealing as stereotyped and cliche-ridden a perception of female capacmes and roles as you can find anywhere. Figures tell us that of the twenty-two million Americans engaged in volunteer work 95 per cent are women. This gives them a formidable numerical substance which stands in ironic contrast to the list of relatively insignificant activities they are put to work on and the devices resorted to to keep them happy, particularly ways for recognizing their efforts lxhich are embodied in such narcissistic trivia as photographs in the local press. public gatherings. scrolls and pins. The implied sexist tone becomes overt in the s.s.?.!.6/6-H
chapter on male volunteers, both in direct statements and by inference from the more meaningful tasks that are allotted to men. For example, that of “steward” which involves orienting male patients to hospital procedures, including supportive reassurance to surgical patients, contrasts rather sharply with arranging flowers at the reception desk, and explains in part the need for a differential approach to the recruitment and management of the two sexes as epitomized in such sentences as, “Mention hospital volunteers to the average male and visions of pink pinafores dance in his head”. This sexist misperception may indeed be a harsh fact of life but my quarrel with the authors is that their way of presenting women perpetuates a negative image and devalued roles, and in doing this they are uitimateiy robbing themseives and the work for which they are attempting to speak as advocates of a substantial human resource when they could have used this opportunity to reformulate a more efficient concept of volunteer work and found a way for usefully absorbing this massive reservoir of willing, competent and eager-to-go talent. Turning from the book’s hidden social agenda to its more patent assets, among this bric-a-brac of contradictions are some useful insights and practical pieces of advice, which make it a useful instructional manual for administrators whose budget and agency policy oblige them to utilize this source of free manpower. There is a genuine attempt to grapple with the thorny problem of clarifying roles and duties and of prescribing realistic . . i;.W;t%- I~,11I”,CCU m;nt-l\.,-n~ h., l,lll,lJ, “, 8 cmv;nc:ng ,Lrrr;..t;r\n UC*, ‘LJL’“,’ =f the interactional problems that can and will occur when these dynamite constituents are not clearly diagnosed and unequivocally spelt out. The hazards of role confusion that ensure when a socially well-placed personal friend of the Board of Trustees assumes the humbler status and unglamorous tasks of volunteer are mentioned quite frankly and the persistent emphasis on providing a rational orientation, systematic work program and training is a praiseworthy effort to inculcate some professional attitudes and behavior into a volunteer corps who will be engaged in quasi-professional activities. The book is at its best in these cookbook chapters (IV, V, VII, VIII, IX and X) because the authors speak from first-hand experience of a de facto operation and their writing style reflects this confidence and lack of ambiguity. However, given the enomlous reservoir of person power (women, children and men) they cite as available to health agencies, this reviewer cannot escape a feeling of regret that the authors did not take this opportunity to formulate more innovative ways of using volunteers on projects that are outside the scope of orthodox provision. MARGARET Eunice Kennedy Shricer Center, Wafter E. Fernafd State School, Wacerley, Mass.
771
ADAMS,M.A.
BOOK REVIEWS Effective Use of Volunteers in Hospitals, Homes and Agencies by HAROLD P.Kuarzand MARGARETBURROWS. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111.119 pp. (Not priced). Ih: TIMES of crucial social change almost every piece of seriously intended writing is liable to include content about vital issues other than the topic with which it purports to deal. This hidden agenda is often of greater significance than its more obvious counterpart and a fair review must spend as much time on the latent as on the manifest theme. Between this book’s 119 pages on the use of volunteer labor in medical settings lie important, if unintended, statements about two much more fundamental social themes-namely, the current rickety organization of heaith care deiivery in the United States and the glaring mis- or under-utilization of willing and available woman power in this understaffed area of human concern. Because of its split-level message the book ends up as an ambiguous and unequal product, making it difficult to guess the readership it hopes to impress. Especially weak is the confused role ascribed to volunteer labor within the complex settings of modern health care, particularly the polarization of duties between trivial “busy work” that the authors endeavor to endow with significance and responsible tasks that are more properly the province of formally trained, paid help, given this society”s prevailing ethic which measures accountability to efficient work performance by financial reward. This contradiction informs the entire book from the r\nmn;n,- ~‘u#ue10~“‘” ..oW.nr..n~r r.rh;,-l? 0mni3.,r;-m rur,,~>r,‘,r,r,‘ZrJ rnm,.l,WWnnt~~i Y&,C”,L’S Ill,.*,, .#Ur~,,aJ,rr skills applied to enhancing the quality of care to subsequent references to the important supplementation of vital labor which volunteers conveniently provide-such as making good a shortage of nurse aides, repairing equipment and taking electrocardiograms. This reviewer has considerable reservations about the utilization of this free (hobby) labor at a time of increasing unemployment, which would seem to reflect the contradictions inherent in our current value system as shown by expenditure priorities. Imagine, for example, volunteer labor being used on an ABM program, in the manufacture of chemical warfare products or even in the Lunar Space Program. Equally shaky is the way in which the helping potential of women volunteers is presented, revealing as stereotyped and cliche-ridden a perception of female capacmes and roles as you can find anywhere. Figures tell us that of the twenty-two million Americans engaged in volunteer work 95 per cent are women. This gives them a formidable numerical substance which stands in ironic contrast to the list of relatively insignificant activities they are put to work on and the devices resorted to to keep them happy, particularly ways for recognizing their efforts lxhich are embodied in such narcissistic trivia as photographs in the local press. public gatherings. scrolls and pins. The implied sexist tone becomes overt in the s.s.?.!.6/6-H
chapter on male volunteers, both in direct statements and by inference from the more meaningful tasks that are allotted to men. For example, that of “steward” which involves orienting male patients to hospital procedures, including supportive reassurance to surgical patients, contrasts rather sharply with arranging flowers at the reception desk, and explains in part the need for a differential approach to the recruitment and management of the two sexes as epitomized in such sentences as, “Mention hospital volunteers to the average male and visions of pink pinafores dance in his head”. This sexist misperception may indeed be a harsh fact of life but my quarrel with the authors is that their way of presenting women perpetuates a negative image and devalued roles, and in doing this they are uitimateiy robbing themseives and the work for which they are attempting to speak as advocates of a substantial human resource when they could have used this opportunity to reformulate a more efficient concept of volunteer work and found a way for usefully absorbing this massive reservoir of willing, competent and eager-to-go talent. Turning from the book’s hidden social agenda to its more patent assets, among this bric-a-brac of contradictions are some useful insights and practical pieces of advice, which make it a useful instructional manual for administrators whose budget and agency policy oblige them to utilize this source of free manpower. There is a genuine attempt to grapple with the thorny problem of clarifying roles and duties and of prescribing realistic . . i;.W;t%- I~,11I”,CCU m;nt-l\.,-n~ h., l,lll,lJ, “, 8 cmv;nc:ng ,Lrrr;..t;r\n UC*, ‘LJL’“,’ =f the interactional problems that can and will occur when these dynamite constituents are not clearly diagnosed and unequivocally spelt out. The hazards of role confusion that ensure when a socially well-placed personal friend of the Board of Trustees assumes the humbler status and unglamorous tasks of volunteer are mentioned quite frankly and the persistent emphasis on providing a rational orientation, systematic work program and training is a praiseworthy effort to inculcate some professional attitudes and behavior into a volunteer corps who will be engaged in quasi-professional activities. The book is at its best in these cookbook chapters (IV, V, VII, VIII, IX and X) because the authors speak from first-hand experience of a de facto operation and their writing style reflects this confidence and lack of ambiguity. However, given the enomlous reservoir of person power (women, children and men) they cite as available to health agencies, this reviewer cannot escape a feeling of regret that the authors did not take this opportunity to formulate more innovative ways of using volunteers on projects that are outside the scope of orthodox provision. MARGARET Eunice Kennedy Shricer Center, Wafter E. Fernafd State School, Wacerley, Mass.
771
ADAMS,M.A.