Citizen science in management research: Practical insights from the Volunteer Environment Check (VEC)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60733/PMGR.2026.03Keywords:
citizen science, third mission, volunteering, satisfaction, managerial practices, civil society organizationsAbstract
We developed and pilot-tested the Volunteer Environment Check (VEC) to address the dual challenge of (1) resource-constrained civil society organizations needing evidence-based volunteer management practices and (2) academic researchers seeking reciprocal engagement with practitioners. VEC is a tool that employs a citizen science approach to bridge the gap between academic evidence and organizational practices. Collaborating closely with 20 civil society organizations, we designed and administered a survey to volunteers. Moreover, we developed a semi-automated reporting system using Qualtrics and R Quarto, and we organized interactive citizen science workshops to discuss findings in detail with representatives of participating organizations. In this article, we report on our findings from this citizen science pilot project and provide recommendations for practitioners and social science researchers who plan to conduct research in a similar manner. Our main insights can be summarized as follows: participating organizations have been empowered to shift from undirected improvement initiatives toward evidence-informed strategic priorities. Further developing this approach can enable managers to identify which dimensions of volunteer satisfaction require targeted action within their unique organizational contexts. Beyond immediate organizational learning, our pilot study also demonstrates the viability and scalability of citizen science approaches to support the improvement of third-sector management and governance. Finally, critical self-reflection has helped us identify further opportunities for scaling and scope growth in applying a citizen science approach in management studies and in social sciences in general.
References
[1] S. Dury, “Dynamics in motivations and reasons to quit in a Care Bank: a qualitative study in Belgium,” Eur J Ageing, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 407–416, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10433-017-0455-y.
[2] A. Kewes and C. Munsch, “Should I stay or should I go? engaging and disengaging experiences in welfare-sector volunteering,” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1090–1103, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11266-019-00122-7.
[3] J. Willems, “The volunteer satisfaction model: a practical framework to improve volunteer management practices,” 2013.
[4] K. Meyfroodt and J. Willems, “Pairing mean scores with consensus metrics: extending managers’ toolkit for decision-making,” European Management Review, vol. n/a, no. n/a, 2025, doi: 10.1111/emre.70020.
[5] Socientize project, “Socientize white paper on citizen science for Europe.” European Commission, 2014.
[6] D. Holtrop, C. Soo, M. Gagné, D. Kragt, P. D. Dunlop, and A. Luksyte, “Exploring volunteer turnover reasons, intentions, and behavior,” Group & Organization Management, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 641–685, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1177/10596011241237841.
[7] L. Hustinx, “I quit, therefore I am?: volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 236–255, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1177/0899764008328183.
[8] M. Blyth, Austerity: the history of a dangerous idea. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[9] I. A. Moosa, Publish or perish, 2nd ed. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024. Accessed: Feb. 24, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/publish-or-perish-9781035307791.html
[10] Open Society Foundations [OSF] (previously known as Open Society Institute), “Budapest Open Access Initiative.” 2002. Accessed: Feb. 24, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
[11] L. Meijs and P. Hendriks, New trends in the development of volunteering in the European Union. Brussels: EESC, 2022.
[12] J. Willems and K. Meyfroodt, Consensus management – social and analytic opportunities in organizations. Ghent, Belgium: Academia Press / Uitgeverij Lannoo, 2026. Accessed: Feb. 18, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Consensusmanagement/Jurgen-Willems/Academia-Press/9789059961227
[13] M. Kim and P. Raggo, “Volume II: A changing third sector research landscape—progress or pitfall?” Voluntas, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 4–11, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11266-022-00555-7.
[14] M. Fricker, “Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing,” Analysis, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 380–382, 2009, doi: 10.1093/analys/anp028.
[15] L. Herzog and R. Lepenies, “Citizen science in deliberative systems: participation, epistemic injustice, and civic empowerment,” Minerva, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 489–508, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11024-022-09467-8.
[16] K. Vohland et al., Eds., The science of citizen science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4
[17] M. Gold, “ECSA 10 principles of citizen science,” Aug. 2022, doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N.
[18] S. Pearce and E. Kristjansson, “Perceptions of the physical and social neighborhood environment,” 2019.
[19] Y. Zhu, “Toward community engagement: can the built environment help? Grassroots participation and communal space in Chinese urban communities,” Habitat International, vol. 46, pp. 44–53, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.013.
[20] E. Abrokwah, P. Rachayeeta, E. Affum-Osei, G. Yeboah, C. Agyare, and E. A. Boadi, “Engaging in unpaid jobs out of free will: an attribution theory perspective on the effects of supervisor support attributions on volunteers’ service quality,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 74, p. 103386, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103386.
[21] J. Oostlander, S. T. Güntert, S. Van Schie, and T. Wehner, “Leadership and volunteer motivation: a study using self-determination theory,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 869–889, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1177/0899764013485158.
[22] Q. Miao, J. Huang, Y. He, and C. Pan, “‘Volunteers are incompetent’: how the stereotype of incompetence impacts new volunteer’s participation,” Public Management Review, pp. 1–24, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2024.2436049.
[23] P. Zappa and E. Zavarrone, “Social interaction and volunteer satisfaction: an exploratory study in primary healthcare,” Int Rev Econ, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 215–231, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s12232-010-0095-4.
[24] D. C. K. Tse, “Volunteers’ felt respect and its associations with volunteering retention, daily affect, well-being, and mortality,” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, vol. 75, no. 8, pp. 1625–1636, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1093/geronb/gby117.
[25] S.-Y. Chen et al., “The effects of training on older volunteers’ skill competency, volunteer motivation, self-efficacy, and work satisfaction: a cluster randomized trial,” Journal of Gerontological Social Work, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 697–718, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1080/01634372.2025.2465252.
[26] R. Fullwood and J. Rowley, “The role of knowledge sharing in volunteer learning and development,” Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 121–139, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1002/nml.21466.
[27] C. Panter-Brick, L. Qtaishat, J. J. Eggerman, H. Thomas, P. Kumar, and R. Dajani, “Volunteer programs, empowerment, and life satisfaction in Jordan: mapping local knowledge and systems change to inform public policy and science diplomacy,” Front. Sociol., vol. 9, p. 1371760, May 2024, doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1371760.
