By Eric Hartman

The biggest problem with the global service sector is not reinforcing historic patterns of power, privilege, and paternalism. The biggest problem with the sector is not that voluntourists may inadvertently undermine the development of local industry or unwittingly interfere with local cultural practices and assumptions. It is not that global do-gooders become self-congratulatory after making little tangible impact. These are all real problems, but they do not exist across all programs. Good programs are educative for all involved, capacity-building for community partners, and self-critical and humble. The biggest problem with the sector is this:

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of potential consumers, who see themselves as good people, who know relatively little about community and international development – are interested in purchasing a global service experience. One of the easiest things to sell is the perception of having done good – to a person who sees herself as good and is unfamiliar with the place she visits.

This dynamic presents an opportunity for unscrupulous study abroad and voluntourism companies. Too often, these organizations have no commitments to the communities where they work – and may even lack development experience. Bright photos filled with an exotic background, the appearance of diversity, and smiling children will recruit participants and fill the coffers. This is a problem. And it leads to the reasonable criticisms of shoddy voluntourism like an article featured in The Guardian last week. But too often critiques like this seem to dismiss the whole sector.

That’s short-sighted. Better to look at the research: to see that there is growing work on community impact and responsible partnership and evaluation models; to appreciate that international education scholars are getting better and better at isolating the program factors that support the development of intercultural learning and global citizenship; to see that some organizations are led by Southern partners as much as they are by Northern representatives.

Some of that literature is relevant to the wishes espoused by Ossob Mohamud, the author of last week’s Guardian article. Mohamud suggested:

Time and energy would be better spent building real solidarity between disparate societies based on mutual respect and understanding. Instead of focusing on surface symptoms of poverty, volunteers and the organisations that recruit them should focus on the causes that often stem from an unjust global economic order. Why not advocate and campaign for IMF and World Bank reforms?

“Real solidarity,” the data suggests, results more frequently and to a deeper level of commitment from community-engaged courses than from conventional courses on campus. That initial human connection – which shoddy programs neither deepen nor translate into intercultural understanding and exploration of political connections – is the key toward building a globally conscious person.

If we did not try to responsibly cross cultural and physical borders to better lift and understand one another’s humanity, the world would be poorer for it.

Some faculty have been engaged in this work for many years, are deeply critical of the worst within it, and are willing to work with community partners and researchers to advance the best possible outcomes for communities and participants. We draw on best practices from the field and from related research to ensure the most robust programming possible. Many of us are gathering again soon at the 6th Annual Cornell Institute for Global Service-Learning in Ithaca, NY, from May 29 – May 31. If you’re interested in responsible cross-cultural learning and partnership, I hope to see you there.