This is a serious issue that deserves attention.=20 Darroch Whitaker published an article in 2003=20 that discusses the problem. I'm pasting the=20 citation and first paragraph below. =3DCarola
Darroch M. Whitaker (2003) The Use of Full-Time Volunteers and Interns by Natural-Resource Professional= s Conservation Biology 17 (1), 330-333. The natural-resource profession relies on=20 volunteers and interns-who are typically=20 compensated at levels far below minimum wage-to=20 carry out many research, management, and=20 conservation activities. In some cases these=20 positions involve part-time or short-term=20 service, during which an individual need not=20 forego outside opportunities for paid work. Such=20 experiences can be rewarding and educational and=20 are filled by students, retirees, vacationers,=20 individuals working full time in other=20 professions, and amateur naturalists. Because=20 these individuals usually have an outside source=20 of income and their time commitment is limited,=20 their service is unlikely to lead to financial=20 hardship. Many other volunteer and internship=20 positions require that individuals live in remote=20 areas and work =8440 hours per week, effectively=20 denying them the opportunity to earn outside=20 wages. Most often these full-time positions are=20 filled by aspiring natural-resource professionals=20 ( e.g., students or recent graduates ) who need=20 workplace experience if they are to advance to=20 graduate school or more lucrative jobs.=20 Consequently, employers often consider work=20 experience adequate compensation for wage=20 shortfalls. This latter group-entry-level=20 professionals in full-time positions-is the focus=20 of this essay. I believe that our widespread use=20 of volunteers and interns to compensate for=20 budget shortfalls does our profession more harm=20 than good. In many cases this approach is in=20 conflict with labor law, hinders the development=20 of new professionals, undermines our profession's=20 credibility, and is an impediment to achieving=20 our conservation goals. Evidence that I am not=20 alone in my concern was provided by a recent=20 debate on this topic on The Wildlife Society's=20 email discussion list ( [EMAIL PROTECTED];=20 October 25-30, 2001;>70 postings by>50 members ).=20 Although a minority of contributors spoke out in=20 defense of the status quo, many more were sharply=20 critical of our current use of volunteers and=20 interns. At 11:11 AM -0400 5/23/07, Juan Vilata wrote: >Dear all, > >My name's Juan Vilata and I'm a biologist from Spain. Since I obtained my >degree I've been trying (more or less successfully) to develop a >professional career as a field biologist. The reason why I'm writing now to >the ECOLOG-L is that, in these last years, I've noted that it is becoming >increasingly difficult to find paid positions as a field technician or >field assistant. And the reason for this is that many of the potential >positions are presently offered as volunteer positions, that is, working >for no salary at all. Besides, many of such announcements state that the >selected applicant is not only expected to work for free for the project, >but also, that he/she must pay the entire expenses regarding travel, food >and lodging. >Furthermore: in those cases in which the project is carried out in >protected areas that require fees for developing research projects within >them, the volunteers are also expected to pay for these expenses. The usual >argument is that these fees are quite low, around 10 $ per day or so; but >however, if the project is planned to extend for three months, for example, >this means that an extra 300 $ must be payed by the applicant -adding to >the costs previously mentioned. > >In other words: it's not just about working for free; actually, what all >this does mean is paying for being allowed to work! > >My claim is that this situation is unbearable. I mean, volunteering is OK >when one is a college/undergraduate student looking for experience. But, at >the end of the day, people must earn their living and simply cannot afford >to live continuously jumping from one volunteering to the next one. The >only choice for us who are neither lottery winners nor rich heirs, is to >work part of the year somewhere outside the biological fieldwork area -and >try to save enough for volunteering the rest of the year. > >I'm well aware of the fierce competence existing for the studentships and >project grants. Also, there seems to be a worldwide tendence to reduce the >public investment in basic fieldwork research. Which leads to researchers >and graduate students coping with project budgets which are clearly too >short to cover all the involved expenses. Thus, the first and most obvious >step is to avoid hiring professional staff and use volunteer assistants >instead. > >So I'm not accusing anybody -obviously neither the students, nor the >professors who guide their projects. It is clear that this problem climbs >up to the political and administrative levels. I'm just trying to state >that, if this situation persists, the concept of field biologist will >change- it won't be a vocational choice anymore, but only a privilege of >those with big bank accounts. > >Thanks for your attention, and best wishes, > > >Juan Vilata-Sim=F3n -- Carola A. Haas Associate Professor, Wildlife Ecology Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences MC 0321 112 Cheatham Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-9269 direct phone line 540-231-7580 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.fishwild.vt.edu
