**3.4.3 Generation of C-space plots: Concept of equivalent circle**

In order to compute c-space data points for any particular combination of consecutive jointvariable pair for the higher dimensional robot, we would use a new concept, viz. the formulation of *Equivalent Circle* at the end of amidst the pair of links. Since we are considering *virtual two-link mini-manipulators* for the generation of c-space maps in pair, we would theoretically divide the links in two groups. The links, directly related to the generation of the specific c-space map, are termed as *active links*, while the others are known as *dummy links*. The philosophy of this equivalent circle is to re-represent the higher dimensional manipulator with only the active links and the joints therein, interfaced with circular zone(s) either at the bottom of the first active link or at the tip of the second active link. In general, the equivalent circles are constructed considering full rotational freedom of all the dummy links, located before /after the active links.

For example, if we wish to generate [1 -- 2] plot for the seven d.o.f. manipulator, then the *equivalent circle* alias *equivalent formidable zone* is to be constructed adjacent to the end the second link and circumscribing the remaining links. Figure 11 schematically presents the concept of *equivalent formidable zone*, with first two links as active links for a seven d.o.f. manipulator.

Fig. 11. Schematic view of equivalent formidable zone for a seven d.o.f. manipulator

However it is possible to have two *equivalent formidable zones* in cases where some intermediate links are considered for c-space plots. For example, if the third & fourth links of the manipulator become active links, then there will be two formidable zones, as

Spatial Path Planning of Static Robots Using Configuration Space Metrics 433

Fig. 13. Schematic showing the analytical layout for the evaluation of equivalent radius

Fig. 14. Locations of the base for the two link virtual robot with respect to equivalent circle

viz. when the obstacle is a] within the range of both Lk & Lk+1 and b] outside the range of Lk. Now, considering the first link of the virtual robot is just able to touch the obstacle we can get two extreme positions for the base, e.g. 'C1' & 'C2'. As explained earlier, the point 'C' is the other location for the base, situated on the least path. From geometry, we can assign 'D',

[type I]

[type I]

illustrated in fig. 12. Of course, as per this proposition, there can't be more than two formidable zones for any higher dimensional manipulator.

Fig. 12. Occurrence of two equivalent formidable zones for a seven d.o.f. manipulator

It is essential to locate the center of the *equivalent circle* vis-à-vis its radius (equivalent radius, Req.), in order to start computing for colliding combinations. However, the formulations for equivalent radii are not same in the two cases, as cited in figs. 11 & 12. In fact, the center of the equivalent circle, for cases wherein active links are followed by dummy links, will be at the base of the manipulator and its radius will be the summation of the lengths of the dummy links till we reach the first active link. For example, Req. 1 in fig. 12 will be the added sum of L1 & L2. Figure 13 shows the computational backup for the evaluation of the *radius* of the equivalent formidable zone /circle in this case, nomenclated as *equivalent radius [type I].*

Although finding center and calculating equivalent radius [type I] is straight -forward, evaluation of the new *base* for the *virtual two-link robot* is critical. For example, as shown in fig. 12, we need to find out the possible location of the base for the virtual robot, comprising of L3 & L4. This has been explained in fig. 14, wherein we adopt a methodology, called *Least Path*. The least path(s) is/are the straight line-segment(s) joining the centers of equivalent circle [type I] and the obstacles in the vicinity of the virtual robot. The respective locations for the base of the virtual robot will be the point of intersection of the least path and the equivalent circle. Thus, as per fig. 14, there will be three base-points, viz. 'Cp', 'Cq' & 'Cr' corresponding to three obstacles, vide 'p', 'q' & 'r', which are situated within the limit-zone of the virtual robot with links Lk & Lk+1. However, this location of the base can range between two extreme points, as detailed in the inset of fig. 14. Two cases may appear here,

illustrated in fig. 12. Of course, as per this proposition, there can't be more than two

Fig. 12. Occurrence of two equivalent formidable zones for a seven d.o.f. manipulator

as *equivalent radius [type I].*

It is essential to locate the center of the *equivalent circle* vis-à-vis its radius (equivalent radius, Req.), in order to start computing for colliding combinations. However, the formulations for equivalent radii are not same in the two cases, as cited in figs. 11 & 12. In fact, the center of the equivalent circle, for cases wherein active links are followed by dummy links, will be at the base of the manipulator and its radius will be the summation of the lengths of the dummy links till we reach the first active link. For example, Req. 1 in fig. 12 will be the added sum of L1 & L2. Figure 13 shows the computational backup for the evaluation of the *radius* of the equivalent formidable zone /circle in this case, nomenclated

Although finding center and calculating equivalent radius [type I] is straight -forward, evaluation of the new *base* for the *virtual two-link robot* is critical. For example, as shown in fig. 12, we need to find out the possible location of the base for the virtual robot, comprising of L3 & L4. This has been explained in fig. 14, wherein we adopt a methodology, called *Least Path*. The least path(s) is/are the straight line-segment(s) joining the centers of equivalent circle [type I] and the obstacles in the vicinity of the virtual robot. The respective locations for the base of the virtual robot will be the point of intersection of the least path and the equivalent circle. Thus, as per fig. 14, there will be three base-points, viz. 'Cp', 'Cq' & 'Cr' corresponding to three obstacles, vide 'p', 'q' & 'r', which are situated within the limit-zone of the virtual robot with links Lk & Lk+1. However, this location of the base can range between two extreme points, as detailed in the inset of fig. 14. Two cases may appear here,

formidable zones for any higher dimensional manipulator.

Fig. 13. Schematic showing the analytical layout for the evaluation of equivalent radius [type I]

Fig. 14. Locations of the base for the two link virtual robot with respect to equivalent circle [type I]

viz. when the obstacle is a] within the range of both Lk & Lk+1 and b] outside the range of Lk. Now, considering the first link of the virtual robot is just able to touch the obstacle we can get two extreme positions for the base, e.g. 'C1' & 'C2'. As explained earlier, the point 'C' is the other location for the base, situated on the least path. From geometry, we can assign 'D',

Spatial Path Planning of Static Robots Using Configuration Space Metrics 435

Fig. 16. Schematic showing the analytical layout for the evaluation of equivalent radius

Here we will study a specific case for a seven degrees-of-freedom robot, amidst a 2D cluttered environment as shown in fig. 17. The technical parameters of the robot, comprising link-lengths, {li, i = 1,2,…7}and joint limits {i, i = 1,2,…7), are highlighted in Table 2. Circular obstacles are considered for simplicity in computations. The locations of the respective centers and diameters of the obstacles (expressed in suitable units) are presented

l1=15.52; l2=14.87; l3=13.04; l4=12.54; l5=9.0; l6=5.22 & l7=8.0

1: -200 to 1400; 2: 00 to 1200; 3: 00 to 800; 4: -50 to 900;

5: 100 to 500; 6: -50 to 550; 7: 50 to 350

**3.5 Evaluation of C-space plots for higher dimensional robot: Example**

Table 2. Technical Facets of the Higher Dimensional Robot Under Consideration

[type II]

in Table 3.

units]

(Anticlockwise)

Type of Robot Considered Revolute

Co-ordinates of the Robot Base xb = 10; yb = 10

Resolution of Joint Rotation 3 deg. (for all joints)

No. of Links 7 No. of Degrees -of- Freedom 7 Length of the Links [in suitable

Ranges of Rotation of the Joints

which is numerically equal to either Lk or Lk+1, depending upon which link is colliding with that obstacle. The collidable range of joint-angles, corresponding to 'C', 'C1' & 'C2' will be (- ), (1-1) & (2-2) respectively. Thus, in general a formidable range from 2 to 1 should be selected for c-space mapping in (k --k+1) plot.

In contrary to this situation, the other one, namely where dummy links are followed by active links, is more intricate so far the thematic is concerned. Figure 15 explains this case of evaluating *equivalent radius [type II],* the corresponding circular zone being *optimized* between two extremes, viz. maximum and minimum formidable zones. The minimum formidable zone is a circular space, tangent to the work-zone limit circle at 'A' while the maximum formidable zone is a semi-circular area, with two opposite extremities as 'Z1' & 'Z2'. Several feasible formidable zones are theoretically possible in-between, with pair of *chordal endpoints* as [B1 – B1\*] or [B2 – B2\*] etc. It may be noted that all the three formidable zones, namely the minimum, maximum & optimum, share the common vertex 'V'.

Fig. 15. Schematic showing the disposition of the equivalent formidable circle [type II]

The *equivalent radius [type II]* is evaluated using geometrical attributes, as detailed in fig. 16. Here, the points 'A', 'C' & 'Cm' represent the locations of the centers of the maximum, equivalent & minimum formidable zones respectively. As evident from the figure, the ratio between the two line-segments, viz. the semi-chordal length of the equivalent circle and the radius of the maximum formidable zone is 'k', where 0<k<1. In-line with the numerical evaluation of 'Req.', the location of the center, 'C' can be determined also.5

5 The location of the center is determined by evaluating the length of the line-segment, AC, which is numerically equal to [(1-k2)/2]Lj and it is also at a distance of (k2/2)Lj from the center of the minimum formidable zone, i.e. 'Cm'.

which is numerically equal to either Lk or Lk+1, depending upon which link is colliding with that obstacle. The collidable range of joint-angles, corresponding to 'C', 'C1' & 'C2' will be (- ), (1-1) & (2-2) respectively. Thus, in general a formidable range from 2 to 1 should be

In contrary to this situation, the other one, namely where dummy links are followed by active links, is more intricate so far the thematic is concerned. Figure 15 explains this case of evaluating *equivalent radius [type II],* the corresponding circular zone being *optimized* between two extremes, viz. maximum and minimum formidable zones. The minimum formidable zone is a circular space, tangent to the work-zone limit circle at 'A' while the maximum formidable zone is a semi-circular area, with two opposite extremities as 'Z1' & 'Z2'. Several feasible formidable zones are theoretically possible in-between, with pair of *chordal endpoints* as [B1 – B1\*] or [B2 – B2\*] etc. It may be noted that all the three formidable zones,

namely the minimum, maximum & optimum, share the common vertex 'V'.

Fig. 15. Schematic showing the disposition of the equivalent formidable circle [type II]

evaluation of 'Req.', the location of the center, 'C' can be determined also.5

minimum formidable zone, i.e. 'Cm'.

The *equivalent radius [type II]* is evaluated using geometrical attributes, as detailed in fig. 16. Here, the points 'A', 'C' & 'Cm' represent the locations of the centers of the maximum, equivalent & minimum formidable zones respectively. As evident from the figure, the ratio between the two line-segments, viz. the semi-chordal length of the equivalent circle and the radius of the maximum formidable zone is 'k', where 0<k<1. In-line with the numerical

5 The location of the center is determined by evaluating the length of the line-segment, AC, which is numerically equal to [(1-k2)/2]Lj and it is also at a distance of (k2/2)Lj from the center of the

selected for c-space mapping in (k --k+1) plot.

Fig. 16. Schematic showing the analytical layout for the evaluation of equivalent radius [type II]


*Article* **The Social Responsibility among Higher Education Students**

### **Emese Beáta Berei**

Social Work Program, Emanuel University of Oradea, 410597 Oradea, Romania<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Received: 6 February 2020; Accepted: 23 February 2020; Published: 9 March 2020

**Abstract:** The aim of this research is to emphasize the importance of education for the philanthropic responsibilities of students. The basic term of the explanatory research is corporate social responsibility, adapted for higher education institutions—the philanthropic responsibilities of students, their implication on charity organization memberships or volunteering activities, and their motivation to help others. Special attention was given to the following questions: Are students involved in charity organization activities or voluntary work? Are there any differences between state and private universities regarding the philanthropic activities of students? How frequently, where, and why are they involved in volunteering? What is the latent structure of students' motivations? The quantitative international survey dates were collected by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Development from Debrecen University, Hungary, and the present examination focuses on the sample from Romania. Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software, first, through a longitudinal perspective, Romanian students' implications from state and private institutions were compared. Second, the paper analyzes the characteristics of volunteering and student's motivations. The conclusions present significant differences between state and private institutions. Students traditional motivations, i.e., to help others, were very common and connected with relational and self-development intentions. This mixed motivational factor was different from the global motivational factor (to learn new languages and to discover new cultures).

**Keywords:** higher education students; social responsibility; private and state institutions; Romania

#### **1. Introduction**

The general term of corporate social responsibility has an under-researched dimension—the philanthropic responsibility, or the voluntary contribution to improve the quality life of the community [1]. Adapting this term for an academic context, this paper proposes to study students' implication in charity organization memberships or volunteering activities. These responsibilities constitute an important part on their socialization, their integration into society. Formal education in universities, usually focusing on knowledge, learning performance, or success, neglect the role of out-of-university learning [2]. The education for social responsibilities is a rather new phenomenon in Romania, because it is a post-communist country, where in the last century all private individual or institutional initiatives were stopped for forty years. Today, it has become a necessity to study this topic focusing on the young generation.

The concept of this paper was presented on The European Conference on Educational Research—ECER 2019 Hamburg, Germany.

#### *1.1. Social Responsibility Adapted for Academic Context*

Romania is a Central-Eastern state where, since 1948–1949 till 1989, the communist regime quenched independent community activities, and philanthropic NGOs stopped functioning for 40 years. After the democratic change in 1989, the non-profit sector restarted legal activities especially with international support, decreasing after the European Union affiliation in 2007 [3].  However, at the same time, Romania has the largest share of private support, measured as the share of non-profit revenues from private philanthropy [4]. The Romanian state neglected to finance the private sector, and internal philanthropic support was insufficient. For this reason, big international NGOs organized projects to bear the social responsibility of the communities [3].

In Romania, in 2010, there were a total of 66,804 NGOs, the biggest numbers functioning on social-charity activities [5]. The first volunteering law was adopted in 2001 and changed in 2014 through the promulgation of the law no. 78/2014. Volunteering is the participation of a volunteer person in activities of public interest carried out for the benefit of other persons or of the community, organized by legal entities of state or NGOs, without remuneration, individually or in groups. It is carried out in areas such as art and culture, sports and recreation, education and research, environmental protection, health, social assistance, religion, civic activism, human rights, humanitarian and/or philanthropic aid, community development, and social development. It is carried out on the basis of a voluntary contract and is the agreement concluded between a volunteer and the host organization, under which the first party commits itself to perform an activity of public interest, without being remunerated, and the second party obliges to offer an activity suitable for the volunteer application or preparation. Voluntary activity is considered professional and/or in the specialty experience, depending on the type of activity, if it is carried out in the field of graduate studies [6].

Charity organizations (philanthropic NGOs) are non-education profile institutions, parts of the non-profit sectors, independent from the state, and altruistic organizations that provide specific social assistance for disadvantaged groups on the community [7]. The social networks of private charity organizations point to the potential benefits of social capital resources in maximizing the positive effects of an educational environment for disadvantaged children [8]. These organizations can be supporting actors in the education of students. Socialization in different communities is a learning process and the norms and the values of these communities have individual and academic benefits [9]. By increasing the implication of students in voluntary activities, the prejudices of people decrease and the cooperation between different ethnically or cultural groups increase [10]. In our society, one negative effect of globalization is the social isolation of children and young people. At the individual level, social immaturity problems are connected with relational un-responsibilities [11,12]. On the other hand, students are not prepared professionals or citizens for the challenges of the technological society [13].

In this paper, the implication of students in charity organizations membership or volunteering activities was connected with the term social responsibility developed especially for a business context. Corporate social responsibility refers to environmental protection and renewable energy development, but on the same time, philanthropic support, social engagement or action too. These are for the benefit of greater society and it can be measured at individual or institutional level. In the social sciences, the external and internal institutional dimensions are more researched than the individual level [14–16].

The theory of corporate social responsibility is based on a Caroll pyramid with four levels: economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities are management's obligations, but philanthropic is more voluntary. Philanthropic responsibilities, at the top level of the pyramid, means a contribution to improve the life of the community. To play by the rules of the game, to be legal is an obligation, but to contribute with resources for the benefit of the community is a voluntary act [1]. Corporate volunteering or employee volunteering means the implication of a company with different activities to improve community life. Corporate volunteering allows workers to work as volunteers during the program, provided with additional material or logistical assistance. This can be realized through the partnerships between companies and non-profit organizations [17].

Figure 1 represents the adaptation of the theory of corporate social responsibility for academic context. The basic student responsibility is the learning goal of the formal education—to participate and be successful in education process. Concerning ethical responsibilities, universities focus on the micro-ethics of students (the ethical issues of the profession and the research practice), neglecting the organizational, social, legal, and political context. In being taught social responsibility, students will learn the macro-ethical aspect of the work. In this learning process, the connection with external partners is an important step [12]. Students' philanthropic responsibility means volunteer contribution to improve the quality of the life of others belonging to the community.

**Figure 1.** The Caroll pyramid adapted for academic context.

#### *1.2. Students Volunteering Motivations*

Starting from the general differences between the formal and non-formal learning, the non-formal education of students take place in institutions out of classes on structured programs where the learning is not evaluated. Students' participation is usually voluntary, and their motivations are more intrinsic comparing with the formal learning motivations (typically extrinsic). The informal, spontaneous learning is present everywhere [2].

This paper also examines the students' volunteering motivations. Ferreira at al. in 2012 identified the following four different categories of volunteers' motivations:

The traditional altruistic motivations constitute a special category and influence the volunteers' intrinsic satisfaction (task consequence) and not specifically the extrinsic satisfaction (action consequence). The intrinsic satisfaction is connected with the opportunity that organizations offer personal development to volunteering students [17].

Earlier country-comparative research results show that, in 2012 and later in 2015, in the cross border region between Hungary and Romania, just a small proportion of students were members on NGOs, volunteering groups, charity organizations or churches. On the other hand, Romanian higher education students were significantly more engaged in volunteering activities than Hungarian or Slovakian peers [19–21]. Analyzing the latent structure of students' civic engagement (memberships on NGOs, volunteering groups, churches, cultural, sport or political commitment), the results of statistical analysis revealed a connection between sport or political organizational affiliation, different from NGOs, volunteering, or faith-based engagements. This result tends either to increase or to decrease the competitive or equitable attitudes of them [22]. Examining the differences between teacher and non-teacher education students' volunteering in Hungarian, Romanian, and Ukrainian higher education institutions, the conclusion was that the type of the education does not significantly influence student's implication [23]. Combining the students' works values and the different types of volunteering, five cluster groups were identified (careerists with postmodern features, unmotivated, highly motivated, volunteers in an anti-volunteering climate and helping new type volunteers) and it has been found that work values and volunteering are significantly connected [21].

This paper aims to create the scientific environment of adapting the theory of corporate responsibility in higher education, where all responsibilities of the students' education: learning, legal, ethical and philanthropic, could be studied in the same context. The universities are competitive institutions with special ethical and legal rules, where the basis of the education is to teach students to perform, and at the same time act legally and ethically within university programs. In the same time, social responsibilities include philanthropic responsibilities, and education in this regard contributes to altruism and improves the life of the community. Non-formal learning through volunteering in charity organizations, and out-of-university responsibilities, are significantly influencing students' socialization and integration in the community, but also contribute to social cohesion, as well.

Starting from the theoretical framework outlined above, the research focus was on the philanthropic dimension of the general concept of corporate social responsibility. Adapting to academic context, the aim of the paper was to study the implication of higher education students in charity membership and volunteering. The research questions were: Are Romanian students involved in charity organization activities or voluntary work? Is there any difference regarding implication of students from state and private universities? How frequently, where, and why are students involved in these activities? What can we conclude about their motivations?

#### **2. Methodological Approach and Student Group Characteristics**

The quantitative international survey data used in this analysis was collected and made available by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Development from Debrecen University, Hungary (CHERD-H). This research center leads international projects in the field of higher education in the border regions of Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine (http://cherd.unideb.hu/eng/). The big data bases was collected in 2012 and 2015 by international projects HERD (Higher Education for Social Cohesion Cooperative Research and Development in a Cross-Border Area Project HURO/0901/253/2.2.2.) with case number N = 2728, and by IESA (Institutional Effects on Students' Achievement 2015—Research Application of the University of Debrecen RH/885/2013), N = 2017. The characteristics of these data bases is described officially in [24,25]. The CHERD-H formulates almost the same questions for students regarding civic engagement, starting from 2008, and has partnerships with universities in the cross-border regions [20]. The present research uses the study sample from five Romanian higher education institutions, presented through Table 1, making distinction between state and private sectors.

**Table 1.** Higher education institutions from Romania included in examination.

The researched area included the Carpathian Basin, where the language-instruction of institutions was Romanian (University of Oradea and Emanuel University Oradea), Hungarian (Partium Christian University Oradea and Sapientia University of Transylvania) and Babes-Bolyai University from Cluj, which has mixes language-instruction. In 2012, in the subsample were included 714 students from state institutions and 543 from private higher education institutions. In 2015 the number of students from state universities was 153 and from private institutions 166.

Table 2 presents the demographic and academic characteristics of students included in examinations. The investigated population of HERD project in 2012 and IESA project in 2015 were mostly females (the score of males was 373% in 2012 and 16.4% in 2015). Most of the respondents were entry year students at the Bachelor of Science (BSc) level of study, learning in full-time program, financed by the state, and their average age of was approximatively 22 years.

**Table 2.** The students' demographic and academic characteristics.

During the examination, it was first presumed that private institution students were much more engaged in volunteering activities and charity organization memberships than students from state institutions. In this part, the focus was on a longitudinal perspective on charity organizations membership and volunteering, comparing state and private students' implication. Second, we exanimated students' motivations in volunteering using SPSS statistical program to compare the groups (statistical techniques—chi-square test and ANOVA test) and to explore relationships among variables (the techniques of factor analyses) [26].

#### **3. Results**

Figure 2 depicts the participation of students' membership in charity groups or organizations in 2012 and 2015, presented as a percentage. We can observe that, in three years, the engagement of students was nearly doubled, and it is important to highlight the big score of students (nearly half of them in 2012 and more than half in 2015) who were not members of charity organizations, but they were willing to become members.

**Figure 2.** Score for students' engagement in charity membership (%). Source: HERD 2012 (N = 1252) and IESA 2015 (N = 307).

The bar graphs in Figure 3 also suggest an increased score of participation of students in volunteering activities from 2012 till 2015. These figures clearly demonstrate that only 38.8% of students have been involved in volunteering in 2012, but in 2015, the data shows an increased participation up to 57.3%.

**Figure 3.** Score of students' volunteering (%). Sources: HERD 2012 (N = 1252) and IESA 2015 (N = 307).

The Table 3 examines statistical significance comparing the charity memberships or volunteering of students from state and private higher education institutions. Using chi-test statistical examination, it can be concluded that the rate of the participation was significantly different in charity memberships in 2012, but not in 2015. Determining the odds ratio, it can be deduced that private institution students had one and a half times better chance to be involved than students from state institutions. The difference between state and private university student engagement was not significant in 2015. To compare the volunteering participation of state and private institution students, the research used the same logic and methodology. The data from Table 3 show that in 2012, students from private institutions were significantly more involved in volunteering than students from state institutions, achieving a highest level of statistical significance (*p*—Pearson's chi square value is 0.000 and odds ratio

is 1.6). Statistical data revealed also, that in 2015 was an increased score of participation in volunteering activities within students from state institutions (60.4%), where students had a significantly better chance for volunteering than students from private institutions (*p* value = 0.046 and odds ratio = 0.6).

**Table 3.** Students' charity memberships and their implication on volunteering from private and state higher education institutions'.

Note: \* *p* < 0.05, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001. Sources: HERD 2012 (N = 1252) and IESA 2015 (N = 307).

Table 4 outlines the students' volunteering implications in profit or non-profit organizations or in a non-organized way using chi-test statistical examination. The score of volunteering in profit organizations was nearly the same among state and private institution students (11% of the students). The significant differences were shown in preferencing non-profit areas (foundations, associations or churches) and non-organized ways. Students from private institutions preferred to implicate rather in non-profit organization activities than students from state institutions, achieving a highest level of statistical significance (*p* value = 0.000 and odds ratio = 3.5). In the same time, data revealed the significant preference of volunteering in non-organized ways: students from private higher education institutions were involved in non-organized volunteering with nearly two times higher chance than students from state institutions.

**Table 4.** The comparison of state and private student's volunteering depending on the type of the organization where the activities were organized.

Note: \*\*\* *p* < 0.001, NS—non-significant. Sources: HERD 2012.

A few characteristics of the volunteering are shaped in Table 5. The survey questioned the involvement of students in volunteering during their studies, on a yearly, monthly, or weekly basis. The frequency of the weekly implication was low (just 11–15% of students volunteered every week). Generally, students preferred volunteering on a monthly or yearly basis. Nearly half of them made a connection between volunteering and their study fields, and just a small part of them planed not to volunteer in the future (8% from state institutions and 12% from private institutions).

The final part of the survey made possible the analyses of patterns of the volunteers' motivations. Table 6 lists the possible motivations of students, using traditional (i.e., helping others, protect traditional values), modern (i.e., improve CV, gain work experience), and global reasons (those related to globalization and mobility, see below). The traditional reason for volunteering—namely, to help others—was very common among students (more than 71% of them declared, that this philanthropic motive leads their implications) compared to modern, individual motivations like procuring new experiences, exercising skills or because of possible professional development. It is remarkable that 34% of students were involved because their faith. Modern motivations, such as having these activities in the CV or protecting the environment, were not very common (just 33% of the students choose these options). On volunteering, family patterns or the example of friends inspired just 23% of students.

**Table 5.** Characteristics of the volunteering and future plans.

Source: IESA 2015 (N = 323).

Source: IESA 2015.

Table 7 presents the latent structure of the motivations. Through Varimax rotation, the variables were separated into two factors, showing connections between variables. According to this, the first factor combines both the traditional motivation of helping others with modern motivations—to gain professional or work experiences or exercising skills or motivation for making new relationships and friends. In the second factor the connected variables were related to the globalization and mobility—learning new languages and discovering new cultures. Factors with eigenvalue less than 1.00 were ignored by the computer program. The variance of the first factor, named mixed motivational factor was 36% and the second, named global motivational factor was 22%.

**Table 7.** The pattern of students' motivations.

Factor analysis: maximum likelihood, Varimax rotation, cumulative explication 58%. Source: IESA 2015.

Finally, analyzing the variance between motivational factors and the type of the study institutions, the independent variable was the type of the institutions (state or private) and dependent variables were the motivational factors. The research question was whether the type of the institution influenced the students' motivations. The difference between the average of the mixed motivational factor and the type of institution (state or private) was significant (F = 7.3 and *p* = 0.007), and also between the global motivational factor and the type of the institutions (F = 7.8 and *p* = 0.005). The mean of global motivational factor was higher in private institutions (M = 0.168 and SD = 0.995). The mean of mixed motivational factor was higher in state institutions (M = 0.16, SD = 0.872). However, because the sum of squares was lower than 10 in both situations (6 and 7), the conclusion was that the difference between institution types does not imply a significant difference in the averages.

#### **4. Discussion**

This paper exanimated the philanthropic responsibilities of Romanian students from private and state institutions, comparing their implication in charity memberships and volunteering. The motors of volunteering in 2012 were students from private higher education institutions; the statistical analysis shows significant differences between state and private institutions regarding charity memberships and volunteering activities. On the other hand, the longitudinally data revealed the score of increased philanthropic responsibilities in state institutions in 2015. Concerning implication of students from private institutions in 2012 and later, in 2015, there were no remarkable changes, but in the same period, in state institutions, the score was nearly doubled. The explanation should be connected with the amendment of the volunteering legislation in 2014. Adapting to law no. 78/2014, state higher education institutions became potential sources for volunteering and charity activities in the Romanian society.

The hosting organizations of the volunteers were especially NGOs, foundations, associations or churches, but Romanian students preferred also non-organized forms of volunteering. In nearly half of the students, the chosen volunteering area was unrelated to their higher education study fields. Most of them volunteered yearly, and the weekly regular implication was not very common among Romanian students. Most of them plan to undertake voluntary activities in the future.

When analyzing students' motivations, the traditional reason—to help other—was very common. Romania is a country with traditional norms, where the young generation is characterized by closed and rational thinking [27] which reflects in their volunteering motivations as well. These results show a same situation as it is in Hungary, where helping others as motivation was more common among students. Their volunteer implication should be increased through offices, where students can get information about and help finding existing volunteering possibilities [23]. The model of family members regarding volunteering inspired just a quarter part of the students, because the older generation grew up under communist regime and was not used to, even was punished for private initiatives.

The structure analysis of the motivational variables revealed that the initiative to help others was connected with individual and relational motivations (mixed motivational factor) presented in Figure 4. The global motivational factor (related with the global society such as learning new languages or discovering new culture) had a lower explanatory power on motivation than the mixed motivational factor.

**Figure 4.** Connections between motivations on volunteering of Romanian students.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This paper provides a contextualization of the theory of corporate social responsibility in academic institutions. Learning, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities should be the direction and content of educating students for social responsibility, in which, besides the competitive nature of learning, the altruism to improve the life of the community is equally present.

The quantitative analysis of this paper focused on the philanthropic responsibilities of Romanian higher education students from private and state institutions, comparing longitudinally their charity organizational memberships and volunteering. First, it was presumed that private institution's students were much more engaged in volunteering activities and charity organization memberships than students from state institutions. This hypothesis proved to be true in 2012, but in 2015, participation in volunteering activities had a significantly increased score at students from state universities. The explanation should be connected with the amendment of the law on Volunteering Activity in Romania in 2014.

The characteristics of volunteering shaped out that Romanian students preferred volunteering on a monthly or yearly basis, especially in NGOs, foundations, associations, or churches, but they preferred non-organized ways. Volunteering was not connected with their study fields for nearly half of the students, and just a small proportion of them did not plan volunteer activities in the future.

Traditional motivation for volunteering, i.e., to help others, was more common among students than learning new language, discovering new culture or protecting the environment as motivation. This willingness could be the basis for universities to facilitate involvement of the young generation in volunteering and charity organization activities for the benefit of the whole community.

**Funding:** The quantitative international survey data used in this analysis was collected and made available by the CHERD-H (Centre for Higher Education Research and Development from Debrecen University, Hungary). The publication was sponsored by Emanuel University of Oradea, Romania.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

### **References**

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Education Sciences* Editorial Office E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.mdpi.com/journal/education

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland

Tel: +41 61 683 77 34 Fax: +41 61 302 89 18

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-2416-0


**Author details**

Biju Majumdar, Daisy Sarma and Tridib K. Sarma\*

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Discipline of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India


**Author details**

J. Manivannan1 , S. Kalaiselvan1 \* and R. Padmavathi2

1 Department of Chemistry, SNS College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

2 Department of Chemistry, M. Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Karur, Tamilnadu, India

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.