{"id":150,"date":"2024-11-11T11:28:00","date_gmt":"2024-11-11T11:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpmu.mau.se\/msm24group2\/?p=150"},"modified":"2024-12-03T18:49:15","modified_gmt":"2024-12-03T18:49:15","slug":"report-on-interview-experiences-in-online-fundraising-and-community-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpmu.mau.se\/msm24group2\/2024\/11\/11\/report-on-interview-experiences-in-online-fundraising-and-community-development\/","title":{"rendered":"Report on Interview Experiences in Online Fundraising and Community Development"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\r\n

 <\/p>\n

For my most recent research project, I dove into the world of online fundraising by conducting two fascinating interviews. My goal? To understand what really happens when people encounter those donation requests in their social media feeds. Beyond just learning about giving patterns, I wanted to explore the whole ecosystem of online community support \u2013 including that tricky territory of “slacktivism.” I chose to interview complete strangers rather than friends or family to get fresh, unbiased perspectives, and mixed things up by doing one interview over call and another in person.<\/span><\/p>\n

First things first \u2013 I needed to find people who’d at least seen some online fundraising campaigns floating around on their social media. I reached out through Messenger – social media messaging service – introducing myself and laying out what I hoped to learn. Of course, I made sure to get their approval to record our conversations and promised to keep everything strictly for my academic work.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Differences Between Two Interviews<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s where things got interesting. Having one interview online and one in person showed me just how different these experiences can be.<\/span><\/p>\n

My first interview felt a bit like trying to have a heart-to-heart through a window. To break the ice, I started with some casual conversation and made sure to nod and smile plenty – those little signals that say “I’m really listening!” At first, I got a lot of short answers, kind of like text messages. So I had to dig deeper with follow-up questions like “What makes you pause before donating?” That’s when the real conversation started flowing.<\/span><\/p>\n

The in-person interview was a whole different experience. Being able to read body language and pick up on those subtle cues made everything feel more natural. When my interviewee paused to think about “slacktivism,” I could tell they were really thinking it over, so I gave them space. The conversation felt like catching up with an old friend, leading to some really honest insights about how social media sometimes encourages lazy activism.<\/span><\/p>\n

The in-person format allowed for spontaneity \u2013 side conversations and unexpected insights that might never have emerged in a more structured online setting. However, the virtual interview had its own advantages, particularly in keeping us focused on specific topics. I found myself developing different skills for each format: in person, it was about reading subtle cues and going with the flow, while online, it was about creating warmth and connection through a screen.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n

These interviews taught me invaluable lessons about the art of interviewing. I learned that flexibility isn’t just helpful \u2013 it’s essential. Each participant came with their own communication style, and my job was to adapt and create an environment where they felt heard and understood.<\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most challenging lesson was recognizing and setting aside my own biases. When discussions turned to topics like slacktivism, where I admittedly had strong opinions, I had to consciously step back and listen with an open mind. This exercise in neutrality led to much richer, more honest conversations than if I had let my own views color the discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One of the most surprising aspects of this project was how much the format affected the quality and nature of responses. In person, people were more likely to share personal stories and emotional reactions, while the online format often led to more analytical, thought-out responses. Neither was better or worse \u2013 they just offered different windows into people’s thoughts and feelings about online fundraising.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here are my key takeaways from conducting these interviews:<\/p>\n