For this exercise, I chose to interview two individuals from prominent organizations in the development and humanitarian aid sector: one rooted in Europe but operating globally, and the other based in Latin America. The interviewees, R.E., a coordinator for a volunteer program, and A.M., a commercial director, hold key roles within their respective organizations. My motivation stemmed from an interest in understanding how these two organizations, operating in different regions and contexts, perceive and address themes like decolonization, localization, and digitalization in development work. I was also curious about how their organizational ethos reflects these concepts, and how, despite both operating in Latin America, the different geographic and cultural contexts they come from might shape their approaches.
My three research questions focused on decolonization and localization within the context of humanitarian aid and development, the concept of development as understood within their respective organizations, and the impact of digitalization on how humanitarian challenges and crises are represented.
I chose these individuals because I had interacted with them before, albeit in professional capacities, and I was confident they would be willing to contribute to this academic exercise. Additionally, given that the assignment coincided with the Christmas holidays, reaching out to people I already knew increased the likelihood of obtaining timely responses. I also wanted to compare perspectives from a European organization rooted in traditional development paradigms and a Latin American organization that operates in contexts where these paradigms are often challenged.
Identifying the interviewees was straightforward as I already had their contact information. I sent each of them an email explaining the purpose of the assignment, the topics I intended to explore, and the time commitment required. I also emphasized the conversational nature of the interview, framing it as an opportunity to share insights rather than a formal or high-pressure exercise.
To tailor my approach, I adopted a slightly different tone with each person. My email to A.M. was more casual, reflecting our previous collaborations, whereas my message to R.E. maintained a professional tone, as our interactions had been limited. Both emails included a brief description of the questions I intended to ask, ensuring transparency and allowing them to prepare if they wished. To my relief, both interviewees responded promptly and were enthusiastic about participating. This initial willingness set a positive tone for the interviews.
For both interviews, I took a thoughtful approach by crafting a brief introduction for each question to establish a clear context and set the tone for a more informal conversation. This approach was designed to ease the interviewees into the discussion, allowing them to feel comfortable before addressing the core question. I did that by also providing examples relevant to their organization, highlighting areas where they could share insights or personal experiences.
The first interview was conducted with R.E. via a video call. We began with some informal conversation about ongoing projects, which helped establish a comfortable and collegial atmosphere. Having shared the questions in advance, R.E. was well-prepared and structured his responses thoughtfully. He relied a lot on specific examples from his organization’s work to illustrate his points, which made his answers engaging and contextually rich. While this was helpful for understanding his perspectives, it highlighted the challenge of translating such responses into formal written formats, such as a report or article.
When discussing decolonization and localization, R.E. highlighted how his organization is actively shifting toward empowering local actors to lead projects, rather than imposing solutions from a European perspective and explained how in the past it’s not always been like that. He shared examples of interventions that faltered due to a lack of consideration for decolonization issues, as well as instances of partnerships with local NGOs where decision-making authority was purposely decentralized. This more recent approach, he noted, aligns with the organization’s growing recognition of the limitations of a top-down model. The interviewee was so willing to help that after the interview he sent me a lot of links of examples and articles that would have helped me with my research studies.
A.M.’s interview, conducted in person, had a similar tone and flow, but given our prior working relationship, the conversation felt more relaxed. However, A.M. also approached the questions with seriousness and depth. She was equally prepared but more concise in her responses. Interestingly, she admitted finding the question about decolonization challenging, mentioning that she had done some prior research to better articulate her thoughts. Nevertheless, her responses revealed an acute awareness of how power dynamics shape development work. Her role as the organization’s communication lead also influenced her responses, particularly when discussing digitalization and social media’s role in humanitarian aid. Unlike R.E., who focused on relavant examples, A.M.’s answers were more strategically aligned with her organizational responsibilities. While her organization’s approach seemed inherently localized, A.M. acknowledged the challenges of fully decolonizing their work, especially given the influence of international donors.
These two interviews I conducted highlighted distinct dynamics in how medium shapes the interaction. In the in-person interview with A.M., I found it easier to pick up on subtle cues, such as body language or tone shifts, allowing me to adjust my questions or prompts naturally. This aligns with Irvine et al.’s observation that face-to-face interactions often allow for richer, more responsive exchanges, as visual and spatial context provides additional layers of communication.
This exercise reinforced the importance of context in shaping organizational approaches to development and humanitarian work. Through these interviews, I gained a deeper appreciation of how historical, cultural, and structural factors influence how concepts like decolonization and localization are understood and operationalized. Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) insights on the co-construction of narratives further informed my understanding of how interviewees interpret and articulate their organizational experiences within specific frameworks.
On a personal level, conducting these interviews deepened my understanding of the ethical and practical considerations involved in development work. The experience also highlighted the importance of clear and empathetic communication. By framing the questions in a way that invited reflection rather than eliciting definitive answers, I was able to foster open and thoughtful dialogue. This aligns with Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) emphasis on the active role of the interviewer in shaping the narrative process.
For instance, my original third question was about the role of volunteering programs whithin their respective organization. The switch to a digitalization-focused third question for both interviews was a strategic decision I made during R.E.’s interview based on the flow of the conversation. R.E. had already touched on aspects of digital tools and social media, so it felt natural to delve deeper into this topic. Similarly, given A.M.’s communication responsibility within her organization, this question allowed her to share insights directly relevant to her expertise. This adjustment demonstrated the importance of flexibility in interviews, ensuring that the discussion remained relevant and engaging for both interviewees.
This exercise has significant implications for my future work, both academically and professionally. As someone interested in the intersection of communication and development, the insights gained from these interviews will inform how I approach topics like digitalization and decolonization in my writing and research. It was a valuable learning experience that bridged theory and practice. It not only enhanced my interviewing skills, but also provided a deeper understanding of the ethical and cultural dimensions of development work.
References:
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120
Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). “Am I not answering your questions properly?”: Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086
Pancheva-Kirkova, N. (n.d.). Dialogue painting [Painting, Oil on canvas]. 50 W x 50 H x 3 D cm. Ships in a box.