ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY Department of Communication Spring 2014

Transkript

1 ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY Department of Communication Spring 2014 Mette Hejlskov Signe Lærke Nørager Shirley Nordenskiold Noraphanlop Stine Vesterskov Laursen Supervisor: Henrik Juel Keystrikes: Pages: 28

2 Abstract This project is set to investigate what motivates students aged living in Copenhagen to donate money to charity, and how this may be efficiently met to generate more donations. The research is based on methodical findings from an online survey and two focus group interviews of which the findings are analysed, discussed and concluded upon. It is concluded that the primary motivational factors to which a solution can be found are the importance of the specific cause, having a sense of a clear conscience, and transparency of what exactly the money goes to. From this conclusion an app is suggested, which would enable its users to experience the desired transparency. Meanwhile, it provides a comprehensible overview of projects possible to support, from which the app s users can find the cause they find to be most important to them.!

3 Danish summary I dette projekt bliver der taget udgangspunkt i en tese omkring den manglende overensstemmelse, der findes mellem udviklingen af teknologi og dens muligheder i forhold til de nuværende muligheder for at donere penge til velgørenhed. Hvis de førnævnte elementer arbejdede bedre sammen ville motivationen til at donere øges. Der arbejdes således ud fra følgende problemformulering: What motivates students aged living in Copenhagen to donate money to charity, and how may this be efficiently met to generate more donations? Denne problemformulering besvares gennem en metodisk undersøgelse hvor der indsamles information omkring målgruppens position i forhold til velgørenhed. Den metodiske undersøgelse tager udgangspunkt i den kvantitative metode i form af et online spørgeskema og den kvalitative metode i form af to fokusgruppeinterviews, hvorfor emnet belyses fra to vinkler og mere empirisk materiale inkluderes. Der konkluderes ud fra en række primære motivationsfaktorer, hvilke viste sig at være målgruppens egen personlige relation til en given sag, følelsen af god samvittighed, den specifikke sag og mere gennemsigtighed af hvad deres penge helt præcist bliver brugt på. Der var dog et paradoks at finde blandt disse, da der viste sig at være en uoverensstemmelse mellem de faktorer som målgruppen selv mener udløser deres intention om at donere, og det der rent faktisk leder dem til handling. Det konkluderes yderligere at en mobil applikation (app), som informerer om eksisterende projekter, afsluttede projekter og nye projekter fra organisationerne, og som dermed giver brugerne konkret indsigt i, hvad deres donationer bruges til, imødekommer ovenstående resultater bedst muligt. Sådanne opdateringer kan bidrage til at målgruppen får et større tilhørsforhold til selve organisationen, og at motivationen til at donere derved opretholdes. Derudover vil app en skabe overblik over aktuelle projekter og dermed gøre det lettere for donorer at finde projekter som brugerne synes om. Ved kombinationen af disse funktioner vil app en appellere til alle inden for målgruppen, da både potentielle samt nuværende donorers motivation vil blive varetaget.!

4 !!!!!!!!!!!!! At vove er at tabe fodfæste en kort stund. Ikke at vove er at tabe sig selv To dare is to lose foothold for a while. Not to dare is to lose oneself! Ascribed Søren Kierkegaard Appendix A

5 Index 1. Introduction How the seeds sprouted The blooming of the sprouts Our problem formulation Our target group There is a limit to everything Methodical reflections Quantitative method; our online survey Bambi on ice; to formulate and structure the questions Our final rehearsal; pilot-testing the survey When our survey left the nest Qualitative method; our focus group interviews The drawing board; planning the focus group interviews The interviewees The participants relationship to each other Designing the question guide for the interviews The participants engagement The effect of exercises Time runs fast when you have a blast Analysis and discussion of our empirical findings Impressions from our survey Non-donors Former donors Current donors The potential role of technology; first thoughts Summing up Impressions from our focus group interviews Having a personal relation to the cause Sense of clear conscience Transparency Determining frequency and size of donations Closing in on technology Summing up

6 3.3 Last words on our method combination and its relation to our findings How the methods cooperate Conclusion Bibliography Appendix

7 1. Introduction 1.1 How the seeds sprouted When we started this project we already had an interest in the subject of charity because we had worked with the subject before. During a workshop at Roskilde University we worked with a video, which should illustrate the irony in young people s consumption patterns versus their own idea that they are not able to donate money to charity. It showed how a girl spent a lot of money on unnecessary goods and at the same time said no to supporting charity. It was well received by the audience where many could recognize the issue, which confirmed our presumption. From that perspective we came to discuss various aspects of communication related to charity. First we discussed whether the old advertisements by NGOs concerned with animal welfare, in which they show suffering and dying animals, even still work or if people are becoming oblivious to it because they have been shown on TV for so long. Then we also came to talk about the communicative aspect in individuals own donation patterns, namely how charity can be used as a way of portraying oneself as a better person. We found it interesting to look into what social acceptance and personal satisfaction means for the terms of donating. This can also be linked to a social pressure from society on being the best version of oneself, hence having the capacity and energy to handle e.g. one s school, work, and finances. 1.2 The blooming of the sprouts From this issue we came to have a discussion about the terms on which we ourselves are motivated to donate money to charity. We came to think about what actually motivates us to spare some of our change to charity, and we started listing some of the problematic aspects of donating money in practice. In appendix B you will find a document, which we made during this discussion. For example, we discussed the problem of technology not meeting the terms on which we would like to donate money. Also, we came to talk about the problem of young people s financial situation on SU 1 and how this could perhaps be better met by the terms on which it is possible to donate money, both through technology and other methods. This very subject is what we decided to work with in our project, which is then based on the presumption that there exists a gap between intention and action, which keeps young students from donating as much as they are actually willing to. This presumption is, as it 1 The Government s financial support to students 3

8 appears from the brainstorm, made from own experiences and ideas of the conditions of supporting charity. We find ourselves in the situation of wanting to start donating or donate more, but we do not feel that our own requirements and conditions are met. Exactly what might bridge the gap between intention and action is what will be investigated in the project, but we started out by making four hypotheses in which we suggest what we believe would meet the terms, on which young students are motivated to donate. For instance we believe that the practical means of donating money have not developed proportionately with technology. Also, potential donors use of smartphones, tablets and internet does not align with options of donating, and this is therefore a central issue in our project. Our hypotheses are: H1) If donors with limited financial income were able to determine themselves how much money to donate, their motivation to donate would increase. H2) Donors with limited financial income do not wish to be bound by subscriptions - continuous and mandatory donation e.g. every month is unappealing. If they were able to determine the frequency of their donations themselves, their motivation to donate would increase. H1 + H2 H3) If the size and frequency of donations were individually determined by donors with limited financial income, their motivation to donate would increase. H4) If the options of donating aligned better with technological offers and the donors use of those, their motivation to donate would increase. Our hypotheses represent the presumptions that our problem formulation is based on, but our problem formulation is articulated in a more general way and it therefore suggests our research to be more general. 1.3 Our problem formulation What motivates students aged living in Copenhagen to donate money to charity, and how may this be efficiently met to generate more donations? 1.4 Our target group As mentioned, our own experiences and presumptions regarding charity was what triggered our curiosity and interest to begin with. When choosing our target group we therefore found it natural to investigate students aged 21-25, because we ourselves are part of this group and can relate to the hypotheses and presumptions we formed regarding charity. We deliberately 4

9 did not choose a target group younger than this, because we believe they are not financially independent enough to suit the issue in our research. Furthermore, we did not find an older target group completely suitable either, as we believe many people in an older segment have fixed habits and opinions and can therefore also be difficult to influence to donate more or start donating. Therefore our interest is in students aged 21-25, because they are informed, yet still reachable and able to influence in terms of donating. From experience, we know it is important to meet their premises regarding habits and needs, and how to meet those is therefore a central issue to investigate. An important aspect in relation to this target group is also the modern changes in society where technology plays a crucial role in our everyday lives. We believe that technology will keep on developing and play a bigger role in our lives, and it is therefore important to take into consideration whether also to follow this development when it concerns charity and money donations. By choosing this target group we can reach those who are in the centre of these changes and will contribute to the development. To proportion the width and depth of the project to our timeframe we will focus on subjects living in Copenhagen only and our research will therefore be conducted in Danish. 1.5 There is a limit to everything We have limited the type of charity donation of interest in this project to the monetary only. It concerns donations to NGOs or help-organisations and thereby not to the homeless or other private persons. Neither does it include buying items from second-hand stores. However, subjects buying merchandise produced by NGOs or help-organisations for the mere purpose of donating is also classified as monetary donations. When buying a piece of merchandise, one is giving an amount of money with the single purpose of donating money to charity, whereas one s reason for purchasing an item in a second-hand (charity) store might be related to fashion rather than the intention of supporting the organisation behind it. Our interest thereby lies within the intentions of donors rather than the organisations owning e.g. second-hand stores, which sell their items only to benefit from the money they earn. 5

10 2. Methodical reflections In the following chapter we will account for the methods we use in our research and how we have experienced using them. First to be explained is the quantitative aspect of our project - our online survey. We will go through the planning and use of it, and also the thoughts we have had about the method before and after sending out the survey. Then we will present our qualitative method, our focus group interviews, and likewise we will explain the reflections we have made about these both during the process and after. Our thoughts on the combination of an online survey and focus group interviews will be presented by the end of chapter Quantitative method; our online survey The interest for a quantitative method came from wanting to reach widely, and for our investigation to reach for better representation than otherwise possible if we only used qualitative research. After our problem formulation had finally been determined we agreed to make an online survey, as we thought this would embrace the problem of our research and meanwhile fit the resources available to us, time and money wise. The first decision we made concerned the desired width of the survey, but only two in our group had little experience making an online survey, and we found it rather difficult to estimate how many respondents it would be realistic to hope for. We estimated that would be a realistic goal for us, as we are four members in the group who would all distribute the survey. We also believed that this number would be sufficient enough in order to make our survey representative for our research. As for the time frame we scheduled 10 days for the responses to be reached because we figured that people within our target population were busy and perhaps would not answer the survey right away but would return to it on a different day when they had time. After sharing the online survey we quickly discovered a greater number of respondents than we had anticipated which really came to our big surprise. Within only half an hour we succeeded in reaching our minimum goal being 100 respondents. We then decided to adjust our goal of respondents to reach 300 and to end the survey when we reached that number. This took less than a week and we received in total 306 responses more than our minimum goal. We surely believe that this displays how much we had underestimated the rapidity and width of online surveys, and how inexperienced we are working with them. Out of the 306 respondents only 252 actually completed the whole survey, which means our analysis will depend on the actual numbers of respondents on the specific questions. Out of the 54 who did not complete the survey, three of them ended the questionnaire after the two 6

11 first questions and their answers will not be accounted for in the analysis. In the analysis the total number of respondents that can be analysed upon will therefore be 303 and in some questions less, and not all statistics will add up to 100%, as the respondents might have marked several options in the same question. But before going all analytic, let us go through the creation of the survey. If you wish, see appendix C and D for further elaboration while reading through it Bambi on ice; to formulate and structure the questions We saw the advantages of an online survey as a way of not only gaining a large number of answers to our questions, but also to formulate and direct these questions in a way that suits our problem formulation. We did however find it very difficult to actually design the questionnaire and to formulate the questions. We spent more than seven days working morning to evening on the survey before sending it out, and we went through many possible layouts, kinds of questions, and considerations regarding the length of it before we finally agreed, took a deep breath, and sent it out. First of all we had our hypotheses and problem formulation in mind and naturally we had to ask questions relevant to our research, but we struggled to formulate them in a way that would not be leading. In fact, it was very challenging for us to find the balance between making the questions relevant to our problem formulation and our hypotheses without suggesting anything indirectly in the questions that would make them leading in any way. We realised we had a need to confirm our hypotheses and we found ourselves wanting to prove ourselves right. We therefore had to keep in mind not to design our questionnaire for that purpose, but for the purpose of answering our problem formulation. In terms of length of the questionnaire we did not want to make it too time requiring for the respondents to answer it, as we ourselves are asked to fill out a lot of surveys every day by fellow students, and we find it annoying when they are too long. We therefore figured that the shorter and more precise we could make the questionnaire; the more respondents would complete it. And moreover we saw a connection between the length of the questionnaire and the complexity of interpreting it afterwards so we made a short list of questions. The survey was structured by having a brief introduction, which was made to clarify what the survey was about, but also to make the logic of our questions comprehensible for the respondents. The opening questions were intended to motivate and encourage the respondents into completing the survey. Demographic questions were excluded, mainly because we were not interested in that kind of information, but also because we find that kind of questions boring to answer ourselves. Moreover we wanted to illustrate that the 7

12 questionnaire was easily answered, and we believed that by making straightforward and donation related questions, we would keep the respondents interested and focused. We constructed the first actual question in the survey to divide the respondents into branches, which would indicate their current status as a non-donor, previous donor or current donor (appendix C). This way we would avoid for the different segments to be met by questions irrelevant to them. By framing and linking the questions in specific ways, we believed that we could secure answers that were easy to work with and which would still be valid. The last part of our questionnaire concerned the donated amounts, the respondents satisfaction of these, how they donated, what motivated them in different ways to donate, and what would motivate them to donate more. These questions were then all worded in a way that matched whether the respondents were donors, non-donors or previous donors Our final rehearsal; pilot-testing the survey We chose to pilot-test the questionnaire before we sent it out. We tried to test it on a group of 10 guinea pigs within the target group, but we quickly found out that this was not possible, as only six replied back and were interested in helping us. We were limited by time because we as mentioned believed it would take 10 days to gather the responses and we therefore wanted to share the survey as quickly as possible in order to receive as many replies as possible. Individuals who were not within the target group were also asked, as we would rather have more responses from people outside our target group than none from within our target group, even though those outside the target group might have other opinions. However, all six test-persons turned out to be within the target group. The pilot-test was mainly made to get a clear understanding whether or not the questionnaire was easy to understand, but as well to see the test-persons answers to discover any potential errors and inadequacies in our questionnaire. Additionally, we asked them to give general feedback on the questionnaire as a whole and their experience and the logic of it. This gave us great insight, and enabled us to erase and rewind where needed. For example we added a no to the questions which asks the non-donors if any of some listed options could make them start donating because a test-person told us that it would be a good idea. Also, we discovered that the multiple choice questions related to what would motivate the respondents to donate/donate more, did not offer us any specific insight, as some of the testpersons marked almost all suggestions. Because of that, a limitation of only being able to mark three reasons was included so that we could see the subjects top three most 8

13 motivational factors. This limitation was applied to some of the multiple choice questions to make it easier for us to decode information from, but we also considered that important answers could be lost. However, out of convenience we chose to limit it. When analysing our final survey results we found that it actually would have been better if we had made such a limitation on more of the questions, as it is rather difficult to see what the primary answers are in some of the matrix-questions. As an example, when the current donors are asked what motivates them to donate they have marked some of the options equally much, and this makes it difficult for us to see the main motivational factors. Considering the challenges we experienced in identifying the primary motivational factors of donating we think, when looking back, that we probably should have involved more test persons in our pilot-test of the questionnaire, as we then could have tried to actually analyse their answers and potentially have discovered this flaw When our survey left the nest We shared our survey via our own facebook 2 accounts and through s sent to students at Roskilde University. We also asked some of our facebook acquaintances to share the questionnaire on their facebook walls in order to reach wider. After sending out the questionnaire we considered that sending it out to our friends and acquaintances might affect our results in some way. At the same time we were presented with the notions of Allan Agresti & Chris Franklin (2012) who argue that sampling should be done randomly to ensure valid results and to reach a broader sampling frame. If we take such notions into consideration, the validity of our survey might be questioned, but at the time of distributing the questionnaire we did not see any other options due to limited time and knowledge of the ways in which we otherwise could have done it. However, whether our results from the survey are in fact affected by the non-randomness of the way we distributed the survey is not something we can conclude upon, as the anonymity of the respondents blurs whether we know them or not, and whether certain attitudes dominate among them due to the fact that they are our facebook friends. Thereby said that the validity of our responses is affected by our way of distributing the survey, but we cannot determine to what extent. When reading further into the notions of Agresti and Franklin, which as mentioned was done after the survey had been sent out, we were also presented with a number of factors, which could potentially affect the results, those being biases (2012). When making and distributing a survey, they mention that one should consider nonresponse/response biases, which deal 2 9

14 with reasons why respondents might not answer the questionnaire or do it incorrectly (Agresti & Franklin, 2012). When distributing our questionnaire online, we risk that many people do not respond or complete it, but since we are interested in a young and indeed technological generation, we were optimistic. Another important factor to consider also concerns the way in which we distributed our survey, known as volunteer sampling, as the respondents volunteer themselves to participate. This means that individuals who already have some kind of emotional relation to charity might be better motivated to participate in a charity-related survey, which we believe could result in missing answers of those subjects who do not have interest in charity. Thereby there might be an overrepresentation of people in the sample who already are positive towards the concept of charity. The group of respondents consists of 231 women and 75 men, which obviously creates a majority of women. This can potentially have been caused by men and women having different attitudes towards charity, and also that women are perhaps more positive towards answering surveys than men. Either way, the fact that we are four female group members in the group may have attracted more women than men, as we have more female than male friends on our facebook profiles. We do not use the division of gender for anything in our analysis as such, and when looking back we actually would not have needed to ask for the respondents gender. 2.2 Qualitative method; our focus group interviews In order to go into depth with what was found by our online survey, we also chose to investigate our possibilities with a qualitative method. We figured that the combination of the two methods would both strengthen our impression and interpretation of our target group, and at the same time we wanted to gain experience from both methods. The goal of including a qualitative method in our research was as previously mentioned to explore in depth emotions and attitudes of our target group in relation to their monetary support to charity (or lack of). We quickly came to talk about focus group interviews as an option worth considering, as we would then be able to interact with more subjects at once, and also get to explore the method of focus group interview, which none of us had ever tried before. We quickly decided to conduct two focus group interviews because we felt we had the time to do so, and to increase our amount of information and impressions of the target group s standpoints. Moreover, we wanted to experience the ability to conduct the first with limited knowledge of arranging and conducting focus group interviews to then evaluate and learn from this process and potentially adjust it in the second attempt. Said otherwise, if we 10

15 performed really poorly in the first one we would have another go at it. The notes we made after the first interview can be seen in appendix E, and may give you an idea of what we tried to improve in the second interview The drawing board; planning the focus group interviews Even though we did not have any experience with focus group interviews we were for some reason not as puzzled by that as we were when designing the online survey. We took turns looking at the information we got from the survey, and wrote down all the significant impressions we had from it. We must have automatically interpreted it while doing so because tendencies and certain patterns slowly started to show. While scribbling all of these down in a document one of us read through Bente Halkier s book on focus group interviews Fokusgrupper (2012), and made notes about the form and performance of them The interviewees We wanted to interview six individuals (3 males and 3 females) in each session, thereby a total of 12 interviewees. By Halkier (2012) it is advised to have between 6 and 12 participants, and we believed six individuals would be appropriate in our case, as some could perceive charity as a sensitive subject to discuss and would not come forward with their own thoughts and opinions in a forum that was too big. Finding our participants for the two interviews however turned out to be a much bigger challenge for us than expected. In our survey we made it possible to sign up as a participant in our focus group interview. Our initial thought by asking the respondents from the survey was that they presumably had some form of relation to and/or personal opinion of charity and would contribute to a good discussion. It was however only two of the respondents who were available on the dates we had decided on. It was therefore difficult for us to find participants outside our own personal contacts. We considered who from our network to contact, as we were not interested in selecting them based on our knowledge of their attitude to the subject, even though this could potentially have some advantages for us. Selecting the participants would make us able to get a broad group with many different attitudes and opinions. However, we did not want personal relations to interfere in our interviews. Another issue was also the limitation of the fact that our target group is in the same situation as we are, all being in the middle of exams or projects and their time is therefore limited. We therefore picked our participants from who was available rather than from a specific point of view. Luckily we managed to get very different attitudes towards the subject, but with more possibilities it perhaps would have been even better. 11

16 We called in some favours and managed to persuade 13 people to participate in our focus groups. Unfortunately two interviewees cancelled on the day, and we ended up with 11 participants in total. However, we did not sense any difficulties for the participants to create discussions in the first interview, even though a sixth person was missing, and we did not experience any lack of contribution of opinions and comments The participants relationship to each other We had our considerations of whether or not the participants should know each other or not and we were aware of the fact that when we reached out to our own network the chance of the participants knowing each other was rather high. We did however not see this as a big problem, as there could be both positive and negative things connected to this. Halkier (2012), mentions that the familiarities gives the interviewees the possibility to elaborate on each other s views, but at the same time some views and attitudes can be forgotten or not mentioned because they are internally understood among the interviewees (ibid). It is however important to notice that not all were familiar with each other and we therefore thought they might have different attitudes that could lead to deeper discussions. During the interview we were however surprised by the result of the two focus groups and how the participants interacted differently. In the first group all participants knew one of the others, except one who knew the co-interviewer, and the conversation before starting the interview was thus already present. It seemed like everyone felt very comfortable being in the situation and no one had any hesitation joining the discussion later in the interview. In the second interview they were all strangers to each other, and they only had a relation to either the co-interviewer or the observer, which created a very different atmosphere and tone of voice. Here there was no natural conversation before the interview, and the group felt less comfortable compared to the previous, which also affected the discussion during the interview. Before the interviews we believed that the right question guide would ensure a good quality of them, but we have later learned that the outcome of a focus group cannot be prepared for nor predicted. In the minutes after the second interview we really realised how different the outcomes of our two interviews were, and because we were so perplexed about it one of our group members secretly recorded our conversation (appendix F 3 ). It reveals many interesting thoughts we had after our interviews had been conducted, but it primarily shows how puzzled we were of not being able to guide the outcome of the interviews at all. In the following we will however go through the creation of the question guide that we used during the interviews. To see the final question guide while reading through the process of how we made it, you need to go to appendix G. 3 Additionally, the audio file reveals several other thoughts we had after the interviews had been conducted 12

17 2.2.4 Designing the question guide for the interviews In order to investigate our hypotheses we made the questions in a way that was related to those, but at the same time give further knowledge of the needs and points of view of the interview group. Again we realised that we had a wish of confirming our hypotheses, and we had to fight the desire of making a lot of questions for the interviews which would focus only on the hypotheses. When looking at the survey results we saw in the responses that focus was pointed towards other issues than those in our hypotheses. We therefore realised that we could not only concentrate on our hypotheses in the focus group interviews, but that other issues also needed our attention. When conducting our focus group interview we found it important to ensure a good, safe and relaxed atmosphere for the interviewees while discussing, and it was therefore intended that both focus group interviews was begun by a short self-presentation by the participants. This we believed would soften the atmosphere and make the participants more willing to talk about the issue and start discussions. We formulated certain questions for the purpose of leading to a discussion, whereas others were more specific and easily answered as we were interested in getting some concise answers along with the open answers. One of our discussion-generating questions asks whether the interviewees think that supporting charity is important, whereas one of the more simple questions asks who of the interviewees donate and how much. This relates to Halkier s (2012) funnel model, which was reviewed during the creation of our question guide and is based on the combination of open and specific questions. This model also begins with the open questions and then ends with the more specific questions. Some of the questions which we asked in the survey were also asked in the interview guide, as we felt that some needed to be elaborated for us to get a sufficient impression of the subjects standpoints. One possibility that had our attention was however that the focus group interviewees perhaps would not at all share the same opinions as the survey respondents, and that such elaboration would then not be possible for us to get. Still, we figured that there would be a hint of similarity between the survey respondents and the focus group interviewees, so we included those questions anyway. According to Halkier (2012) focus groups also enables us to understand the social context of the answers given in the survey, hence an idea of the emotional and social background of the answers. Initially, we did not find this function to be very important and therefore during the first interview we put very little effort into noticing the body language, mimics and emotions of the interviewees while they spoke. We chose to nurse the importance of the audio recording more than the overall expressions of the interviewees, including physical, verbal 13

18 and emotional expressions. But as we started to evaluate and analyse what had been said in the interview, we started to get a sense of the emotions and sensitivity connected to the issues and we realised how rewarding it in fact would be to pay attention to it. During the second interview we prioritised much more to notice the emotions and body language of the participants. The actual responsibility of doing it was given to two from our group who functioned as observers sitting in the background, but we were all more or less aware of it both during and after the interview. This gave us a much better understanding of the real attitudes of the interviewees, and we got a much better impression of their feelings concerning the issues The participants engagement We have previously mentioned how the activity and engagement of the participants could not be predicted in any way, but we find it so essential that we believe it requires some elaboration. The intention with most of our questions in the question guide was naturally to start a debate where the different interviewees could inspire each other to comment and ask questions, and we figured that the interviewees would thereby naturally present their opinions and arguments. The relationship between our question guide, our planned and intended structure of the interviews, and the behaviour of the participants was however not as close as we had thought. Said otherwise, when looking back at both interviews we are very surprised by their dissimilarity in terms of the level of the interviewees participation and engagement. The first group of interviewees was kick-started much easier than group number two. It did not at all take as much effort for the interviewer to start discussions among the interviewees in the first group as it did in the second. After the first interview had been conducted we were very pleased with the outcome and the engagement of the interviewees, and we were left with the idea that focus group interviews are easily conducted and without much effort from us to lead the discussion. However, after the second interview we had a completely different experience, as the participants in the second interview were much more introvert and careful about expressing their opinions. Only one of these participants was as active as the participants we interviewed in the first group, and he did not receive optimal response and interaction from the other participants. This displays the importance of the relation between the participants in the two interviews as earlier mentioned. However we learned the hard way that despite how much effort we spent, we could not control the engagement of the interviewees with our question guide regardless of how open or closed the questions were constructed. 14

19 2.2.6 The effect of exercises To vary the form of the interview, the questions were complemented by a few exercises. We set the first exercise to begin by all participants writing down three words they associate with charity i.e. the first things that came to their minds and afterwards argue for these. This was to make sure that the interviewees came forward with their own attitude towards charity non-influenced by the other participants but as well steering their thoughts towards charity. We felt that this worked really well, as we sensed the participants loosened up after they each had argued for their choice of words to the rest of the group. Moreover, after the second focus group interview one interviewee said that she thought it was nice to have these notes to speak from. In another exercise we asked the interviewees what would motivate them to donate more/start donating, and they should write three things and rank them after importance. We wanted this exercise to display what the interviewees found important without leading them in any direction. This also worked quite well, especially in the second interview where we had the less active group of interviewees, as it was sometimes difficult to make them answer a question asked openly to all of them. Instead, by this exercise, they could think for themselves first and then speak from their notes. We believe we had more answers, and that these were much more elaborated than they otherwise would have been, because of the notes in this case. Another exercise, which we also used in both interviews right after the one just mentioned, was somewhat similar. Here the interviewees were asked to rank a top three of options, which they believed could make them start donating/donate more, from a list that we had made from the options also presented in the survey. When arguing for their ranking of these the interviewees in the second group more or less said the same as they had done in the exercise before, and repetition unfortunately became a bit awkward in their case. However in the second exercise we had listed the same options as we had in the survey, which we then wanted the interviewees to rank, because we as previously mentioned had found it difficult to identify the main motivational factors from the survey Time runs fast when you have a blast The estimated time of the focus group interview was decided to last maximum 90 minutes including breaks, in order to have the necessary time to get a thorough impression of the interviewees relationship to charity, but also due to availability for them. We therefore had the maximum of 90 minutes in mind while creating the question guide. We chose the time frame mainly because we thought it would be appropriate. It would provide us with enough time to get a good discussion going and it would also be an amount of time our target group would be willing to spend. Furthermore, Halkier (2012) states that a 15

20 focus group should maximum last two hours, which also guided us towards our choice. In total, with breaks and talks before and after the actual interview, it lasted for about two hours. Both interviews were kept at 90 minutes, but the first focus group interview could easily have lasted for longer. However one of the participants had to go, which then naturally broke up the group and made it possible for us to stay within our timeframe. In the second group, some of the participants seemed tired when the 90 minutes had passed and we thus stopped the interview, despite the fact that some of them actually seemed to be able to discuss further. After both interviews we asked the participants how it had been to participate in the focus group interview to learn something from it and then be able to discuss it and make improvements for another time. We were more aware of asking the participants to also criticize the interview the second time, whereas we the first time only asked if they liked participating. After our second interview, we were criticized in having too many questions alike and that we talked a lot about the same things. Furthermore, some of the participants stated that the interview was too long, but that it at the same time could not have been any shorter, because they felt like they had to get started first and that the discussion had just begun. It is therefore difficult to say whether we should have spent more or less time on the interviews, but we feel that it was very appropriate. How we divided the roles between us during the interviews, and how the different roles worked is something we describe in appendix H. 16