Claire Bolge`s Thesis

The volunteers’ perspective on preferred activities and campaign tools for NGOs
By Claire Bolge
Supervised by Dr Jennifer Robinson
This thesis is submitted in partial completion of the degree of Honours in Media &
Communication at RMIT University
October 19th, 2012
Declaration
This thesis is my own original work, submitted as partial requirement for the degree of
Honours in Media & Communication at RMIT University. To the best of my knowledge, this
thesis does not contain material previously published by another person, except where due
reference is made in the text.
The recruitment and retention of volunteers is an ongoing issue for many organisations in the
non-government and not-for-profit sector. This is being compounded by the expansion of
issue-based groups to disperse geographical locations via the Internet, in particular for global
issues without a direct local connection. This study explored the ways in which volunteers
prefer to engage in communications and their goals and preferences in relation to the
organisation, recruitment, engagement and campaigning. A mixed methods approach of
exploratory focus groups (n = 12) and an online survey (n = 79) was used. Following a
pretest, which was used to select content, two one-hour focus groups were conducted to
explore these volunteer preferences and establish their response to the wider communications
of organisations related to global development. The results informed an online survey that
was open for 4 weeks and advertised to primarily Australian-based small to medium-sized
organisations with a global development focus. The findings speak to the needs of volunteers
themselves in responding to communication. This voice of volunteerism seems to crave
community beyond that of online, though without undermining the important of online.
Frequent volunteers especially seem increasingly less impressed by the social network trend,
as they did not select Facebook, Twitter or YouTube as highly important engagement tools.
They instead prefer the legitimate professionalism of a website and offline engagement,
beyond campaigning and into wider communications also, acknowledging that volunteering
is often predominantly a social experience. The results suggest that organisations do not need
to manufacture friendships but should highlight the importance of social interaction and
accept that ‘modern’ volunteers do expect their engagement to yield benefits more than just
an intrinsic ‘duty’ and these benefits should be provided.
This thesis would never have happened without the guidance and support of my wonderful
supervisor Jenny Robinson. Her wisdom, kindness and amazing ability to move me in the
right direction while still letting me figure things out for myself made this paper what it is
and I am eternally grateful.
Thank-you also to the Honours teaching staff, Adrian Miles, Russell Kerr and Bridget
Magner, who helped facilitate a learning environment that was challenging and enlightening
but also incredibly fun. This is also extended to the students of the Honours Studio, especially
Alex, Erin, Lauren and Liz whom I was lucky enough to have in a Lab with me.
Thank-you to everyone who filled out a survey, attended a focus group, answered my
incessant emails and passed on my message to their friends and colleagues. Your
participation made this research a reality as opposed to just an ambitious dream.
Finally, thank-you to my friends and family for their love, support and tolerance of every bad
mood and panic-filled phone call. Thanks especially to my Mum and Dad, my boyfriend and
mathematical genius Matthias, Lily and Jemma for their edits, advice and endless knowledge
banks and my study-partner-in-crime Elizabeth, without whom I wonder if I’d have survived
with my sanity.
This thesis is in front of you now because of each and every one of you and I will always
remember that.
With thanks and love,
Claire.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Background
Representations of global developmental crisis’ and concerns
3
Strong ties versus weak ties volunteer engagement
6
Motivational factors in volunteering
10
Method
Focus groups
13
Survey
19
H1 – Long-term volunteers and positive messaging
22
H2 – Online and offline techniques
25
H3 – Community and social motivation
27
H4 – Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation
31
Additional findings
32
Results
Discussion
The benefits of positive communications and campaigning in discussing global
development
33
Online and offline combinations for engagement, recruitment and campaigning
35
The community and social aspects of volunteering
37
Motivations in volunteerism facilitating long-term engagement
39
Limitations & Further Research
40
Conclusion
41
Reference List
44
Appendices - A
51
B
52
C
54
D
56
E
57
F
69
G
60
H
61
I
67
J
70
K
73
L
74
The options for communicating a message nowadays are endless. Publics are inundated with
messaging in the form of emails, advertisements, social media, television, radio and print.
For organisations looking to have their voices heard, these new and improved channels may
be as much a curse as they are a blessing. Cutting through the static seems increasingly
difficult and has been a topic of much study and consideration.
Non-government organisations (NGOs) and non-profit organisations (NPOs)
campaigning on global development issues need to address this challenge just as any other
organisation or company, but with the added difficulty of asking consumers not to consume
but rather to contribute, not only with their money but, most importantly, with their time.
Recruiting and retaining volunteers within this environment is a complicated yet crucial
avenue to explore. Waters & Bortree (2012) identified that “there is no doubt that nonprofit
organizations rely on their [volunteers’] contribution of time and skills...given their reliance
on volunteers, it is not surprising to see a vast amount of literature focused on volunteer
recruitment and retention” (p.93-94).
Organisations in the non-government and not-for-profit sector need volunteers to
function. “Volunteers bring new perspectives and skills to organizations and can foster
greater effectiveness and efficiency of NGOs” (UN Volunteers, 2007, par.10).
Communications are necessary not only to enlist volunteers but also to retain them in a social
environment where long-term engagement seems increasingly rare. For example, even
though Australia had almost double the rate of volunteering in 2010 than it did in 1996, with
36 percent of the adult population volunteering (ABS, as cited in Volunteering Australia,
1 2012), the median hours volunteered has decreased from 74 to 56 hours per person
(Australian Government, as cited in Volunteering Australia, 2012). The median weekly
average of hours volunteered in 2006 was just 1.1 (Volunteering Australia, 2011). Most
volunteer hours were also likely devoted at a community level, with sports and physical
recreation, education and training, community/welfare and religious groups the most
common types of organisations people volunteered for in 2010 (Volunteering Australia,
2011). In America, one-third of all volunteers discontinue their volunteering efforts from year
to year and search for new placements when their current placements starts failing to satisfy
them (Corporation, as cited in Waters & Bortree, 2012). University debts accumulate, living
expenses rise and the job market becomes even more competitive. In this climate, offering
one’s time for free or near-free, long-term or with any consistent regularity, especially for a
cause with which one does not share any personal connection, is an act that should not be
relied upon by the recipients. It instead needs to be recruited and, when received, it should be
cherished.
In the area of global development, inspiring volunteerism can be even more
challenging as there is no ‘magic bullet’ that seems to inspires the level of passion and
commitment of volunteers that would make an NGO or NPO truly thrive. But, in studying
the past successes and failure of these organisations, and by talking to volunteers who have
and have not remained long-term with organisations, there may be suggestions for how to
improve volunteering rates and retention within these NGOs and NPOs.
This study investigates suggestions relating to enhancing the volunteering
2 experience, which are more complex than leaning on the online movement for recruitment
and engagement and require more grassroots community organising, a “collective action of
community members drawing on the strength of numbers, participatory processes, and
indigenous leadership to decrease power disparities and achieve shared goals for social
change” (Staples, as cited in Delgado & Staples, 2008). It further investigates the
motivations of potential long-term volunteers, being a unique collection of individuals whom
should be understood, catered for and communicated to specifically. Finally, it explores
whether the use of negative stereotypical materials, such as the prevalent image of the flycovered emaciated brown child, in the marketing of global development is no longer
encouraging for volunteerism.
Background
Representations of global development crises and concerns
The dominant paradigm that plagues NGOs and NPOs campaigning on global
development is referred to as the Live Aid Legacy and is representative of the large-scale
movement of 1985 which cast the ‘Powerful Giver’ versus ‘Grateful Receiver’ image of
charity (Danton & Kirk, 2011). This paradigm is clearly evident in past campaigning
communications and NGOs have plainly been perpetrators of what is colloquially referred to
in development circles as poverty pornography (Ulbricht & Evans, 2010). The technique of
portraying impoverished individuals in developing countries as fly-covered brown children
with distended bellies and matchstick-thin arms and legs communicates hopelessness and a
situation of disrepair in developing nations (Ulbricht & Evans, 2010). This particular
framing “no doubt contributes to the construction of stereotypes of the developing world
3 poor as uneducated, incapable of freeing themselves from poverty, lacking in competence,
and miserable” (Clark; Glasgow University Media Group; Opoku-Owusu; Van der Gaag &
Nash, as cited in Kennedy & Hill, 2010, par.1).
Darnton & Kirk (2011) assert that public perceptions of developing nations have
been stuck in this ‘poverty pornography’ frame for at least 25 years. The more NGOs
continue to display these stereotypes, the more hopeless the image becomes. For NGOs, this
particular research and additional studies should indicate that, while “interest can be
triggered by emotional reactions to the topic and discovery of its relevance to something
personally meaningful, among other factors” (Hidi; Hidi & Harackiewicz, as cited in Pearce
& Larson, 2006, p.3), this short-term interest triggered by situational circumstances will not
necessary lead to sustained engagement (Pearce & Larson, 2006, p.123).
Though it has been suggested that “facial expression of emotion displayed in pictures
on charity advertisements is a critical determinant of sympathy and giving” (Small &
Verrochi, 2009, p.777), it is perhaps a consequence of this technique that 80% of the British
public still strongly associate the developing world with images of Western aid and tragedy
(VSO, 2002). Previous studies on this topic by Kennedy & Hill (2009; 2010) informed the
following theory:
Mixed stereotypic content (e.g., high warmth [friendly, pro-social behaviour], low
competence [struggling, ineducated]) should lead to mixed rebound effects,
such as an increase in active helping but also in passive harm [avoidance]. This
might be reflected in positive responses to well-publicised calls for aid but
disinterest and neglect at other times. If this turns out to be the case the message is
clear - the continued use of images of the majority world poor that encourage the
construction of 'low competence stereotypes' could undermine efforts to raise genuine,
long-lasting awareness and garner support for those living in poverty (2010,
Conclusion).
Studies show that “individuals who score high on happiness or trait PA report in
correlational questionnaire studies a relatively greater interest in helping people (Feingold,
1983), a tendency to act in a prosocial or cooperative manner (e.g., as enjoying sharing or
4 helping others; Rigby & Slee, 1993), and intentions to perform specific altruistic, courteous,
or conscientious behaviors at work” (Lyubomirsky et al, 2005, p.837). The fact that these
emotions registered highly with participants when viewing positive images thus seems
telling about the potential to engage in this sort of behaviour. Furthermore, “negatives states
- like anxiety, depression and failure – predict global biases consistent with narrowed
attention, whereas positive states – like subjective well-being, optimism, and success –
predict global biases consistent with broadened attention (Basso, Schefft, Ris, & Dember;
Derryberry & Tucker, as cited in Fredrickson et al, 2002).
Thus, as much as positive affect is valuable in this instance, negative affect is
potentially dangerous. The responses elicited by long-term participants viewing negative
images included hostility, guilt, frustration and fear, all emotions which may potentially
contribute to the overarching feeling of hopelessness which seems to dominate discussions
of developing nations evident in the study by VSO (2002) and the Frameworks Theory of
Darnton & Kirk (2011). Says Dr David Keen of the Development Institute of the London
School of Economics, “if the only thing you get is negative stories [related to these issues],
you become inured and people seem less human – they are either emaciated victims or
violent and evil. This erodes our ability, willingness or interest in helping a place” (Plewes &
Stuart, 2007, p.28).
Furthermore, certain publics have now expressed anger at being ‘conned’ by the
media (VSO, 2002) through these messages, a serious point for organisations to consider
given it has been suggested that feelings of “distrust and cynicism result in withdrawal from
community affairs” (Norris, as cited in Gil de Zuniga & Valenzuela 2011, p.400) and
arguably even more so from affairs with which they have no other, more personal contact.
Audiences do seem to have a desire to understand the truth and reality of the situation in
developing nations but nevertheless still possess a view that the individuals who exist in this
5 context are helpless victims, dependant on the money and assistance of the Western world
(VSO, 2002). The Make Poverty History movement was similarly accused of reinforcing this
‘transactional frame’ of poverty, in which tackling poverty is understood as giving one’s
money, rather than time and effort (Darnton & Kirk, 2011). This may be extended to tackling
health epidemics, education, displacement and human rights as well. Believing that throwing
money at a problem will make it go away does not foster education or understanding and
seems not conducive to being inspired as a volunteer beyond this particular monetary action.
Based upon this previous research on both the benefits and limitations of
representations of global developmental crisis’ and concerns, particularly that of global
poverty, it is posited here that great care must be taken when considering the possible
financial benefits of using tragic, emotional imagery. While possibly successful short-term,
this imagery “does not encourage people to think about the systematic challenges of ending
extreme poverty” (Ulbricht & Evans, 2010, par.4) or other international development issues
and does not encourage them to combat these challenges. Based on this, it seems likely that
people who do actually take action as long-term volunteers would respond better to positive
messages that differ from those mentioned, without subscribing to guilt, stereotypes,
dehumanisation and, ultimately, hopelessness.
Hypothesis 1 (H1) – Long-term volunteers will prefer campaigns and communications with a
positive message.
Strong ties versus weak ties volunteer engagement
According to Tilt et al (2008), "the use of 'advanced technologies' is considered to be
a 'powerful strategic enabler' for voluntary organisations" (p. 78). Early online technology,
such as the Internet and websites, "played an enormous role in terms of enabling charities
6 and volunteer-based groups to expand their grassroots mobilisation and advocacy efforts"
(Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009, p. 1). This platform now includes social media, such as
Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube and Facebook, and is prominent in publicity and fundraising.
Online participation and activism is easily accessible to the public and can generate huge
numbers of interest. The UK 'Make Poverty History' campaign in 2005 received 482,968
electronic communication sign-ups by the end of July of that year and over the course of the
year they reported that 730,180 people took 979,098 online actions (Sireau, 2009, p. 125).
Online platforms are cost-effective, flexible and overcome geographical constraints without
compromising diversity, all inherent advantages for organisations around the globe
(Mukherjee 2010).
However, online networks are made up of predominantly weak ties, being lots of
remote relationships (Darnton & Kirk, 2011, p. 29) as opposed to the strong relationships
that come from knowing, relating and respecting someone personally. Gladwell (2000) cites
an example of ‘strong ties’ in the civil rights movement of 1960s America –
What mattered more was an applicant’s degree of personal connection to the civilrights movement. All the volunteers were required to provide a list of personal
contacts—the people they wanted kept apprised of their activities—and participants
were far more likely than dropouts to have close friends who were also going to
Mississippi [Freedom Summer Project] (p.2)
The lack of these strong ties in online campaigning was evident in the KONY2012
campaign. The online response to the movement to make famous and decry Ugandan War
Lord Joseph Kony and free his child soldiers was enormous, with over 100 million people
viewing the short film about Kony and the child soldiers and 3,590,051 people making
pledges (Invisible Children, 2012). But the Cover the Night event, the initial culmination of
the campaign, attracted only a handful of supporters in cities around the world (Lowe &
Hingston, 2012; Caroll, 2012). The lack of strong, personal ties to the issue and the request
7 by the organisers that enthusiasts take to the street as opposed to the Internet to further
spread the word seemingly proved too much to ask. The lack of turnout strongly suggests
that social media and online communications do not make a campaign alone. In cases such
as this it seems that, “after the action [people] supported is over [they] often chose to move
on and don’t feel a need to get permanently engaged” (Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2009, p.247).
Of course, this does not imply that successful campaigns cannot be run via the
Internet. It is simply important for organisations behind them to consider that these
campaigns may not be those that personally connect with volunteers and the public in the
long-term and should anticipate, even capitalise on, a high turn over of momentarily engaged
participants. Change.org, an online, petition-based campaigning platform uses ‘weak-ties’ as
an advantage by offering easy, immediate participant options and therefore generating large
numbers by which they can claim support.
Online campaigning can compliment offline campaigning and communications as it
did in the 2008 Barack Obama Presidential campaign in America, where people could ‘meet’
online, organise events and stay updated and involved, but take their physical campaigning
movements offline, with the help of this new, broader network (Abroms & Lefebvre, 2009).
This is not a new concept, and offline actions today are almost always accompanied with
online tactics (Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2009). This is because there is obvious easy potential
in using online environments to broaden and create new networks, thus ideally growing the
number of offline supporters of a campaign or action significantly. But it is still suggested by
Abroms & Lefebvre (2009) that organisations should be using social media to facilitate and
8 compliment in-person grassroots activities, not replacement them.
This online-to-offline system may be applied in reverse, as “people characterized by
a high level of participatory capital (memberships and volunteer activities) and community
commitment (trust in others) are more likely to use the Internet to maintain existing ties with
friends and family” (Penard & Poussing, 2010, par.9). The key in this instance is the
maintenance of existing, ‘strong’ ties and access to them in an online environment by friends
who know which of their contacts have similar interests to them and will therefore notice the
online communication they receive from them, creating a specifically targeted messaging
system (Lappaniemi et al, 2010). Abroms & Lefebvre’s analysis of the 2008 Obama
campaign also touched on these factors, suggesting that the people who are known and
trusted by the target individuals are more influential in shaping their beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours (Heaney & Israel, as cited in Abroms & Lefebvre, 2009).
Drawing upon this research, it is posited here that recruiting and retaining volunteers
requires engagement on a deeper level than that found exclusively online. While online
networking remains important to NGOS and NPOs, just as much if not more value and
emphasis should be placed on building and utilising offline communities.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) – Frequent volunteers will prefer online communications when used in
conjunction with effective offline communications, not as the sole driver.
9 Motivational and social factors in volunteering
There are multiple aspects of interaction and communications that need to be
considered when establishing how and why people do volunteer or may be convinced to
volunteer in the future. The Theory of Organisational Inclusion advocates for volunteer
coordinators to endeavour to understand the varying motivations of the volunteers they
engage with so that they can communicate with them better and devise stronger plans for
retention (McCune, as cited in Waters & Bortree, 2012). And research has further shown that
“one of the most successful methods in ensuring that volunteers continue working with
organizations involves making them feel included throughout an organization” (Cuskelly et
al, as cited in Waters & Bortree, 2012). This may be particularly true for young people, as
this is a generation that has been marginalised within their communities in the past
(Garbarino, as cited in Otis, 2006).
Community organising as a distinct practice was observed as far back at the 1960s
(Delgado & Staples, 2008). And while older individuals have consistently been identified as
the most likely age group to participate in volunteering (Hackl, Halla, Pruckner, 2010;
Beigbeder, 1991), the aging volunteer population indicates it is important not to rely on the
older generation alone to maintain volunteer momentum (Wynne, 2011). Additionally, there
is evidence to suggest that young people are encouraged to volunteer when they are exposed
to other volunteers, such as these veteran volunteers, within their immediate social and
familial groups (Wynne, 2011; Passy & Giugni, as cited in Thackeray & Hunter, 2010).
Volunteering or civic behaviour undertaken in adolescence is more likely to continue into
10 adulthood (Otis, 2006; Shannon; Metz; McLellan & Youniss, as cited in Wynne, 2011) and
engaged youth are also less likely to engage in risky behaviours and more likely to be
academically successful (Otis, 2006). The benefits of encouraging young people to volunteer
through utilising proven connections seem obvious, as it is establishing a ‘domino effect’ of
volunteering as a culture encouraged by adults and embraced by youth and offering
community to both.
It is also important in the study of volunteerism to consider psychological
motivations for volunteering. When volunteering, people “seek out an opportunity to help
another…and the decision to help or continue volunteering is influenced by whether the
activity satisfies their needs and goals” (Powers, 2007, p.1). Not only does an individual
need to feel an initial motivation to volunteer based on social values, general altruistic
personalities or the quest for internal self-satisfaction, they also need to feel satisfied that the
undertaken activity then fulfils the criteria that led them to volunteer in the first place
(Powers, 2007). If these criteria are met, the potential for long-term volunteerism seems
significantly heightened.
Intrinsic motivation occurs when we are internally motivated to do something for
reasons of pleasure, importance or personal growth. Intrinsic motivation may be harnessed to
fulfill this criterion of volunteering and encourage people to volunteer for a good cause by
highlighting the self-gratification that can be achieved through volunteerism. Intrinsic
motivation is a driver, the energy for the activity, and for development internally, (Deci and
Ryan, 1985) that influences behaviour in an individual. When intrinsically motivated, people
11 follow their interests and let curiosity, excitement and egos drive their choices and actions
and their behaviours “are aimed at establishing certain internal conditions that are rewarding
for the organism” (Deci and Ryan, 1985, p.25). It may even be triggered by a state of
cognitive dissonance, something unhappy occurring which they desire to change, such as the
youth-group that organised anti-violence vigils and rallies following the drive-by shooting
death of a 16-year-old girl from their city (Christens & Dolan, 2011).
The contrast to intrinsic motivation is extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is
based on the premise of acting for an incentive and stems from external factors such as
money, rewards, academic grades, even obligations or the search for approval (Coon &
Mitterer, 2008). Rewarding a person extrinsically to encourage them to volunteer is easier
for organisations. Even when individuals are interested in volunteering generally, it is still
important to direct the attention of these persons and provide incentives for their
involvement in an activity (Steen, 2006). This is arguably even more so the case when
considering NGOs campaigning on intangible issues with which these publics have little to
no direct exposure to, such as poverty, slavery or child exploitation.
However, it has been suggested that these external rewards will produce only shortterm results as they offer only short-term enticements. Musick and Wilson (2008) studied
search-and-rescue squads, discovering that those who joined for thrill seeking, glory seeking,
a desire to amass outdoor and survival skills and discount benefits inevitably quit (Musick
and Wilson, 2008). This example of “low engagement is to be expected when people are
doing an activity for extrinsic reasons” (Deci & Ryan; Lepper et al, as cited in Pearce &
12 Larson, 2006, p126).
While these ‘wrong reasons’ may be helpful initially, this study will investigate
individuals who are intrinsically motivated to volunteer by factors such as wanting to feel
good and do good for society and consider whether they are more likely to feel a long-term
connection to a cause than those who act initially for external reward only. It is further
hypothesised that individuals who volunteer frequently will highly value the social and
community aspects that accompany volunteerism more so than their infrequent volunteering
counterparts.
Hypothesis 3 (H3) – Frequent volunteers will place greater value on community and socially
focused tactics and goals
Hypothesis 4 (H4) – Long-term volunteers are motivated by intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic
factors.
Method
This research study produced original data through a pretest, exploratory focus groups and
an online survey using a convenience snowball sampling method.
Focus Groups
Focus groups “offer unique insights into the possibilities of or for critical inquiry as a
deliberative, dialogic, and democratic practice that is always already engaged in and with
real-world problems and asymmetries in the distribution of economic and social capital”
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, as cited in Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005, p.887). It is also
13 suggested that people are able to better explore and explain their views through the process
of group activities than they are in a one-on-one interview with a researcher (Kitzinger,
1995). Focus groups were originally used in communication studies to explore effects of the
visually based stimuli of film and television (Kitzinger, 1995) so the extension of this
practice to still imagery and short commercial clips seemed logical. Thus they were chosen
for use in this research study.
Following pretest sessions, two focus groups were hosted to give the researcher the
chance to talk to volunteers themselves and let these volunteers have their say on what tools,
tactics, goals and communications they value within their volunteering experience. Each
group contained 5-7 people and lasted approximately one hour, fitting with the suggested
group size and running time identified by Kitzinger (1995). Groups were designed to yield
qualitative data and thus these smaller numbers allowed for more personal, in-depth
discussions.
The researcher established a focus group protocol drawing on insights taken from
Kitzinger’s Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups (1995) (see Appendix C). This
specific structure was decided upon after 2 pretest focus group sessions were conducted and
the results of each analysed. The findings of these groups were not included in the final
paper.
Pretests. Pretest Session 1 (n=7) was composed of available classmates and acquaintances
of the researcher. Participants were presented with different visual stimuli and questions than
those presented in the final groups. The outline was changed in response to participant
feedback and the researcher’s observations during this pretest. They also completed the
small group ranking activity with fewer options to choose from, which led to an increased
number of tool options in subsequent sessions. Pretest Session 2 (n=3) participants, made up
14 of personal contacts of the researcher with experience in volunteering, were presented with
28 images. Standardised presentation time of 6 seconds was added to give equal exposure to
all images. The time of 6 seconds was chosen as it is the validated exposure rate standard for
the Motivation Activation Measure which measures emotional response to standardised
images (Lang, Shine & Lee, 2005; Lang et al, 2011). A validated scale was also selected to
measure the affective response to each image. Although many were examined, the PANAS
(Positive And Negative Affective Scale; Watson et al, 1988) was used. This is composed of
20 emotion words on a 1-5 Likert scaled (1 = very little to not at all, 5= extremely). The
positive words on this scaled are: Interested, Excited, Strong, Enthusiastic, Proud, Alert,
Inspired, Determined, Attentive, Active. The negative words on this scale are: Distressed,
Upset, Guilty, Scared, Hostile, Irritable, Ashamed, Nervous, Jittery, Afraid. From these 28
pictures, 12 were chosen for use in the official focus groups due to the stronger responses
they elicited from Pretest Session 2 participants. Pretest Session 2 participants also
completed the small group activity and the researcher altered the selection criteria in the
small group ranking activity based on observations of this practice. Participant were
instructed to rank campaigning tools as an entire list originally, however, after the researcher
observed this in practice, it was changed to selecting and ranking a top 3 and an alternative 3
tools.
Focus Group Participants. All participants except 1 were identified as long-term volunteers
of 6 months or more, while 67% (n=12) participants had volunteered for 2 or more years.
The overall group was made up of 9 females and 3 males aged between 18 and 55 years. The
screener survey ensured that no participant under the age of 18 was admitted into the study,
in compliance with the researcher’s ethics approval. 75% (n=12) participants were aged 1825, 17% (n=12) were aged 26-35 and 8% (n=12) was aged 36-55.
15 Focus group participants were recruited from NGOs and NPOs that were locally
based or with a local chapter. These were typically grassroots organisations campaigning on
or committed to global development issues. These are generally intangible issues which
cannot necessary be seen or personally engaged with in daily life, such as international
poverty, refugee rights or slavery. The research focused on smaller organisations initially,
though some larger and more established organisations were also given the opportunity to
participate if they expressed interest given the limited numbers of volunteers available when
targeting smaller or grassroots organisations exclusively. Organisations campaigning on
other intangible issues such as climate change and animal welfare were also contacted.
Organisations were randomly ordered from a list then compiled by the researcher
and contacted in this order via email (see Appendix A), follow-up email (see Appendix B),
phone call or through utilising personal contacts where necessary. Organisations were asked
to contact their volunteers to establish interest in participating. Individuals who responded to
the call for volunteers were then screened using a short, self-evaluation form (see Appendix
E) which established their gender, age, background (exposure to volunteering etc) and main
motivations as a volunteer. These questions were in part derived from Wynne’s study for the
Youth Affairs Council of Victoria (2011).
During the small group activities run within the focus groups, participants were
divided into groups of infrequent volunteers (those volunteering a few time per year or less)
and frequent volunteers (those volunteering 2-3 times a month or more). This was to ensure
that infrequent volunteers who have less expertise and exposure were not intimidated into
suppressing their views while working with highly engaged and experienced volunteers. It
also produced data that allowed for the comparison of frequent volunteers with infrequent
volunteers.
Participants were offered a $10 Coles Myer gift voucher as compensation for their
16 time. They were also provided with refreshments during the focus groups, as suggested by
Kitzinger (1995) to help facilitate a comfortable environment.
Focus group protocol. The focus groups consisted of four short, pre-designed components.
Firstly, participants answered demographic questions (see Appendix D) similar to those
presented in the screener survey (see Appendix E): name, age, time spent volunteering
(hours per week), length of volunteer engagement (years and/or months), personal exposure
to volunteering and main reason for volunteering. Also included were the open-ended
questions: ‘What do you like most about volunteering?’ ‘What do you like least about
volunteering?’ and ‘Do you receive any financial benefits, incentives or support (however
minimal) for your volunteering?’ (Basic motivational and contextual questions were
modified from those in Wynne’s 2011 study for the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria).
This activity was followed by the presentation of the 12 selected images and 4 video
clips chosen from the pretest because of their potential to evoke certain emotions. According
to a study by Dillard & Peck (2000), which considered graduates’ emotional responses to
public service announcements, data shows that “emotional responses figure quite
prominently in judgments of perceived message effectiveness, which then shape attitudes
toward the issue” (p.482). In this activity, participants were asked to view an image for 6
seconds or watch a video clip for the duration and then note how they felt using the PANAS
scale (see Appendix F). This component of the focus groups was designed to record the
emotional responses of people towards these particular images and establish whether
negative images (children crying, people in impoverished situations, women suffering
sicknesses) evoke negative emotions and whether positive images (smiling faces, healthy
crops, happy families) evoke positive emotions.
17 Table 1. Description of Focus Group images.
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
Image 7
Image 8
Image 9
Image 10
Image 11
Image 12
Video clip 1
Video clip 2
Video clip 3
Video clip 4
Mother sitting on the city street with a child sleeping in her lap,
holding out a cup begging for money
Child smiling as he fills his hands with clean water running from a tap
Two children sitting in a dirty, shallow creek, holding rubbish in their
hand
A group of young women wearing uniforms sit in a classroom
An older man stands amidst a healthy green corn crop
An older man sits in a rubbish heap wearing little clothing and no
shoes, finding food scraps to eat
A young girl smiles at the camera, her healthy face filling the screen
A group of girls laugh and play ball sports outside together
A group of severely emaciated children reach out their hands
A young girl with a tear running down her face looks sadly into the
camera
A tired mother holds a infant who has a feeding tube tapped to an
emaciated face
A dishevelled young woman looks to the camera from behind lines of
barbed wire fencing
A celebrity ambassador makes an impassioned plea for the public to
donate to save a child from hunger
A group of families are light-heartedly failed for their spending
choices, while the final family is applauded for using spare money per
month to sponsor a child
A inspirational music track builds behind images and captions of poor
yet powerful women shaping developing communities
A series of celebrities click their fingers to represent the preventable
death of a child from poverty every two seconds
The researcher next initiated a short discussion amongst participants during which
they identified their own view of volunteers and volunteering, with prompts such as ‘can
volunteers receive any financial benefits?’ and ‘is there a stereotypical view of volunteers?’
offered by the researcher where necessary (see Appendix I & Appendix J). This was
designed as an icebreaker and precursor to the concluding activity.
Finally, the groups finished with an interactive activity component in which smaller
groups of 2-3 participants grouped according to their level of engagement frequency (see
Participants section) were formed. Each group was given a set of cards representing
organisational goals, volunteer recruitment tools, volunteer engagement tools and
18 campaigning tools (see Appendix H). The groups were directed to choose, with their team
members, which of each they would prioritise in their own efforts as a grassroots NGO
launching a campaign. When considering campaigning tools they were asked to select 3 top
choices and 3 additional choices while in other categories they were asked to order the
options presented from most to least important. The list of tools was devised by studying
those used successfully in past campaigns, such as Live Aid (a public concert) and
KONY2012 (a YouTube video) or by organisations such as Make Poverty History
(merchandise and celebrity endorsements).
Survey
An online survey as an additional component in this research study was designed to
build upon the qualitative information gathered during focus groups by applying it in a
wider, more accessible format. The activities undertaken and information gathered during
focus groups informed this survey.
A survey was a positive addition to this study given interested parties who were, for
timing, geographical or personal reasons, unable to make the face-to-face focus group
sessions. Online surveys are a quick and inexpensive way to distribute surveys to large
populations of potential participants (Wright, 2005; Rubin & Babbie, 2009) and thus this
method was chosen. The survey was designed to run for 15 minutes or less, keeping with
recommendations (Rubin & Babbie, 2009). The survey included 3 component derived from
focus group activities.
19 Survey Participants. Participants were recruited from organisations identified in the lead-up
to focus groups as well as additional organisations meeting the same criteria, and included
individuals who had already expressed interest as well as new contacts. Focus groups
participants were asked to identify friends and colleagues who may be interested and
forward the survey onto them, though they were not asked to complete it themselves. The
researcher also posted the survey on social media platforms to further widen the audience.
Organisations not contacted for focus group recruitment due to geographical constraints but
otherwise meeting the initial selection criteria were also contacted at this stage. The criterion
was also broadened to include NGOs and NPOs focused on local or national issues of social
justice, health and the community.
Organisations received a short email (see Appendix G) and individuals with prior
knowledge of the survey or study were contacted individually. This initial contact contained
the relevant link to the survey and, as no follow-up was needed, no further correspondence
was deemed necessary.
A total of 79 participants completed the survey. Participants identified themselves as
volunteers and as being aged between 18 and over 56. 36% participants were aged 18-25,
20% were aged 26-35, 22.7% were aged 36-55 and 21.3% were aged over 55. 36% of
participants were from organizations with a global focus while 64% of participants
responded as being from an organisation with a more local focus.
Participants were asked upon completion if they would be interested in partaking in a
20 follow-up focus group. If they indicated yes they were asked to provide a contact email. An
email address was also necessary if participants indicated they would like to go into the draw
to win a $100 Coles Myer gift voucher incentive.
Survey content (see Appendix L). Participants were first presented with 6 images chosen
from the 12 shown to focus group participants. Images 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 11 became Images 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in surveys. Only 6 of 12 images were used due to time constraints, and these
particular images were chosen because of the high ratings they received in focus groups.
Participants were again asked to view an image and then note how they felt by responding to
a series of emotions as listed on the PANAS scale.
Participants then completed ranking questions derived from the small group ranking
activity run in focus groups. The same 4 categories were used, covering organisational goals,
volunteer recruitment tools, volunteer engagement tools and campaigning tools. Participants
were instructed to rank from 1-3 the most important tools/goals from the lists of
organisational goals, volunteer engagement tools and volunteer recruitment tools, and from
1-5 the most important tools from the list of campaigning tools. The researcher identified
this as an appropriately time-conscious way to undertake the activity and achieve equivalent
ranking of the options.
21 Results
Hypothesis 1 (H1) – Long-term volunteers will prefer campaigns and communications
with a positive message.
The image analysis activity completed by focus group and survey participants
supported the hypothesis that long-term volunteers would respond better to positive as
opposed to negative communications.
Firstly, the validity of the images used was confirmed for this sample as images and
clips defined as positive rated significantly higher for positive affect words, such as
enthusiastic and inspired. Likewise, negative images elicited stronger response to negative
affect words, such as irritated and upset. Paired-sample t-tests were used to compare the
mean positive to the mean negative affect sub-scale, and were significant for all images (see
Table 2). The larger the difference, the higher the image rated on either the positive or
negative scale (indicated by the plus and minus symbols). For example, Image 2 as seen by
focus group participants (See Appendix K) had a very high overall score for positive affect
words (31.36) and a low overall score for negative affect words (11.45) so it ultimately rated
highly with a positive mean difference of +1.99. Meanwhile, the one clip rated as being
‘neutral’, which was dropped after the focus groups, was slightly negative at -0.14.
The majority of the high-scoring affect words for each positive image were positive,
while the same is true of negative images and negative affect words. Affect words based
around engagement with the image all scored higher for positive images and were identified
as positive.
Positive images also appear to have elicited higher degrees of positive affect than
negative images do negative affect (see Table 2). Positive means generated by positive
images are generally larger than negative means generated by negative images, with the
22 highest positive in focus group results a mean of 3.35 while the highest negative was only a
mean of 2.99. The same was evident in survey data with the highest positive for long-term
survey participants being 2.66 and the highest negative being 2.2. All were rated using the
same 5-point scale.
While the focus group and survey data both evidenced the same trends in terms of
positive and negative affect and degrees of emotional response, participants in focus groups
showed more extreme responses to the images than survey participants, with the highest and
lowest differences (for images only) being +1.99 for focus groups versus +1.55 for survey
participants and -0.93 for focus groups versus -0.55 for survey participants.
Survey data, however, demonstrates that these results are not limited to long-term
volunteers (see Table 2). An analysis of the responses of short-term participants showed that
negative images also trigger strong negative affect and likewise positive images and positive
affect. In fact, differences were actually larger for short-term survey participants as opposed
to long-term survey participants. For the three negative images, short-term volunteers had
significantly higher ratings for the negative affect words than when the same images were
rated by long-term volunteers. These images were Image 2 (t73=-2.082, p=0.041), Image 5
(t73=-2.889, p=0.005) and Image 6(t73=-2.706, p=0.008). .
23 Table 2. PANAS positive and negative ratings for issue images.
Image
Child drinking clean
water
Long-term
Short-term
Focus Group
Children sit in garbage
Long-term
Short-term
Focus Group
Women in school
Long-term
Short-term
Focus Group
Girls playing sport
Long-term
Short-term
Focus Group
Starving children
PANAS Affect Sub-scale
Total Rating
Mean Rating
Mean
Positive Negative Positive Negativ Difference
e
2.54
1.26
t74=11.72*
**
24.63
28.31
31.36
12.12
14.50
11.45
20.68
24.13
21.73
2.46
1.21
2.83
1.45
3.14
1.15
2.14
2.39
22.69
2.07
2.27*
28.19
2.41
2.82*
25.18
2.17
2.52
26.53
28.88
27.73
2.70
1.23
11.90
2.65
1.19
13.94
2.89
1.39
11.27
2.77
1.13
26.59
31.06
31.64
2.75
1.15
11.10
2.66
1.11
12.81
3.11
1.28
10.55
3.16
1.05
2.12
1.25
1.38
1.99
t74=-2.44**
-0.20
-0.41
-0.35
t74=12.14*
**
1.46
1.49
1.65
t74=13.16*
**
1.55
1.83
2.11
t74=5.84***
2.78
Long-term
2.61**
20.59
26.10
2.06
*
-0.55
Short-term
3.43**
23.50
34.25
2.35
*
-1.08
Focus Group
20.64
29.91
2.06
2.99
-0.93
Sick mum & baby
2.01
2.43
t74=4.07***
Long-term
19.81
22.64
1.98 2.26**
-0.28
Short-term
21.13
30.38
2.11 3.04**
-0.93
Focus Group
20.08
26.08
2.01
2.61
-0.60
Note 1: Paired t-tests were conducted between positive and negative affect ratings across all
participants for each image. All were significant (t-values reported).
Note 2: Significant differences between long-term and short-term volunteers for the negative
affect sub-scale are indicated as follows: * p < .05, ** p<.01, ***p<.005 on an independent
t-test with 73 degrees of freedom. There were no significant differences in positive affect
ratings.
An interest in positive communications and campaigning choices was also evident
in the tools selected by long-term survey participants in the ranking activity (see Table 2). ‘A
survivor’s story’ outranked ‘a victim’s story’, being chosen as a campaigning tool 39 times
24 as opposed to 20 times while ‘positive statistics’ outranked ‘negatives statistics’, 25 to 4.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) – Frequent volunteers will prefer online communications when used
in conjunction with effective offline communications, not as the sole driver.
The results gathered during the ranking activity completed by focus groups (see
Appendix H) and survey participants demonstrated the following results in regards to the
combination of online versus offline materials they prefer.
Table 3. Number of times a particular campaign tool was selected in
respondents’ top 5 or 6 choices.
Campaigning tool
A survivor’s story
Television
Website
An event e.g. the 40-hour famine
Positive statistics
A victim’s story
Facebook
YouTube video
Public concerts
Celebrity endorsements
Radio
Humour
An event e.g. a gala dinner
Merchandise: t-shirts and
wristbands
Rally
Negative statistics
Blogging
Petitions
Cold calling
Twitter
Frequent Volunteers
Focus
Survey
Group
39
3
36
2
35
4
Infrequent Volunteers
Focus
Survey
Group
6
0
9
0
7
1
7
1
34
25
20
19
17
14
12
12
7
7
4
2
0
4
1
0
1
0
1
0
4
5
8
3
1
5
2
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
3
3
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
In selecting campaigning tools (see Table 3), online options were popular choices for
focus group participants, with ‘a website’ and a ‘Facebook page’ chosen by all participants.
25 ‘A campaign e.g. the 40-Hour Famine’, a high-profile movement with large offline
components, was chosen by all of the participants also. ‘Television’ was chosen by only 2 of
the frequent groups despite its popularity with survey participants. There was a mixture of
offline and online choices making up the remainder of the selections. For survey
participants, ‘a website’, ‘an event e.g. the 40-Hour Famine’, ‘television’ and ‘a survivor
story’ rated highest for frequent volunteers, again combining online and offline mediums.
‘Television’, ‘a website’, ‘an event e.g. the 40-Hour Famine’ and ‘Facebook’ rated highest
for infrequent volunteers, however ‘Facebook’ failed to rate higher than seventh for frequent
survey participants.
In selecting volunteer engagement tools (see Table 4), a division between the online
and offline preferences of frequent and infrequent participants in the focus groups was more
prevalent. All of the frequent participants choose offline or interpersonal tools, such as
‘team-building exercises’, ‘group camps’ and ‘regular meetings’ for at least 2 of their top 3
engagement tools. Infrequent participants instead choose ‘Facebook groups’, ‘group emails’
and ‘conference calls’ as their top three. In surveys, results showed less difference between
the preferences of frequent and infrequent participants. The highest rated tools for both
frequent and infrequent participants were for offline engagement tools, being ‘regular
meetings’ (frequent x=1.73, infrequent x=1.87) and ‘team-building exercises’ (frequent
x=1.17 and infrequent x=1.27). ‘Conference calls’ and ‘Facebook groups’ rated lowest for
frequent participants while ‘conference calls’, ‘task-based incentives and rewards’ and
‘Facebook groups’ rated lowest for infrequent participants.
26 Table 4. Volunteer engagement tools.
Rankings (8 items)
1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice
Regular Meetings
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Group emails
Frequent (n=60 )
Infrequent (n=15)
Team-building exercises
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Task-based rewards &
incentives
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Group camps & retreats
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Regular social nights
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Facebook groups
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Conference calls
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Mean
Rank
23
6
13
3
9
4
1.73
1.87
11
1
11
2
8
1
1.05
0.53
10
4
13
3
14
1
1.17
1.27
8
1
4
0
8
1
0.67
0.27
4
0
4
2
7
3
0.45
0.47
4
3
8
3
9
2
0.62
1.13
0
0
3
1
3
2
0.15
0.27
0
0
4
1
2
1
0.17
0.20
Hypothesis 3 (H3) – Frequent volunteers will place greater value on community and
socially focused tactics and goals
The demographic questions completed by focus group (see Appendix D) and survey
participants (see Appendix K) revealed that 80% (n=10) of the frequent volunteers who
participated in the focus groups identified as having family members involved in
volunteering compared to only 47% (n=60) of frequent volunteers who completed the survey.
27 Similarly, for people who volunteer frequently, all of those in the focus groups (n=10)
identified as having friends involved in volunteering compared to 72% (n=60) who
completed the survey.
Table 5. Volunteer recruitment tools.
Rankings (7 items)
1 choice 2nd
3rd
choice
choice
st
Word of mouth
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Advertising – Facebook,
Twitter & social sites
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Recruitment drives at schools &
universities
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Recruitment drives for family
and friends
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Offering extra class credit
opportunities for student
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Advertising – newspaper, radio
& job sites
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Offering prizes, giveaways &
incentives
Frequent (n=60)
Infrequent (n=15)
Mean
Rank
22
4
8
2
6
2
1.47
1.20
13
4
7
1
13
5
1.1
1.27
9
4
21
0
8
5
1.28
1.13
2
0
4
3
9
0
0.38
0.40
4
2
9
3
10
2
0.68
0.93
9
1
11
5
12
1
1.02
0.93
1
0
0
1
2
0
0.08
0.13
The ranking activity also produced results regarding the preferences of frequent
volunteers versus infrequent volunteers in regards to community and socially focused tactics
and goals. When choosing from the volunteer recruitment tools (see Table 5), ‘word of
28 mouth’ was consistently identified as an important tool, with all small groups placing it in
their top three recruitment tools and 74% (n=4 groups) of frequent participants choosing it as
their most important recruitment tool. The frequent survey respondents also rated ‘word of
mouth’ the highest (mean=1.47). ‘Word of mouth’ also rated well with infrequent volunteers,
second only to ‘advertising – Facebook, Twitter & social sites’. ‘Prizes, giveaways and
incentives’ was rated in the bottom three for all focus group respondents, coming last for
50% (n=4 groups) of frequent participants and all infrequent participants (n=1 group). It also
rated worst for both frequent and infrequent volunteers in surveys.
There was a clear difference between the organisational goal preferences of frequent
and infrequent volunteers (see Table 6). All frequent volunteers identified ‘leadership’ in
their top 3 goals with 75% (n=4 groups) rating it most important and one volunteer declaring,
“leadership will set the vision for all the other priorities” (female, frequent). The infrequent
participants rated it only forth of 6 goals, instead rating ‘publicity’ as their most important
goal. This contrasts with the frequent participants, who rated publicity in the bottom 3.
29 Table 6. Organisation goals.
Community
&
Public
Organisational goals
friendships Funding
perception
To individuals
Frequent
41
7
Infrequent
11
2
To fellow volunteers
Frequent
46
6
Infrequent
10
0
To the wider
organisation
Frequent
11
19
Infrequent
3
2
Leadership
Publicity
Awards
6
1
10
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
6
3
0
1
0
1
17
9
10
0
3
1
3
1
The preferences of ‘you’ (n=55 out of 79) & ‘fellow volunteers’ (n=60 out of 79) was
significantly skewed towards "community & friendships" (p<.000). However, when
comparing ‘you’ to ‘the organisation’, the spread was more diverse across all option
combinations, which is supported by a non-significant chi-square test (X2 =14.663, p =.549).
Results were quite different in surveys, with frequent and infrequent participants both
rating ‘community and friendship’ as their most important goal, with 73% (n=15) of
infrequent volunteers and 68% (n=60) of frequent volunteers selecting it. ‘Awards’ received
no votes from either group of volunteers, as in focus groups, while ‘leadership’, ‘funding’
and ‘public perception’ rated considerably higher for frequent as opposed to infrequent
participants.
Finally, when choosing from volunteer engagement tactics (see Table 4), all of the
frequent focus group participants chose offline or interpersonal tools which were significantly
more social and community-minded, such as ‘team-building exercises’, ‘group camps’ and
‘regular meetings’ for at least 2 of their top 3 engagement tools. Infrequent participants
30 instead chose ‘Facebook groups’, ‘group emails’ and ‘conference calls’ as their top three,
options which involve little to no personal interaction. In surveys, results showed less
difference between the preferences of frequent and infrequent participants. The highest
means for each group of participants were for offline engagement tools, being ‘team-building
exercises’ and ‘regular meetings’. For frequent participants, ‘Facebook groups’ rated lowest
with a mean of 0.15 and for infrequent participants ‘conference calls’ rated lowest with a
mean of 0.20.
Hypothesis 4 (H4) – Long-term volunteers are motivated by intrinsic as opposed to
extrinsic factors.
This hypothesis was supported in this study based on responses about the motivations
and social lives of long-term volunteers. 83% (n=12) of focus group participants and 100%
(n=11) of long-term focus group participants selected a purely altruistic motivation (‘I want
to do something to help others’, ‘social responsibility’, ‘it’s the right thing to do’) as their
main reason for volunteering. 75% (n=75) of survey participants and 78% (n=59) of longterm survey participants also selected a purely altruistic motivation as their main reason for
volunteering. 100% (n=11) of long-term focus group participants had been exposed to
volunteering through at least one of the following: parents, friends, extended family,
siblings, spouse/partner, school community, church/community group. 93% (n=59) of longterm survey participants had been exposed to volunteering through at least one of the
following: parents, friends, extended family, siblings, spouse/partner, school community,
church/community group, workplace.
The ranking activity completed by focus groups and survey participants also
produced results relating to motivation. When choosing volunteer recruitment tools (see
31 Table 5), ‘offering giveaways, prizes and incentives’, an extrinsic motivational tool, was
identified as the least important tool for 60% (n=5 groups) of the participants in focus groups
and in the bottom three for all of the participants. In surveys, ‘offering prizes, giveaways
and incentives’ had the lowest mean for all participants. In selecting organisational goals, all
volunteers rated ‘awards’, again extrinsic, as the least important organisational goal. This
was also true for survey participants, with no participants selecting it as their most important
goal.
Additional findings
Volunteering to build a resume and gain industry experience was deemed acceptable
by the participants in focus groups, as was receiving some financial remuneration, but there
was a general level of disdain expressed in regards to the giving of prizes and incentives for
volunteering. It was stated that this might attract “some of the wrong people” (female,
frequent), people who “aren’t there for the cause” (male, frequent) and it was stated that
receiving incentives, prizes and rewards is “not really the point” (female, frequent) of
volunteering.
Comments made by the participants themselves also indicated a belief that
volunteering “is not just a selfless act” (male, infrequent). One frequent participant
commented that she still expects a level of support and peer engagement as a volunteer while
another frequent volunteers acknowledged that the organisation she works for treats their
volunteers quite poorly, perhaps because they are classified as unskilled and unpaid. Another
participants responded that he had left an organisation because of these same reasons, stating
“you want to know that you’re doing something that’s meaningful and benefit to, like, that
ideological thing you’re pursing” (male, infrequent). This is supported by the research of
32 Powers (2007) who remarked upon the need for volunteering to meet the criteria established
by an individual at the time of volunteering. This may be as simple as volunteers feeling as
though their time is going towards the accomplishment of something, but it should be
remembered that managers “must not view volunteers as monolithic groups, but they have to
focus on the individual by investing time to understanding who they are and their specific
motivations” (Waters & Bortree, 2012, 103).
Discussion
The benefits of positive communications and campaigning in discussing global
development
The responses of long-term participants to positive imagery as opposed to negative
imagery is significant here, with results indicating that people have a stronger positive
emotional response to images which depict positive situations and scenarios. Feelings of
determination, enthusiasm, interest and strength, to name a few, are obviously desirable in
this instance, given the association between feeling happy and pro-social behaviour
(Lyubomirsky et al, 2005).
This study indicates that volunteers themselves understand and appreciate the use of
positive imagery. The fact that long-term survey participants consistently chose positive
tools, being ‘positive statistics’ and ‘a survivor’s story’, over negative tools, being ‘negative
statistics’ and ‘a victim’s story’, indicates not only their personal preference for positive
messaging but also their belief in the appeal of this messaging to the public, given that they
were directed to choose tools for the specific purpose of recruiting and engaging with
volunteers. Said one volunteer, “Having a hero and a positive narrative really helps” (female,
frequent). The fact that this information comes from the specific target demographic, being
33 long-term volunteers themselves, makes it significant.
Another important factor to note is the fact that not only did long-term volunteers
have a positive emotional response towards positive imagery, results show they also felt
stronger positivity towards these images than they did negatively towards negative images.
This potentially suggests that people, especially people already engaged in volunteering,
have become desensitised to negative imagery, given the lengthy exposure publics have had
to it. This further undermines any potential value negative imagery may have. Significantly,
it is only long-term volunteers who responded in this manner; short-term volunteers who
have presumably had less exposure to images still respond strongly in the negative towards
this negative imagery. This may be a reason why certain studies position acts of giving next
to the shock value of this imagery (Small & Verrochi 2009), which creates immediate
outrage but, as seen with long-term volunteers, gradually proceeds to have little impact at all.
This is supported by the following suggestion:
Appeals based on financial transactions or disempowering images of human
suffering (both of which tap into extrinsic motivations and negative frames) may
prove impossible to give up in the short term. But their negative impacts could
be somewhat limited if they were used only to pull in new supporters –
supporters who could then be offered only engagement activities based on more
positive values and frames (Darnton & Kirk 2011, p.105).
These results also suggest that positive imagery, which still elicited a high-level
response from frequent participants in this survey, may be a way to overcome the stereotypes
that are associated with negative imagery and have thus produced this desensitisation.
Breaking the ‘framework’ surrounding poverty as discussed by Darnton & Kirk (2011)
means disassociating new campaigns and movements from old, outdated campaigns and
movements and thus preventing publics from forming a mentality of hopelessness as
“nothing has really changed” (Darnton & Kirk 2011 p.24).
Ultimately, it is not just long-term volunteers who respond positively to positive
images – it’s short-term volunteers as well. Though they may, as discussed, still react more
34 intensely to negative imagery than their long-term counterparts, short-term volunteers also
recorded high degrees of positive affect when viewing positive images. Based on this there
seems to be multiple potential benefits of replacing negative imagery with positive imagery
in campaigning efforts generally and recruiting specifically. It recommended here that NGOs
and NPOs, particularly those interested in volunteer recruitment and retaining, strongly
consider phasing out the use of negative images in favour of positive images that
demonstrate the good work that has been and continues to be done in situations of
development.
Online and offline combinations for engagement, recruitment and campaigning
The prevalence of the online world has obviously spread to the acts of volunteering
and campaigning, as is evidenced in this study. And results do indicate that participants
consider having an online platform a necessity, with one participant remarking that this “is
really important to success for any campaign these days” (female, frequent). This was
represented in the results, with ‘a website’ rated consistently high as a choice for
campaigning tools amongst both frequent and infrequent volunteers. This result supports Tilt
et al’s research (2008), which acknowledged the power and potential of online mediums, a
belief that seems to have spread to volunteers themselves, in some regards.
However, these tools were selected in conjunction with offline mediums, most
prevalently ‘an event e.g. the 40-Hour Famine’, a campaign that combines online and offline
engagement and which has been popular since before the rise of internet-based technologies.
Also, although ‘Facebook’ was ranked high by infrequent volunteers and focus groups,
frequent volunteers who took the survey only ranked ‘Facebook’ seventh highest in their list
of campaigning tools. This is a significant distinction between frequent and infrequent
volunteers, especially given how integrated into mainstream society social networking has
35 become. All participants also ranked a ‘Youtube video’ low in their selection and all groups
except infrequent survey participants ranked ‘Twitter’ lowest. This combination of online
and offline tools, and the general rejection of social online tools, supports the hypothesis as
well as wider research suggesting that online tools work best when combined with offline
tools, not substituting for them altogether (Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2009; Abroms &
Lefebvre, 2009).
Another significant difference was between the high ranking of ‘television’ by survey
participants compared to focus group participants. One possible suggestion for this would be
the analytical quality of many of the volunteers who participated in focus groups and had the
majority of their experiences being in grassroots organisations with limited resources. Their
subsequent mentality was thus keeping with this style and choosing more cost-efficient
options. One participant even expressed surprise at being told they were allowed to use
whatever tools they were given and stated, “If price doesn’t matter, I’d pick television”
(male, frequent).
Offline tools were popular in the selection of volunteer engagement tools for frequent
volunteers. ‘Regular meetings’ and ‘team-building exercises’ rated highly in both focus
groups and survey results, remaining a feature in the top three selections for groups and
individuals. However, ‘group camps and retreats’ and ‘regular social nights’ were less
popular choices and brings into question the amount of offline engagement needed to allow a
volunteer to feel fulfilled and a part of a community. This would suggest that engaging
offline does not necessary have to mean engaging in a purely social environment.
While the selection of volunteer engagement tools by infrequent volunteers were
inconclusive because of numbers, results do suggest that online communications are
preferred, even essential. Again, online communications nowadays mean that community
and socialising does not necessarily have to be entirely unrelated to work or include ‘hanging
36 out’ outside of hours. One infrequent male volunteer remarked that online platforms require
less time and are thus easier. For some volunteers this lower, online-based level of
community engagement may be sufficient and, in allowing infrequent volunteers to remain
long-term with an organisation, it seems necessary.
Finally, these points seems a especially important in the recruiting and retaining of
young volunteers or emerging volunteers, as online platforms are obviously something that
will be utilised more and more into the future, when establishing how much offline
communication should compliment online communication. It should also not be employed as
a blanket rule that young people will immediately respond best to online mediums to the
point that offline mediums can be foregone.
The community and social aspects of volunteering
Frequent volunteers in this study did present as having high rates of volunteering
exposure, with the large majority of them having family, friends or members of their
immediate social circle involved in volunteering. There may be a number of potential factors
for why this occurs but ultimately the purpose of the research in this case was simply to
assert that frequent volunteers have exposure to likeminded individuals.
Given the established influence of volunteers upon younger people (Wynne, 2011;
Passy & Giugni in Thackeray & Hunter, 2010), the significance in this finding relates to how
people may be recruited as volunteers in the first place. Through utilising existing
volunteers, it seems possible that organisations may be able to directly target new volunteers
with communications more specifically aimed at them as friends and family members of
people who are already known volunteers. However, neither frequent nor infrequent
volunteers rated this particular tool, ‘recruitment drives for family and friends’, particularly
high when presented with it in the final survey and focus group activity. This may be
37 explained by one volunteer who stated in focus groups “you don’t want to lean on your
family to do stuff” (male, frequent). People don’t want to impose upon others with either
their sense of obligation or their beliefs.
When it comes to the community and social factors of the actual volunteering
experience itself both frequent and infrequent volunteers rated ‘community and friendships’
as one of the most important organisational goals, overwhelmingly so in surveys in particular.
And, as will be discussed (see Limitations and further research), the difference in results
between focus group and survey participants may be because the simple act of working in a
community in focus groups negated the need to focus on community in the selection of tools.
Said one participant: “the main reward that you get from volunteering, non-financial
obviously, is the community and social reward and that comes through team building”
(female, frequent). This is backed up by research, as “feeling included significantly impacts
how an individual perceives his or her place within that organization” (Waters & Bortree,
2012, p. 94). Volunteers who feel excluded are less productive, less trusting and more likely
to leave an organisation (Stein, 2002; Mor Barak, et al as cited in Waters & Bortree,
2012).
An important factor, building on these results, relates not only to how important
volunteers see community but also to how they see community being valued by the
organisation as a whole. Only 19% (n=75) of survey participants felt their organisation
valued ‘community and friendships’ as most important, with ‘public perception’ and
‘funding’ rating higher for both frequent and infrequent participants. This discrepancy
between what the volunteer values and what the organisation values is significant and relates
back to comments made by volunteers themselves who felt undervalued.
Frequent participants also showed a preference for offline and interpersonal, as
opposed to online, engagement tools consistently, while infrequent volunteer wavered on
38 this point. While some infrequent volunteers obviously value face-to-face community also,
their higher levels of appreciation for online engagement is perhaps influenced by their
lifestyle. One infrequent participants commented “ I don’t know who’s got the time to do
that sort of thing” (male, infrequent) when considering ‘group camps and retreats’ as an
engagement tool, while in contrast several frequent participants rated this very tool very
highly in their ranking.
As discussed in H2, the notion of ‘community’ and ‘socialising’ for volunteers does
not necessarily have to be entirely unrelated to work or include ‘hanging out’ outside of
hours. Focus group participants expressed appreciation of being able to simply attend
meetings and engage with the organisation they were apart of professionally. Proposed one
volunteer, “if you’re in an organisation where maybe you’re the only volunteer…you’re
wanting to be involved in the meetings and be involved in the team” (female, frequent).
Therefore, although this is not a specifically social interaction, for some volunteers this level
of community engagement may be sufficient.
Motivations in volunteerism facilitating long-term engagement
Results from this research study suggest that long-term volunteers do volunteer
mainly for altruistic factors, which facilitates a sense of intrinsic or cognitive wellbeing. The
top-ranked motivations were ‘I want to do something to help others’, ‘social responsibility’
and ‘it’s the right thing to do’. As discussed in H3, they also showed very high rates of
exposure to other volunteers who they met through family, education, work or social
circumstances.
It is important to acknowledge the comments made by the volunteers indicating that,
despite mainly altruistic reasons for volunteering initially, people expect to be treated as
someone working for reasons outside of that, with goals and expectations that need to be
39 met, and see that it is human to desire something in return from the contribution of your
time. This all ultimately acknowledges a need for volunteers to be rewarded intrinsically and
individually and made to feel as valuable, needed and important as they actually are in
NGOs and NPOs.
Regardless of this, there seemed to be amongst volunteers a level of acceptable
reward and extrinsic motivation that may be received from volunteering, but this was not all
encompassing. These sentiments were reflected in the results, with extrinsic factors rating
consistently low in the selection of volunteering recruitment tools and even organisational
goals. Judging by these factors, it would seem that volunteers themselves look down upon
the recipients of extrinsic rewards and it is suggested here that using these tools may
diminish the volunteering community and experience for both frequent and infrequent
volunteers.
Limitations & Further Research
The key limitation of this study was the relatively small size of the sample population,
particularly that of infrequent and short-term volunteers. Approximately 100 people were
involved in this particular study and it is not possible to conclude here whether results may
be different if a larger or more diverse sample of the population was included. This research
also used volunteers from locally focused NGOs as well as those with a global development
focus due to the limited number of the latter organisations available. While this limited the
research study in some regards, it also opens up the possibility of further research that may
explore this topic with a wider sample of a more specific population. The same issue was
had regarding grassroots organisations, with this research study unable to secure a large
enough sample group from this specific population. Again, this opens up the possibility that
40 a comparison may be explored in future research.
It is important to acknowledge that several of the members of focus groups were
highly accomplished or high-ranking members of the organisations in which they work. This
may have added an analytical quality to the tools chosen here, influencing the results beyond
that of just personal preference. Furthermore, the very act of working in a social setting in
the process of producing results in focus groups may have potentially negated the idea that
community needed to be accounted for in the choosing of tools and may explain the
discrepancy between focus group results and survey results in this area.
Further research should include the expansion of this research question generally into
other areas of volunteerism, beyond that of global development, to establish the
circumstances in organisations campaigning on these issues. There was positive potential in
the high rates of response from members of The Smith Family organisation particularly,
indicating that research on the recruitment and retention of volunteers is relevant to various
other NGOs and NPOs as well.
Many of the issues established in this paper and wider research may affect volunteer
agencies generally and it is important to look at social, psychological and perception-based
problems that possibly exists there, either unique or as already discussed in this paper. This
may help strengthen the use of communications across the field of volunteerism generally.
Conclusion
The overall purpose of this research study was to explore why people volunteer and how to
make volunteering better so that they are more likely to remain volunteers long-term. Not
only does this make the social and positive experience of volunteering more appealing and
more rewarding but it also means the organisations that rely on volunteers get the help they
41 need.
The suggestions made in this research build upon the insights and instructions in
numerous research studies done before by asking questions of volunteers themselves to
establish what they love, hate, would change and wouldn’t change about the practice of
volunteering. What’s been found is that, in the Internet age, online communities are
important but offline communities remain wanted and needed, especially for frequent
volunteers. Community of all sorts is essential, the life-blood of a volunteer-based
organisation, though this doesn’t mean such an organisation has to manufacture friendships
in a purely social environment. Rather, it simply needs to give volunteers the opportunity to
interact and engage with volunteers personally in circumstances of frequent engagement, not
via mass email send-outs or alike. They should also build on the communities they already
have and reach out to the social circles that surround these people to find likeminded and
like-motivated individuals. Organisations need to acknowledge the preferences of volunteers
and cater their objectives to that, ensuring volunteers feel important and acknowledged,
rewards which should fuel the intrinsically-motivated volunteers who organisations should
be aiming to recruit in the first place. Time should be spent fulfilling this criterion over
trying to lure and tempt volunteers with extrinsic rewards and prizes, however easy that may
seem in the short-term. Finally, organisations need to rethink their own images and the
image they are portraying of their causes. Using tragedy to gain sympathy has consequences
in the long-term, giving the impression that nothing has been accomplished. The people that
are attracted to positive, progress messaging instead are people that are very worth having
onboard.
These suggestions are especially relevant for young people, as this research study had
the largest percentage of people aged 35 and under as participants. Given the aging volunteer
population and the fact that people in this age bracket are less likely to volunteer than people
42 aged between 36 and 74 (Volunteering Australia, 2012), it is important to focus further
efforts on these individuals and establish what genuinely motivates and speaks to them.
This research study also analysed groups of data from both short-term versus longterm volunteers and frequent versus infrequent volunteers. In some cases, organisations may
have to prioritise either frequency of engagement or longevity in volunteering and, though
retention is highlighted here, both serve value purposes in various circumstances.
Volunteering is more than just unpaid work. It is a multi-faceted and complicated
system and none of these rules will apply to everyone. This is the nature of dealing with so
many different, unique individuals. Bortree & Waters (2012) acknowledged this when they
stated that “with the underlying push to treat everyone equally and fairly, volunteer
managers often fail to recognise that individual differences play a significant role in
volunteers’ responsiveness and desire to continue volunteering (Bortree & Waters, 2012).
Taking on a volunteer should be a process that is treated with as much respect as
taking on an employee. As said one volunteer on the process of volunteering, “the moment
that you fall out of love and when you don’t feel that your task is contributing to a cause you
just leave and you can because there’s nothing holding you there other than the belief”. The
task of NGOs and NPOs is to ensure that there is something holding volunteers in their
organisations beyond simple obligation through building community, promoting progress,
distributing acknowledgment and showing respect.
43 Reference List
Abroms, L. C., & Craig Lefebvre, R. (2009). Obama’s Wired Campaign: Lessons for Public
Health Communication. Journal of Health Communication, 14(5), 415–423.
doi:10.1080/10810730903033000
Beigbeder, Y. (1991). The Role and Status of International Humanitarian Volunteers and
Organizations: The Right and Duty to Humanitarian Assistance. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Carroll, R. (2012, April 21). Kony 2012 Cover the Night fails to move from the internet to
the streets. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/21/kony-2012-campaign-uganda-warlord
Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2010). Interweaving Youth Development, Community
Development, and Social Change Through Youth Organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528–
548. doi:10.1177/0044118X10383647
Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2008). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and
Behavior. Cengage Learning.
Darnton, A., & Kirk, M. (2011). Finding Frames: New Ways to Engage the UK Public in
Global Poverty. London: Bond for International Development.
44 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. Springer.
Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2008). Youth-Led Community Organizing, New York: Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and Persuasion Emotional Responses to Public
Service Announcements. Communication Research, 27(4), 461–495.
doi:10.1177/009365000027004003
Dumova, T., & Fiordo, R. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Research on Social Interaction
Technologies and Collaboration Software. IGI Global. Retrieved from http://www.igiglobal.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-pdf/36023
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals Toward
Emotional Well-Being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 173–175.
Gil De Zúñiga, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The Mediating Path to a Stronger Citizenship:
Online and Offline Networks, Weak Ties, and Civic Engagement. Communication Research,
38(3), 397–421.
Gladwell, M. (2010, October 4). Small Change. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
45 Greenberg, J., & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the Web Presence of. Global
Media Journal - Canadian Edition, 2(1), 63–88.
Hackl, F., Halla, M., & Pruckner, G. J. (2010). Volunteering and the State. Public Choice,
151(3-4), 465–495. doi:10.1007/s11127-010-9754-y
Invisible Children. (2012). KONY 2012. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from
http://www.kony2012.com/
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Strategic Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics, and
Inquiry. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE.
Kennedy, S., & Hill, S. (2010). Global Poverty, Aid Advertisements, and Cognition: Do
Media Images of the Developing World Lead to Positive or Negative Responses in Viewers.
New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 56(11).
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–
302. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Lang, A., Kurita, S., Rubenking, B., & Potter, R.F. (2011). miniMAM: Validating a short
version of the Motivation Activation Measure. Communication Methods & Measures, 5 (2),
146-162.
Lang, A., Shin, M., & Lee, S. (2005). Sensation seeking, motivation, and substance use: A
dual system approach. Media Psychology, 7(1), 1-29
46 Leppaniemi, M., Karjaluoto, H., Lehto, H., & Goman, A. (2010). Targeting Young Voters in
a Political Campaign: Empirical Insights into an Interactive Digital Marketing Campaign in
the 2007 Finnish General Election. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(1),
14–37.
Lowe, A., & Hingston, C. (2012, April 21). Kony Event Invisible Under Cover of Night. The
Age.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The Benefit of Frequent Positive Affect:
Does Happiness Lead to Success. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.
Mukherjee, D. (2010). Social Capital, Social Networks, and the Social Web – The Case of
Virtual Volunteering. In Dumova, T., & Fiordo, R. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Social
Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software. IGI Global. Retrieved from
http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-pdf/36023
Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A Social Profile. Indiana University Press.
Otis, M. D. (2006). Youth as Engaged Citizens and Community Change Advocates Through
the Lexington Youth Leadership Academy. In B. N. Checkoway & L. M. Gutierrez (Eds.).
Youth Participation and Community Change (pp. 71-88). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth
Press Inc.
47 Pearce, N. J., & Larson, R. W. (2006). How Teens Become Engaged in Youth Development
Programs: The Process of Motivational Change in a Civic Activism Organisation. Applied
Developmental Science, 10(3), 121–131.
Pénard, T., & Poussing, N. (2010). Internet Use and Social Capital: The Strength of Virtual
Ties. Journal of Economic Issues, 44(3), 569–595.
Plewes, S., & Stuart, R. (2007). In Bell, D. A., & Coicaud, J.M. (Eds). Ethics in Action: The
Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations.
Cambridge University Press.
Powers, K. W. (2008, November). Who Do I Want to Help? An Examination of
Characteristics Distinguishing Groups of Volunteers. Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/33/20/3320293.html
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2009). Essential Research Methods for Social Work. Cengage
Learning.
Sireau, N. (2009). Make Poverty History: Political Communication in Action. United
Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on
Charity Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787.
48 Steen, T. (2006). Public Sector Motivation: Is There Something to Learn From the Study of
Volunteerism? Public Policy and Administration, 21(1), 49–62.
doi:10.1177/095207670602100104
Steinfield, C., Pentland, B. T., & Ackerman, M. (2007). Communities and Technologies
2007: Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference, Michigan State
University 2007. Springer.
Thackeray, R., & Hunter, M. (2010). Empowering Youth: Use of Technology in Advocacy to
Affect Social Change. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 575–591.
Tilt, C., Davidson, R. A., & Tilling, M. V. (2008). NGO Communication and Activism Via
Electronic Media: Australian Evidence. Third Sector Review, 14(2), 75–96.
Ulbricht, A., & Evans, E. (2010, October 12). Poverty Pornography. The Drum. Retrieved
from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39940.html
United Nations. (2007). Do volunteers strengthen NGO accountability?. Retrieved from
http://www.unv.org/en/perspectives/doc/do-volunteers-strengthen-ngo.html
Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2009). Cyber-Protest and Civil Society: The Internet and
Action Repertoires in Social Movements. Handbook on Internet Crime, 230–254.
Voluntary Service Overseas. (2002). The Live Aid Legacy: The Developing World Through
British Eyes - a Research Report. United Kingdom: VSO.
49 Volunteering Australia. (2011). The Latest Picture of Volunteering in Australia. Volunteering
Australia. Retrieved from http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/Volunteering-Facts/Statistics/The-latest-picture-of-volunteering-in-Australia-.asp
Volunteering Australia. (2012). State of Volunteering in Australia 2012.
Waters, R. D., & Bortree, D. S. (2012). Improving Volunteer Retention Efforts in Public
Library Systems: How Communication and Inclusion Impact Female and Male Volunteers
Differently. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(2), 92–
107. doi:10.1002/nvsm.438
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief
Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software
Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3),
00–00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x
Wynne, C. (2011). Volunteering is Catching: A Study into Young People’s Volunteering in
Victoria 2011 (No. 978-1-875261-18-5). Victoria, Australia: Youth Affairs Council of
Victoria.
50 Appendix A
Introductory letter – Focus Group recruitment
Hello,
I am contacting you to enquire whether you would like to be involved in a research study
relating to how NGOs can more effectively engage and retain volunteers. This research study
is being undertaken as a part of an RMIT University Honours project.
We are looking for two types of volunteers in particular to participate in a focus group at
RMIT: (1) volunteers who are long-standing and highly engaged, as well as (2) irregular
volunteers who participate occasionally or are on the fringe of your organisation.
Specifically, we want to model the types of online and face-to-face activities these different
volunteer groups prefer. Participants will be offered a small incentive for their time and
recruiting organisations will have access to preliminary findings and pre-published data.
If you are willing to contact your volunteers and tell them about this opportunity, I ask that
you confirm with me by email or phone: Claire’s email is [email protected] and
mobile is 0400068937.
To invite your members/volunteers to participate, you can either pass along the attached
information yourself, or if you need information in a different format let me know and I can
put together something for you. The attachment has a short FAQ outlining specific details of
involvement.
A second phase of this project will be an online survey based on the focus group results.
Whether or not your members participate in our focus groups, we hope you will pass along
the link for the survey to your members at that time.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the researcher (see above) or
the research supervisor, Dr Jenny Robinson.
Kind regards,
Miss Claire Bolge
Media and Communication (Honours)
RMIT University
p: 0400068937
e: [email protected]
Dr Jennifer Robinson
Lecturer, School of Media & Communication
RMIT University
p: (03) 9225 5049
e: [email protected]
51 Appendix B
Follow-up letter – Focus Group recruitment
Hello again,
Last week I sent you an email to enquire whether ____ would like to be involved in a
research study relating to how NGOs can more effectively engage and retain volunteers. This
research study is being undertaken as a part of an RMIT University Honours project.
This is a short follow-up email to ensure my email has reached you and to further enquire if
you and your organisation would like to be involved in this important research, whether
through participation in the focus groups or through completing a short online survey in the
coming weeks (please see below).
As a former long-term volunteer myself, I understand your time is very limited and I greatly
appreciate you taking the time to read on.
We are looking for two types of volunteers in particular to participate in a focus group at
RMIT: (1) volunteers who are long-standing and highly engaged, as well as (2) irregular
volunteers who participate occasionally or are on the fringe of your organisation.
Specifically, we want to model the types of online and face-to-face activities these different
volunteer groups prefer. Participants will be offered a small incentive for their time and
recruiting organisations will have access to preliminary findings and pre-published data.
If you are willing to contact your volunteers and tell them about this opportunity, I ask that
you confirm with me by email or phone: Claire’s email is [email protected] and
mobile is 0400068937.
To invite your members/volunteers to participate, you can either pass along the attached
information yourself, or if you need information in a different format let me know and I can
put together something for you. The attachment has a short FAQ outlining specific details of
involvement.
A second phase of this project will be an online survey based on the focus group results.
Whether or not your members participate in our focus groups, we hope you will pass along
the link for the survey to your members at that time.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the researcher (see above) or
the research supervisor, Dr Jenny Robinson.
Kind regards,
Miss Claire Bolge
Media and Communication (Honours)
RMIT University
p: 0400068937
e: [email protected]
Dr Jennifer Robinson
Lecturer, School of Media & Communication
52 RMIT University
p: (03) 9225 5049
e: [email protected]
53 Appendix C
Focus group protocol
4:45 – 4:55 Seat up projector and laptop, arrange necessary chairs and layout refreshments.
4:55 – 5:00 Seat participants and hand out PICF. Turn on voice recorders.
5:00 – 5:05 Introduction myself and the study:
“Hi everyone, thank-you so much for coming. My name is Claire and I’m the researcher
behind this Honours project. This group will be running for about an hour and will give you
the chance to both respond to stimuli and discuss questions amongst yourselves. The form
you are filling out is an information and consent form and explains that no identifying
details, including your name, will be published in the final report or be available to anyone
outside of myself and Dr Jenny Robinson, my Honours supervisor. If you have any questions
at any stage during the group please don’t hesitate to ask me and please help yourself to
drinks and snacks. At the end of the session I will hand out small incentives for you all as a
further thank-you.
Collect PICF.
5:05-5:07 Introduce the first activity:
“What you all have in front of you is a short answer sheet, with some demographic and
personal response questions on the front and then 16 additional pages. After you fill in the
first page you will be seeing a series of images and short video clip commercials. Each image
will be shown for 6 seconds and the clips for their duration. After viewing, please use the
additional sheets and, on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little to not and all and 5 being
extremely, indicate next to each listed emotion how much or little this image or clip made you
feel that particular emotion. For example, if the clip makes you feel very hostile, circle 5 next
to hostile. If you don’t find it interesting at all, circle 1 next to interesting. I’ll give you all a
few short minutes to complete to first page and we’ll get started”
5:07-5:10 Participants complete form.
5:10-5:22 Participants view Images 1-12 (6 seconds each) and then respond.
5:22-5:25 Participants view Clip 1 (2:01) and then respond.
5:25-5:27 Participants view Clip 2 (1:01) and then respond.
5:27-5:31 Participants view Clip 3 (2:50) and then respond.
5:31-5:33 Participants view Clip 4 (1:00) and then respond.
5:33-5:40 Introduce second activity pre-discussion.
“Before we begin our next activity, I want you all to bring to mind what you think makes a
volunteer and what you think makes a campaign. I’d like to ask all of you now what
constitutes a volunteer in your mind? Talk to each other about this; the idea here is to
generate a discussion between you all as volunteers yourself. So – what is a volunteer?”
PROMPTS - Do they receive any sort of financial support?
- Is there a difference between a volunteer and an activist?
- Is there a stereotype that accompanies the image of the volunteer?
54 - How do they feel about what they’re doing? Do they love it, always?
5:40-5:46 Introduce second activity part 1.
“I’m going to split now ask that (indicate groups) move and sit together because we’re going
to do an activity in small groups. I’m giving each group a set of cards; blue represents
organisational goals, pink represents volunteer recruitment tactics, red represents volunteer
engagement tactics. Each group represents a grassroots, Non-Government Organisation. I’d
like you to prioritise the tools you’ve been given in each category from most to least
important in the next 5 minutes.”
5:46-5:55 Introduce second activity part 2.
“Great. Now, your NGO is running a campaign. The green cards I’m handing out are all the
potential campaign tools you have access to. I’d like you to spend the next 5-10 minutes
choosing your TOP THREE tools and then an ADDITIONAL THREE options from the pile.”
5:55-6:00 Discuss second activity.
“Would each of the groups like to quickly run us through the choices they’ve made and
why?”
6:00 Thank-you and goodbye.
“That’s it for today everyone, thank you so much again for your time. Please feel free to keep
in contact (hand out details on cards) and I’ll make sure your organisations have access to
whatever findings and thoughts come out of these sessions. I’ll also be distributing a survey
in the coming weeks, while you’ll have done many of the activities already it would be great
if you could all forward it onto any other volunteers you may have in your organisation or
know outside of it. I also have a small gift voucher for each of you as another thank you for
your time (hand out gift vouchers) and I hope you’ve all enjoyed the group!”
Turn off voice recorders.
55 Appendix D
Demographic questions – Focus Groups
Age
18 – 25
26 – 35
36 – 55
56 and over
How long have you been a volunteer?
Less than 6 months
6 months–1 year
1-2 years
More than 2 years
How often do you volunteer?
Rarely
Once a year
Once a week
A few times a year
2-3 times a month
3 or more times a week
Who in your life from the following list is/has been involved in volunteering?
Choose as many as are relevant
My parents
My siblings
My school community
My extended family
My friends
My church/community group
My spouse/partner
My friends
What is the main reason you volunteer?
Choose one
It’s fun
It’s social
Resume builder
Makes me feel good about myself
I want to do something to help others
Social responsibility
It’s the right thing to do
Other – Please specify
Do you receive any financial benefit, incentives or support (however minimal) for your
volunteering?
Yes
No
I have in the past
What do you like most about volunteering?
What do you like least about volunteering?
56 Appendix E
Pre-screener survey – Focus Groups
Thank you for your interest in my research study. Please take a few moments to fill out the
following survey to confirm your participation and allow us to place you in the best possible
focus group.
Q1 - Why did you choose to volunteer?
(100 words or less)
Q2 - What is the main reason why you volunteer?
(Choose 1)
It's fun
It's social
Resume builder
It's the right thing to do
Makes me feel good about myself
Social responsibility
I want to do something to help others
Other - Please Specify
Q3 - How long have you been an active volunteer?
(Choose 1)
Under 6 Months
6 Months to 1 Year
1-2 Years
More than 2 Years
Q4 - How often do you volunteer?
(Choose 1)
Rarely
Once a year
A few times a year
2-3 times a month
Once a week
3 or more times a week
Q5 - Who in the following list have been or are currently a volunteer?
(Choose as many as are relevant)
My parents
My siblings
My spouse/partner
My friends
My extended family members
57 Members of my church or community group
Members of my school community
Other - Please Specify
Please complete the following information so we can assign you to the best focus group.
Q6 - Name
Q7 - Age
(Reminder - Participants must be 18 or older)
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-55
56 and over
I'd rather not say
Q8 - Please indicate your availability
(Choose as many as are relevant)
- Please note: various timetables were listed in this section
Q9 - If you are unavailable for all of the listed times please indicate a range of times that
would be best for you.
Q10 - What is your email address?
58 Appendix F
Panas scale
PANAS scale of 1-5, with 1 being very slightly or not at all and 5 being extremely
a) Interested
1
2
3
b) Distressed
1
2
3
c) Excited
1
2
3
d) Upset
1
2
3
e) Strong
1
2
3
f) Guilty
1
2
3
g) Scared
1
2
3
h) Hostile
1
2
3
i) Enthusiastic
1
2
3
j) Proud
1
2
3
k) Irritable
1
2
3
l) Alert
1
2
3
m) Ashamed
1
2
3
n) Inspired
1
2
3
o) Nervous
1
2
3
p) Determined
1
2
3
q) Attentive
1
2
3
r) Jittery
1
2
3
s) Active
1
2
3
t) Afraid
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
59 Appendix G
Introductory letter - Survey
Good morning/afternoon,
Thank you for your interest in our recently run focus groups, a component of an RMIT
University Honours project focusing on how grassroots NGOs with a focus on global
development issues can better recruit and retain volunteers.
The next component of this study is an online survey, which can be found by following this
link. The survey takes 10-15 minutes, can be conducted anonymously and participants will be
entered into the draw to win a $100 Coles Myer gift voucher.
The only criteria is that you are a volunteer, however frequent or infrequent, and over the age
of 18!
We hope you can find a few minutes to complete our survey and contribute your valuable
opinion to our research study. The survey will be open until midnight September 30th.
Again, we greatly appreciate the interest you’ve shown in this study and the time you’ve
devoted towards participating.
Kind regards,
Claire Bolge
RMIT University Media & Communications (Honours)
[email protected]
0400068937
60 Appendix H
Focus group activity cards – Ranking activity
Recruitment tools
Word of mouth
Recruitment drives at schools
Advertising – Facebook,
& universities
Twitter, social sites
Advertising – newspapers,
Recruitment drives for family
Offering extra class credit
radio, job sites
& friends
opportunities for students
Offering giveaways, prizes &
incentives
61 Campaigning tools
Rally
Blogging
YouTube video
A victim’s story
Merchandise: T-shirts &
Petitions
wristbands
Public concerts
Celebrity endorsements
An event e.g. the 40 Hour
Famine
62 Facebook
Radio
A survivor’s story
An event e.g. a gala dinner
Humour
Website
Television
Twitter
63 Positive statistics
Negative statistics
Cold calling
64 Organisational goals – available choices
Leadership
Publicity
Community & friendships
Funding
Public Perception
Awards
65 Volunteer engagement tools – choices available
Regular meetings
Team-building exercises
Group emails
Regular social nights
Facebook groups
Conference calls
Task-based incentives &
Group camps & retreats
rewards
66 Appendix I
Focus Group 1 – Transcription
Researcher - “So what is a volunteer to you guys?”
“Unpaid worker.”
R - “Unpaid? No financial support whatsoever?”
“Not necessarily.”
R - “Do you think receiving financial support makes somebody –”
“You can receive a stipend or something if you’re in a placement or something but I guess
it’s a little bit different. That said, a volunteer; they still have like a supportive network
generally within the workplace.”
“It’s doing something without anything expected in return, to me.”
“What does that mean?”
“I will do something because I believe in it without requiring anyone to pass me or give me
anything back in return. And, yeah, with no - no strings attached.”
“It feels likes the main focus is the work you do rather than the salary you get.”
“But as a volunteer I still expect, like, to be – to be, well when it’s through, with an
organisation, I expect to be generally supported and have peers and stuff paid or unpaid to be
(inaudible). I think that’s important.”
“Do you guys think the type of organisation matters? Like you could be a volunteer for an
organisation that’s for profit, not not-for-profit. Cause I know lots of people who say they
volunteer for like something, okay maybe an extreme example for like an accounting firm.
But that’s them getting experience like they’re getting something out of it.”
“I call it work experience.”
“They say there’s no such thing as a not – unselfish, good deal. Which is kind of true but I - I
don’t think that distracts from the premise of what it means to be a volunteer because it’s
about the intention, less so about the outcome for me.”
“Can you explain?”
“Well in terms of the intention to volunteer somewhere. I go in there because I want to make
a difference or I go in there because I believe in the cause or go in there and don’t expect to
get something back. But when I do get something back, doesn’t distract from, regardless of
what that is whether that ends up being money or whether that’s a social reward, whatever it
is, doesn’t distract from the fact that what I’ve done is volunteer myself.”
67 “Some volunteers do go into it though as a resume builder. They are going into to build their
skills and you know gain networks and things like that so. It’s not always an altruistic cause.”
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing. You have the opportunity to volunteer (inaudible).”
“Yeah.”
“I think especially in Oaktree and stuff where you get, I mean, as a volunteer you get, often
the opportunity to get so much more experience and be in a position of high responsibility
where suddenly you’re, you know, running a national something or rather and, like, you
know you’d never be able to do that in a real job, so I think the fact that it does offer, you
know, experience and people are sometimes doing it for that is also kind of a good thing
cause you do get amazing experiences.”
“I think the starting point and when you choose to volunteer is really important. If you’ve got
spare capacity of time or money or something you can go in and devote more of yourself to it
without needing anything in return and its I think much harder for younger people to
volunteer than older.”
R – “Is there a stereotype that accompanies volunteers?”
“(Inaudible) Doing it for - to make a difference. Sometimes it’s hard.”
“I think the stereotype something depends on where you’re coming from – sorry I’m talking
far too much – like I know my parent’s stereotype is yeah like, idealistic, naïve, like, silly,
why aren’t you getting paid you’re an idiot. Where as (inaudible) more of a corporate
organisation getting volunteers in, I think, well, we just kind of treat our volunteers quite
poorly as though they were less experienced or less kind of worthy of the time and I don’t
know if that’s a stereotype it’s just a bad, you know, bad perspective to have but I think since
you do, it does seem to accompany like perhaps unskilled or – you know, I think there’s no,
less value of someone because they’re not necessarily getting paid to -in some areas.”
“I’ve experienced that. And I left the place I didn’t volunteer there anymore after that. You
want to know that you’re doing something that’s meaningful and benefit to, like, that
ideological thing you’re pursuing.”
R – “Do you think a volunteer loves what they’re doing all of the time?”
“Pardon?”
R – “Does a volunteer love what they’re doing all the time? They’re doing it for free so does
that mean they love it? Or can you hate it the way you hate a normal job some days?”
“You can definitely hate it”
“But you need to love it enough to stick with it and keep going.”
“I think that’s why retention, like, retention within volunteer organisations are so short,
because the moment that you fall out of love and when you don’t feel that your task is
68 contributing to a cause you just leave and you can because there’s nothing holding you there,
other than the belief, I think, yeah.”
“It’s interesting to think that to be a volunteer you have to give of yourself and not expect
anything in return and yet that act of giving and not getting anything back is what you would
hate about volunteering and that you’ve got those two things going along within you at any
one time, you don’t want anything back you just want to contribute but god I hate that I’m
not getting anything back from day 1 as a human being you’ve got these two desires within
you and yeah. That’s interesting.”
“It’s interesting the obligation we feel too like it’s a lot easier to walk away without getting
money but you’re still - when you contribute you are so why is it easier for us to leave?
(Inaudible). ”
69 Appendix J
Focus Group 2 – Transcription
R – “What’s a volunteer?”
“Someone that works to a higher cause. I don’t know what the motivations are but I think it’s
just something you want to do outside of your everyday life.”
R - “Do volunteers receive any support? Financial? Anything at all?”
“They can do.”
“Yeah.”
“If they need something to do their job or their role. And you can still be a volunteer.”
“Just basic essentials. Not over the top.”
“One of the motivations that people have got for doing it is to get something they don’t have
in their normal life as well. So it’s not just a selfless act. Like it’s not a selfish act but
sometimes after you volunteer you feel like you’ve got something out of it that you wouldn’t
have got otherwise. In a positive way. And you sort of know that when you start as well. I
don’t know what people have done. I guess it depends on what you do, how often you do it
(inaudible).
“It’s not necessary altruistic. Like I kind of do it for my own personal gain to be honest. I’m
quite happy to say that.”
“Like stealing guide dog puppies or something?”
“To help my CV that’s why I do it.”
“Okay”
R – “Do you think there’s a stereotype of volunteers? I know a lot of people volunteer to
improve a resume or because they have a personal connection, from all different age groups.
But do you think there’s an overarching stereotype that you encounter of volunteering. Or
that you have of volunteering?”
“I think there’s a stereotype of the person that it isn’t. I think its quite difficult to sort of say
‘a volunteers likes this’ but then certain people I don’t think you see volunteering (inaudible)
“(Inaudible) what type of volunteering. Social volunteering definitely. I think there’s a
stereotype (inaudible).”
“What do you mean by social volunteering?”
70 Like, um, I guess kind of the stuff we’re looking at now, as opposed to, you know, doing
unpaid work for the – writing for your local community newspaper or something like
(inaudible). I think they have a different kind of volunteer.”
R - “What about the difference between an activist and a volunteer? Is there one?”
“Yes”
“Yeah I’d say definitely. The activist comes up with the activity and the idea, if they do, and
then the volunteer come (inaudible) I guess. Like I don’t usually think about people who
would describe themselves just as volunteers as the people who are going and organising
programs and all that sort of -. But again I guess there's such a large sort of spectrum of what
people consider volunteering (inaudible).”
“If you’re volunteering at an activist organisation then you can’t really escape being an
activist.”
“Yeah you can. I reckon you can.”
“You reckon you can?”
(Inaudible). You don’t have to believe in all of it. You can get involved in like a nongrassroots sort of way.”
“Activist is a very strong word.”
(Inaudible)
“It’s pretty hard-core.”
(Inaudible)
“Yeah I’m picturing someone like throwing themselves in front of a truck or something
(inaudible)”
R – “Do you think that a volunteer has to (inaudible) love what they’re doing? Like you’re
doing it for free so does that mean you have to love it? Or can you have days like a normal
job?”
“Yep.”
“To do it effectively I reckon you have to like it. Cause you can’t do it half-assed.”
(Inaudible) donating blood for example. (Inaudible).
“Yeah you can get stuff out of stuff that you hate. Like anyone who’s been on school camps
knows that. Like you go have a miserable week (inaudible) you remember it was really
good.”
71 R – “So what motivates people once the love of a cause or on those days when you’re like ‘I
can’t stand this right now and I’m not getting paid’, what – why do you go back the next day
as volunteers?”
“A lot of people once they say they’ll do something they won’t flake out on it. Like everyone
doesn’t feel like doing stuff some days but – do you mean on a day-to-day basis or just why
do I keep doing this?”
(Inaudible)
R – “I guess what motivates people to keep going”
“(Inaudible) commitment and especially if it’s a small organisation and you feel like what
you’re doing is valued by the organisation and is having an impact”
“Yeah it’s much easier to flake out on work than it is on someone you promised to do
something for free for.”
“Yeah”
“So it’s guilt that keeps you there?”
“Not necessarily guilt. I think, you know, that wouldn’t be enough to keep you there if you
weren’t ever enjoying it”
“That’s true”
“But on the days that you might, you might feel like there’s nothing else you wanted to do on
that day, knowing that you’re valued and appreciated (inaudible)”
“Yeah I think you can see the effect of what you’re doing, if you – it’s not having an impact
on anyone then you wouldn’t continue”
“Yeah if you thought it wasn’t what it was purporting to be or it was actually having a
negative effect on the people you were supposed to be helping you – you wouldn’t but if you
just didn’t feel like it or something I guess that’s different. But I dunno (inaudible). Once you
know other people at organisations that sort of thing it would be easier to go on, I guess.
(Inaudible).
72 Appendix K
Image analysis activity – Focus Group results (expanded)
Image/Clip
Pos Total
Neg Total
Pos Mean
Neg Mean
Diff
1 – Neg
21.03
23.55
2.10
2.35
-0.25
2 – Pos
31.36
11.45
3.14
1.15
+1.99
3 – Neg
21.73
25.18
2.17
2.52
-0.35
4 – Pos
27.73
11.27
2.77
1.13
+1.65
5 – Pos
25.82
10.18
2.58
1.02
+1.56
6 – Neg
19.55
22.18
1.95
2.22
-0.26
7 – Pos
25.73
10.73
2.57
1.07
+1.50
8 – Pos
31.64
10.55
3.16
1.05
+2.11
9 – Neg
20.64
29.91
2.06
2.99
-0.93
10 – Neg
17.08
19.75
1.71
1.98
-0.27
11 – Neg
20.08
26.08
2.01
2.61
-0.60
12 – Neg
18.83
23.17
1.88
2.32
-0.43
13 – Neg
17.08
24.00
1.71
2.40
-0.69
14 – Pos
26.92
15.83
2.69
1.58
+1.11
15 – Pos
33.50
12.75
3.35
1.28
+2.08
16 - Neu
21.25
22.67
2.13
2.27
-0.14
73 Appendix L
Survey
Default Question Block
Thank you for agreeing to take part in our survey! This is a component of an RMIT University
Honours project focusing on how grassroots NGOs with a focus on global development issues
can better recruit and retain volunteers.
The survey takes 10-15 minutes, can be conducted anonymously and participants will be
entered into the draw to win a $100 Coles Myer gift voucher.
By entering this survey, you consent to participating in this component of the research study.
You will now be shown 6 images, 1 by 1. After viewing each image individually you will proceed
to the next page and be given a list of 20 different emotions. You will be directed to indicate on a
scale of 1-5 the degree to which the image made you feel each of these separate emotions. The
first image is a practice image and the results will not be used in the final findings.
When you are ready, please advance to the next page!
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
74
» Ashamed
» Inspired
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
» Active
» Afraid
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
Interested
Distressed
Excited
Upset
Strong
Guilty
Scared
Hostile
Enthusiastic
Proud
Irritable
Alert
Ashamed
Inspired
75
Inspired
Nervous
Determined
Attentive
Jittery
Active
Afraid
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
» Ashamed
» Inspired
76
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
» Active
» Afraid
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
» Ashamed
» Inspired
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
» Active
» Afraid
77
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
» Ashamed
» Inspired
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
78
» Active
» Afraid
An image will appear on this page
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
» Ashamed
» Inspired
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
» Active
» Afraid
An image will appear on this page
79
In regards to the previous image, please indicate the degree to which it made you feel each of
the following emotions
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very little or not at all and 5 being extremely, please choose for
each listed emotion
Very little/not at
all
2
3
4
Extremely
» Interested
» Distressed
» Excited
» Upset
» Strong
» Guilty
» Scared
» Hostile
» Enthusiastic
» Proud
» Irritable
» Alert
» Ashamed
80
» Ashamed
» Inspired
» Nervous
» Determined
» Attentive
» Jittery
» Active
» Afraid
Thank you! You will now be asked to answer 4 different questions relating to recruitment in and
running of NGOs.
When you are ready, please advance to the next page!
In working with an NGO, which goal do you consider to be the most important?
Please choose 1 for each of the following options:
Community &
friendships
Funding
Awards
Publicity
Leadership
Public
perception
To you
To fellow volunteers
To the organisation as a
whole
Which of the following would you identify as the most important tool for recruiting new
volunteers to a grassroots-level NGO?
Please choose 3, numbering 1-3 with 1 being the most important
Advertising – Facebook, Twitter and social sites
Recruitment drives at schools and university
Word of mouth
Recruitment drives for family and friends
Advertising – newspaper, radio and job sites
Offering giveaways, prizes and incentives
Offering extra class credit opportunities for students
Which of the following would you identify as the most important tool for engaging with
existing volunteers in a grassroots-level NGO?
Please choose 3, numbering 1-3 with 1 being the most important
Team-building exercises
Regular meetings
Group emails
Group camps and retreats
Regular social nights
Facebook groups
Task-based incentives and rewards
Conference calls
Acting as a grassroots NGO campaigning on global development issues (poverty,
slavery, fair trade, etc) please select the three tools you consider most important in
running a successful campaign.
Please choose 5, numbering 1-5 with 1 being the most important
Website
Television
Positive statistics
81
Positive statistics
Facebook
Merchandise: t-shirts and wristbands
A survivor’s story
An event e.g. the 40-hour famine
A victim’s story
Celebrity endorsements
Humour
A rally
Blogging
An event e.g. a gala dinner
Radio
Petitions
Public concerts
A YouTube video
Cold calling
Negative statistics
Twitter
You're nearly done! You will now be asked a few basic demographic questions.
When you are ready, please advance to the next page!
Age
Please note: Participants must be aged 18 or older
18 – 25
26 – 35
36 – 55
56 and over
How long have you been a volunteer?
Please choose 1
Less than 6 months
6 months-1 year
1-2 years
More than 2 years
How often do you volunteer?
Please choose 1
Rarely
Once a year
A few times a year
2-3 times a month
Once a week
2-3 times a week
Who in your life from the following list is/has been involved in volunteering?
Choose as many as are relevant
My parents
82
My parents
My siblings
My extended family
My friends
My spouse/partner
My school community
My church/community group
Other - Please specify
What is the main reason you volunteer?
Choose one
It’s fun
It’s social
Resume builder
I want to do something to help others
Makes me feel good about myself
Social responsibility
It’s the right thing to do
Other – Please specify
Do you receive any financial benefit, incentives or support (however minimal) for your
volunteering?
Please choose 1
Yes
No
I have in the past
Are you interested in being a participant in a follow-up focus group?
Please note: groups are run only in Melbourne
Yes
No
If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question and/or you would like to be entered in the running
to win a $100 Coles Myer gift voucher, please enter a valid email address.
Please specify which organisation you currently/most recently volunteer/ed for.
83