Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
While it was beyond the scope of the research to address these issues fully,
in surveying people who participated in Oranges Do Some Good
smartphone App, the study aimed to part fill this gap in knowledge.
Specifically, the research sought to address the following questions:
1
Flouch, H. (2010) Neighbourhood networks & micro-volunteering: new solutions for
spreading volunteering beyond the civic core?, Networked Neighbourhoods, weblog,
http://networkedneighbourhoods.com/?p=263.
ivo (2010) Can micro volunteering challenge the decline in giving time?, ivo, weblog,
http://ivo.org/newshound/posts/can-micro-volunteering-turn-around-the-downturn-in-giving-
time.
2
Cabinet Office (2011) Giving White Paper, London: The Stationary Office.
2
Methodology
The survey was hosted through Oranges Do Some Good smartphone App,
which provided a useful way of reaching a large number of people engaged in
micro-volunteering. It consisted of 16 questions to which participants were
able to select answers from pre-determined closed categories. It went live at
the end of June 2011 and ran until December 2011. In total, following the
removal of duplicates, 3,598 people completed the survey (tables showing all
the results can be found in the appendix).
A note on terminology
Micro-volunteering arguably encompasses a range of volunteering forms
including volunteering through smartphones, volunteering through the internet
and volunteering on a face-to-face basis. For the purposes of this bulletin,
however, the term micro-volunteering is used to refer to quick and low-
commitment volunteering opportunities that exist through smartphones.
Limitations
Although the number of people who completed the survey stands at a
relatively large figure, the sample is limited to people who have the App and
decided to complete the survey, and is thus not representative of those who
engage in micro-volunteering.
The research is also limited in that it doesnt explore the perspectives of the
organisations with which participants were involved or those of the
beneficiaries of their actions. This restricts what can be said about the wider
impact of the volunteers actions.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a valuable insight into the
perspectives and experiences of those who have used the App and, in doing
so, illuminates some of the key issues and questions surrounding micro-
volunteering.
3
Findings
Most notably, nearly all (97%) of the participants had previously donated
money to a charity, with half stating that this was in the past four weeks (table
2). Levels of volunteering in person were also high, with just less than three-
quarters (74%) indicating that they had previously done so (table 3). It must
be borne in mind, however, that this figure does leave a notable number
(26%) of participants who hadnt previously volunteered in person, and,
moreover, of those who had, the greatest proportion (31%) participated over a
year ago. These findings remind us not to overstate the notion that micro-
volunteering attracts large numbers of people who do not regularly volunteer
on a face-to-face basis. At the same-time, however, they arguably further
highlight the possibilities of such initiatives in reaching some of those people.
The App has also engaged people who hadnt previously participated in virtual
or mobile volunteering, with just under two-thirds (65%) indicating they hadnt
volunteered online before using a different smartphone app or a computer
(table 4). This may be the result of a number of factors. Firstly, access to and
knowledge of previous opportunities. Secondly, the effectiveness of Do Some
Goods marketing. Thirdly, participants not defining their previous participation
as volunteering. In regards to the third point, it is worth noting that less than
half (41%) defined their use of the App as volunteering (table 5).
3
The Future of Mobile and Mobile Marketing (2012) UK Smartphone Demographics and
Stats, The Future of Mobile and Mobile Marketing, weblog,
http://txt4ever.wordpress.com/category/smartphones/ .
4
Mohan, J. & Bulloch, S. L. (2012) The idea of a 'civic core': what does the Citizenship
Survey suggest about the overlaps between charitable giving, volunteering, and civic
participation in England and Wales? TSRC Working Paper. 73
4
participation that micro-volunteering facilitates (figure 1). For instance, just
under one-fifth of the participants revealed a frequent rate of participation, with
7% stating that they have completed an action on most days and 10% once or
twice a week. Of less frequent involvement, 14% stated that they have used
the App a few times a month, while 11% indicated that they have used it less
than once a month.
On most days
1-2 times a week
Few times a month
Less than once a month
First time
While participants indicated that they heard about the App through various
ways, by far the most common way was directly through Orange (73%) (table
7). Notably, only 7% stated that they heard about it via word of mouth the
most commonly cited way of hearing about wider volunteering opportunities5.
This possibly reflects a key difference in the nature of micro-volunteering and
wider volunteering. Whereas wider volunteering tends to consist of face-to-
face interactions and can involve group activity (in which existing volunteers
might recruit further volunteers), the processes of micro-volunteering from
the initial stages of being recruited to actually undertaking the activity can
exist solely through smartphones and can be undertaken in isolation.
5
Low, N., Butt, S., Ellis Paine, A. and Davis Smith, J. (2007) Helping Out- A national survey
of volunteering and charitable giving, London: Cabinet Office
5
incentivised by the music reward, only 4% stated that the reward was the
reason why they participated. Further signifying this, just over half (51%)
stated that the reward wasnt important to them, and just over a fifth (21%)
indicated they werent aware of the reward (table 9).
Rather than being motivated by altruism or self-gain, it could be said that the
central factors driving participation are the opportunity to fill some spare time
and the convenience of the activity key aspects commonly voiced in regards
to micro-volunteering. For instance, the most common reason for completing
the action was the ease and speed of volunteering (30%), followed by the
range of activities to do (24%) and having a little spare time (21%).
These findings suggest that the participants, on the whole, were more
concerned about the process of undertaking the activity than the outcome of
their actions; a point reflected in the possible factors that would stimulate
further participation in micro-volunteering.
The findings suggest that the key factor that could cultivate this seeming
appetite for further micro-volunteering is the activity itself (table 12). The vast
majority (81%), for instance, stated that different/more activities would make
them want to use the App more often. In comparison, only 8% indicated
different/more charities would do so, while just 3% stated receiving more
information on the difference their time made for the charity would, further
suggesting that the cause and outcome of the action was of less importance
for most participants.
The greater importance placed on the process of activity over the outcome
may also be indicative of how most participants valued the quick and low
commitment nature of micro-volunteering and saw their participation as an
isolated activity. This was reflected when participants were asked what
information they would like to receive after completing an action on the App
(table 13). The greatest proportion (37%) stated that they wouldnt like any
information, while a very small minority (6%) said they would like follow up
feedback from the charity about the difference they had made.
Notably, just under a quarter (24%) stated that they would like information on
further volunteering opportunities with the charity they support. This is in
comparison to just 5% who indicated they would like information on
volunteering opportunities with other charities. While it was suggested above
that the cause and the choice of charity was not a central factor in driving the
participants participation, this indicates that to some extent the charity itself
may shape peoples actions.
6
Micro-volunteering and other forms of giving
As the findings suggest above, micro-volunteering differs in relation to wider
forms of volunteering, both in terms of its function and peoples motivations.
Similar distinctions were further drawn when participants were asked to select
which statements they agreed with in relation to micro-volunteering (table 14).
The greatest proportion (46%) agreed that micro-volunteering was easier than
volunteering in person, again pointing to how the ease and flexibility of the
activity was a key factor in facilitating participation. In slight contradiction,
however, only 10% agreed that micro-volunteering involved less commitment
than volunteering in person.
What these findings may point to is how the participants conceived the value
and function of micro-volunteering in different terms to that of wider
volunteering. More specifically, it could be suggested that participants
perceived the strength and use of micro-volunteering as laying not so much in
its potential impact and benefits, but in its convenience and capacity to fill
spare time. In this way, rather than seeing micro-volunteering as a
replacement, participants possibly viewed it as complementing their
engagement in other forms of participation.
7
Emerging conclusions
This survey has shed light on who is involved in micro-volunteering and why,
and its relationship with other forms of volunteering and charitable giving. In
doing so, it has questioned some of the central suppositions that have framed
much of the recent discussion on micro-volunteering and illuminated a number
of key issues that surround this form of volunteering.
Motivations to micro-volunteer
The majority of participants conceived the value and role of micro-volunteering
not so much in terms of the outcomes for themselves or beneficiaries but the
convenience of the activity and opportunity to occupy a short period of time.
The inconclusive question here is, with so many other smartphone apps that
provide a similar function, why were participants drawn particularly to micro-
volunteer? It could be suggested the newness and individuality of the App
8
attracted people. Alternatively, while the cause of the charity and potential
outcome of the activity may not have been the over-riding factor, participants
may still have identified with the values and ideas associated with
volunteering and charitable giving and have used the App to express this,
albeit it in a more transient and tacit way.
9
Further research
While this research has helped address a gap in knowledge around micro-
volunteering, it is not a conclusive study of this growing and varied form of
engagement. Further research is needed to advance our knowledge and
understanding of micro-volunteering and to inform policy and practice. The
themes and issues to emerge from this study, as well as its omissions, point
to a number of key areas that require further exploration.
10
Appendix
11
Table 3: Previously volunteered in person for a group, club or organisation
Response Percentage
Yes, in the past 4 weeks 19
Yes, in the past year 24
Yes, more than a year ago 31
No 26
Base= 100% 3586
12
Table 8: Motivations to complete an action on the App
Motive Percentage
The range of activities I can do 24
The range of charities I can support 13
The ease and speed of volunteering 30
To give back to my community/help the 8
environment
The music reward I would receive after 4
completing 60 actions
I had a little time to spare 21
To learn or improve a skill 0
The association with Orange 2
Other reason 3
Base= No. of respondents* 3403
*Percentages may sum up to more than 100 as respondents could select more than one
answer option
13
Table 12: Factors encouraging further use of the App
Factor Percentage
Different/more activities to do 81
Different/more charities to help 8
Ability to influence the choice of 3
actions/charities
Quicker actions 4
Longer actions 1
More information on the difference my 3
time made for the charity
Receiving a music reward for doing 3
fewer actions
Ability to donate money to the charities 1
No, none of these would make me want 7
to use the app more
Base= No. of respondents* 3243
*Percentages may sum up to more than 100 as respondents could select more than one
answer option
14
Table 14: Attitudes to micro-volunteering
Statement Percentage
It has changed my opinion of volunteering 32
It is easier than volunteering in person 46
It involves less commitment than volunteering in person 10
I am more likely to volunteer in person as a result 4
It can have the same benefit for the charity as 5
volunteering person
It is a good replacement to volunteering in person 3
I am more likely to donate money to a charity as a result 1
I do not agree with any of these statements 4
Base= No. of respondents* 3417
*Percentages may sum up to more than 100 as respondents could select more than one
answer option
15
16