Interviews  Discussion

This study sought to understand the needs of people for whom e-philanthropy is designed, which means considering both givers and beneficiaries. Investigations into the views and needs of the people whom non-profit organisations help tend to be limited (Stid,2011).

Twersky et al. (2013) suggest that philanthropic organisations need to consider the opinions and perceptions of the recipients of their assistance. This study aimed to do this by interviewing people who need help. A number of interrelated themes emerged from the interviews. These themes are discussed below.

Anonymity

Anonymity (or privacy) was a recurring theme in the analysis. Interviewees used words such as “dignity” and “embarrassment” to describe their reasons for not seeking assistance in the past. For example, Case E mentioned not wanting “people to know that I need help,” and that asking for help embarrassed her daughters. Case C said “Not always”, implying that they sometimes seek help but are reluctant to discuss it openly. The study by Matic and Alfaisal (2012:17) supports this idea, finding that “a number of young Saudis still refuse to accept employment in a low-end job out of embarrassment or unwillingness to perform it”.

93 Asking for help was a topic that some study participants avoided. For example, Case K mentioned not liking to ask anyone for help, and then avoided a question about receiving help by instead talking about the experience of giving help during Ramadan. Moreover, Case D refused to answer the question about the kind of help she received, perhaps because she felt embarrassed to declare that she received help from someone. This highlights the important role of philanthropy in Islamic culture, which is an idea supported by Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1996), Wuthnow (1991), Berger (2006) and Derbal (2011). However, it also highlights a paradox: giving help is promoted, but receiving help is a source of shame that can prevent people from asking for it (Brown, 2014). This view might also link to a psychological component: when the two parties are connected, the receiver can feel vulnerable or unworthy, which can create a feeling of shame (Mascolo, 2013). Fokkinga and Desmet (2013) suggest that designers are able to influence emotions to improve the UX, and that one of the emotions that a designer can overcome is shame. Stones (2013) agrees that visually giving a sense of positive emotions can lead to a positive impact on unhappy people.

The family emerged as a source of help. Many interviewees reported only opening up to and seeking help from their close families. This might be because the identifiable targets evoke more empathy (Kogut and Ritov,2005). This perspective is contradicted by Al-Ubaydli et al.

(2014), who argue that the personal relationship does not facilitate more giving between giver and receiver. However, this suggests that they want to keep their problems private and not discussed in the broader society. This desire for privacy and avoidance of embarrassment also has an effect on what interviewees think about website design. Henely (online,2010) maintains that some people think “asking for help is considered impolite, a burden, a sign of weakness or simply poor taste”. Many participants do not want images of needy people to be shown in different kinds of media for the purpose of encouraging philanthropy, even though investigations into information science and aesthetics advocate that the effective visual display of web interfaces is realized through the use of human images (Cyr et al. 2010; Hassanein and Head,2007). While many participants agreed to use their own words to describe their situation, they preferred anonymity. As Case E put it, e-philanthropy should be “completely secret”. An article about e-philanthropy in SA describes how people want philanthropic organisations to be a “cover and veil” for them (Al-Ibrahim,2013). The article support the “self-respect program” to help people who wish to remain anonymous, and who prefer not to ask openly for help, in order to maintain their dignity (Al-Ibrahim, online,2013). The article also cites the

94 need of innovation in order to create philanthropic ideas, such as buying two coffees and putting one of them on a shelf where people in need can come and take it without asking, so that people in need would know that there is coffee waiting for them anytime they want, without asking or revealing themselves (Al-Ibrahim,2013).

Design

In short, the interviews suggest a preference for simplicity in the design of a philanthropic website, as Jillbert (2003) also maintains. Complexity in accessing philanthropic help emerged as being very negative. Some participants want to reduce the amount of paperwork they need to fill in to get help. For example, Case K argued, “[The organisations] are making everything so difficult; there have to be necessary papers and requests to prove everything”. For example, for a website that should serve their users a visually complex web interface in displaying product information likewise decreases online shoppers’ satisfaction toward the website, regardless of the quality of the products (Nadkarni et al.,2007).

Simple functionality is the main priority in the recipient’s point of view. An easy-to-use website design emerged as being very important. Interviewees mentioned a website being clear, well organised and easy to navigate, which Christy and Stamanis (2011) support.

Giralico (2013) argue that the interaction between content and users’ needs to provide a sense of ease. Case K mentioned finding “who and what I want easily”, while Case B prefers “When the website design, words and functions are clear and explained”. A study by Reinecke et al.

(2013) shows that visual complexity is linked to the look of the website more than its colours.

Having concise content seems important as well: Case Z suggested that a “website should be nice looking and should not have a lot of words so people don’t get bored”. Jones (2011) supports this viewpoint. Writers such as Schenkman et al. (2000), Loiacono et al. (2007), Everard et al. (2006), Lindgaard et al. (2011) and Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998) also cite the importance of visual appeal. Moreover, Lindgaard et al. (2011) observe that a nice-looking website can provide a sense of trustworthiness.

95 Purpose of Internet Use

The survey participants use the Internet for social networking and to access information. This has implications for e-philanthropy design, because as Case B stated, “There needs to be personal contact with stakeholders, who care to take people in need anywhere”. People use the Internet as a communication tool and a way to link the virtual world with reality. Phethean, Tiropanis and Harris (2013) agree to make a web site fully incorporated on line and off line.

Landry et al. (2010) maintain that personal connection can build a sense of compassion, another idea evidenced in the literature review of networking and two-way communication virtually by Burlingame (2004), Rycroft (2003), Castells (2001), Waters (2007) and Yeon et al. (2005).

Interviewees use the Internet to access information, either for specific educational purposes or for general news and information about the world and global events. Participants suggested that the availability and accuracy of information presented on a website are crucial if they are to trust the website. Writers such as Manovich (2001) argue that people are not interacting with computers; rather, they are facing information that gives an impression of the website.

Case D had a bad experience when she was unable to find the information she was looking for on a philanthropic website; Case H reported receiving false information from a website, which eroded Case H’s trust in the Internet as a way of accessing help. Shalaby (2008) argues that most of the philanthropic organisations are not transparent and their practices are not clear enough.

None of the participants in the interviews mentioned getting philanthropic help from the Internet. This suggests that there are opportunities in the virtual world that people in need can grasp, but there needs to be as much awareness of the Internet as a source of philanthropy as there is of social networks in order to attract such users to e-philanthropy.

Nature of Help

Money is the most important requirement of the participants interviewed, as it underlies all of their basic needs. They identified medicines, household equipment, transportation and employment, but they also described how they would like organisations to treat them in order

96 to encourage them to ask for help. Overall, philanthropic institutions and their representatives should be respectful and accountable. Case K mentioned “Being treated with respect and not feeling humiliated and treated with a demeaning manner by charity officials”. Case E suggested that an organisation’s website should allow recipients to make complaints. It seems fair to suggest that if an association takes a complaint seriously, then this shows respect and a genuine concern about the people it is trying to help.

Other points for consideration:

In this study Six out of 10 participants said they watch television often. In fact, television is the second most important media outlet after the Internet. On the other hand, Dennis et al.

(2013) find that the vast majority of people in SA watch television, with the Internet coming second as a media outlet. In light of this, using this outlet to promote e-philanthropy could be a useful technique to increase its use, and to encourage people to ask for help by using it.

Social networking might also be a good place to promote e-philanthropy, given the popularity of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. This idea is supported by Kietzmann et al. (2011).