Master Thesis: Web 2.0 and Development Aid

Masterproef Politieke Communicatie

What is the role of web 2.0 in development aid? A qualitative study of the Flemish Private initiatives.

Francine Carron

Promotor: Prof. Dr. AalbertsVerslaggever: Prof. Dr. De Vries

Master Politieke Communicatie (www.politiekecommunicatie.be)Rolnummer student(e): S0092242Faculteit Politieke en Sociale WetenschappenAcademiejaar 2009-2010

Acknowledgements

A qualitative research of the role of web 2.0 in the Flemish fourth pillar of development aid. 0

I prepared this report under the guidance of Professor Chris Aalberts. I would like to thank

him very much for guiding me throughout this master thesis. I could not have asked for better

direction and thank you so much for being available during weekends and evenings! Many

thanks also to Mr. Chris Vleugels from the SMIT- Research Institute who contributed to this

paper. I also like to thank all my colleagues at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign affairs,

commerce, and development aid where I conducted my internship. They inspired me to write

on the subject of web 2.0 and development aid. Without the support of my family and

boyfriend throughout this turbulent year, I would have never been able to complete another

degree. And finally, I would like to contribute this work to my son Christian, who is now 4

years old. I hope by gaining another degree I will be able to give him a bright future.

List with acronyms 5


List with tables 6List with figures 6

1. INTRODUCTION 71.1 Research Question 91.2 Relevance 91.2.1 Academic Relevance 91.2.2 Societal Relevance 101.3 Outline 10

2. THEORY 11

2.1 Web 2.0 112.1.1 Introduction 112.1.2 Key Principles 122.1.2.1 Visible manifestations of web 2.0: Multi-media sharing & SNS 132.1.2.2 Data on epic scale 142.1.2.3 User-created content 152.1.2.4 Harnessing collective intelligence 162.1.2.5 Architecture of participation 172.1.3 Conclusion 18

2.2 Development Aid 182.2.1 Introduction 182.2.2 History of development aid 192.2.2.1 Historical Intentions and Motives of development aid 202.2.3 Traditional Structures of development aid 222.2.3.1 Multilateral Aid 222.2.3.2 Bilateral Aid 232.2.3.3 Aid via development aid NGO’s 252.2.3.4 Private Initiatives 272.2.4 Conclusion 27

2.3 Development Aid 2.0 282.3.1 Introduction 292.3.2 Key characteristics of development aid 2.0 302.3.3 Web 2.0 as a tool for development aid 2.0 312.4 Conclusion 33

3. METHODS AND DATA 353.1 Introduction 353.2 Research Method 353.2.1 Interviews 353.2.1.1 Case Specific Interviews 373.2.2 Survey 383.2.3 Content Analysis 39

4. RESULTS 404.1 Interviews 444.2 Online Survey


4.3 Content Analysis of Facebook groups 484.4 Interviews fourth pillar structure 50

5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 565.1 Introduction 565.2 Results 565.3 Discussion 695.4 Suggestions for further research 61

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 62

7. ANNEXES 67

Abstract


Development aid 2.0 is based on the same principles as web 2.0. It is said in the literature that

the Internet is embedded in organizations, politics, and businesses. I therefore researched this

recent phenomenon in international relations. The main question of the master thesis is ‘what

is the role of web 2.0 in the Flemish Private Initiatives’? I answered this question by using an

exploratory method. I employed qualitative techniques such as interviews, surveys, and

content analysis. By executing the latter method, I was able to conclude that web 2.0 only

plays a marginal role in the Flemish Private Initiatives. The Private Initiatives only use the

basic web 2.0 tools but do not exploit the potential of these social networks. These Initiatives

are not aid 2.0 organizations. Commercial aid organizations are arising whom possess all the

characteristics of aid 2.0 and have web 2.0 completely integrated in its organization.

Keywords: Web 2.0, development aid, private initiatives, communication medium, Facebook.

List with acronyms


AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ADB: Asian Development Bank

CASIW: Cellule d’Appui pour la Solidarite Internationale Wallonne

CARE : Committee On American Relief in Europe

CSO: Civil Society Organizations

DAC: Development Assistance Committee

ERP: European Recovery Program

EU: European Union

HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IBBT – SMIT: Studies on Media, Information & Telecommunication

IS: Internationale Samenwerking

IT: Information Technology

JSIC Tech Watch: British JISC Technology & Standard Watch

MDG: Millennium Development Goals

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

ODA: Official Development Assistance

OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OOEC: Organization for European Economic Cooperation

OOF: Other Official flows

OXFAM: Oxford (Committee For) Famine Relief

PI: Private Initiatives

SNS: Social networking sites

SPA: Special Program of Assistance for Africa

SISP: Sebastian Indian Social Projects

TIRO: Teens and ICT: Risks and Opportunities

UK: United Kingdom

UN: United Nations

UNIDO: United Nations Industrial Development Organization

US: United States

USA: United States of America

WB: World Bank

List with tables


Table 1: Results Facebook group content analysis

List with figures

Figure 1: The Internet worldwide 2008

Figure 2: Reasons for using web 2.0 amongst PI’s

Figure 3: Changes in PI’s due to the use of social applications

Figure 4: Types of web 2.0 tools used by PI’s

1. INTRODUCTION


The Internet has become totally embedded into our daily Western World lives. It is used for

both social and professional purposes. Web 2.0 is part of the Internet and has been called the

‘read, write web’ in which user participation is the most important element. Due to capitalist

markets, individuals have easy access to electronic accessories such as laptops, Smartphone’s,

and digital cameras. Thanks to these technological advances, it has become easy for people to

make their own photos, videos, presentations, etc. and upload their created content on to the

Web. Everyone who has access to the Internet can view, listen, download, or watch the user

created contents online. Over the past few years, Web 2.0 has become increasingly popular

mostly because of the existence of online social networks. When we analyze the figures of

Internet usage worldwide, it becomes clear that the Internet has become an inseparable part of

Western life today.

Figure 1: Internet use around the world

Web 2.0 is a new dimension into our lives. It has provided users with more freedom and

technology tools to achieve broader goals. Individuals, companies, and organizations can now

reach out to the world via the Internet. It has changed the way business is conducted; it has

altered the way organizations are run and it has also changed the way people communicate

with each other (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is a new media technology of which the impacts


still need to be studied more in depth. For example, one can analyze how citizens,

governments, cooperation, and so on use web 2.0. As I am a political communication major, I

prefer to analyze web 2.0 as a tool used in one of the most important aspects of the political

international agenda that is development aid.

Development aid is a topic that has attracted much attention in academic and policy circles for

more than half a century (Arvin, 2002). Development aid occupies a crucial role in the world

economy. Simply defined development aid covers governmental transfers to poverty-stricken

countries for development purposes. Development aid in its traditional structure is divided

into two main categories: multilateral and bilateral aid. For the past 25 years there has been an

increased attention to a third category; aid through non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).

However, recently there is increased emphasis to a fourth type of aid that is aid from ‘private

initiatives’ (PI’s). In Belgium, these private initiatives are labeled fourth pillar activities

(vierdepijler, 2010).

In web 1.0, finding information is key. The first Internet phase, metaphorically speaking is an

aggregation of islands. Each island being its own website. For people to find you, they need to

know your websites name or use accurate search words. To the contrary, in web 2.0 finding,

information is no longer key but participation is central. Users have also become producers of

information. One can describe web 1.0 as being the provider of information from a top-down

approach and web 2.0 as the participatory Internet using a bottom-up approach. The latter

theory can be transferred on to development aid. Development aid 1.0 is the top–down

approach and development 2.0 is the bottom–up approach. I assume that, web 2.0 can be a

new communication tool in order to raise awareness or engage people worldwide in

development aid. This master thesis attempts to understand ‘the role of web 2.0 in

development aid’ through conducting a qualitative analysis of the Flemish fourth pillar

activities.

1.1 Research question


My primary research question is: ‘what is the role of web 2.0 in development aid’?

Development aid is divided into four structures: multilateral and bilateral aid, aid through

non-governmental organizations and private initiatives. In my thesis, I focus on the fourth

structure, the private initiatives.

1.2. Relevance

I selected my area of research while conducting an internship at the Belgian Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, Commerce, and Development Aid. While working in the field of

development aid communications, I identified a gap in the knowledge of development

assistance. I noticed that foreign aid bilateral, multilateral and NGO’s all have been studied in

some way or another but nothing had been written about the fourth pillar. A reason for this is

that these initiatives are recent phenomena in development aid structure. At the same time

web 2.0 is also a recent phenomenon. Therefore, I thought it would be of great academic and

societal relevance to research an area that combines both development aid and web 2.0.

Hence, I came up with the research question ‘what is the role of web 2.0 in development aid?’

more particular in the Flemish fourth pillar structure.

1.2.1 Academic Relevance

The master thesis is quite relevant to the field of politics. Web 2.0 is a recent phenomenon of

which research is limited. Any study that relates to web 2.0 and its social applications has

important implications for scholars of social network sites and social media scholars, because

it demonstrates the political utility of social network sites.

What is even more current is development aid 2.0. I am not aware of any proper academic

research conducted to date on this topic. On the Internet, it seems that one can only find

random hypotheses on development aid 2.0 and I have the impression that no one has mapped

out the existing Flemish Private Initiatives (PI’s) including their presence on web 2.0.

This master thesis explains how the Flemish PI’s are present on web 2.0; either top down or

bottom up and what exactly web 2.0 is used for. The research not only gives an inside to the

academic world on why private initiatives use web 2.0 and what their immediate effects are.

This master thesis can be a basis for further research in the field of new media and


international development. Maybe the IBBT–SMIT the research center for Studies on Media,

Information, and Telecommunication at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel can use my paper as a

basis for their recently launched research project that studies the possibilities of web 2.0 in

development aid.

1.2.2 Societal Relevance

Web 2.0 and the Internet are topics that are discussed daily. There are television channels

today that air shows called ‘web 2.0’ which are selections of the best YouTube videos. Web

2.0 is a hot topic. My study will contribute to a better explanation and understanding of what

web 2.0 is used for in the development sector.

International development aid has worldwide attention due to the United Nations (UN)

millennium campaign to reduce poverty worldwide by 2015. At the same time, development

aid has taken a new approach and is practiced in a different way. Combining both

development aid and web 2.0 in one study will therefore contribute to new developments in

our society. For society, in general it means a better insight of the workings of development

aid organizations.

1.3 Outline

This master thesis consists of five chapters. The first and above section briefly introduces the

central reasoning of the master thesis; this includes a brief introduction to development aid

and web 2.0. The second chapter gives an overview of the definitions, origins, principles of

development aid (2.0) and web 2.0 found in the existing literature. The third chapter discusses

the research methodology. The fourth chapter lays out the main results. The fifth chapter

converses the final conclusion and discusses the results in a theoretical and practical sense.

2. THEORY


This section discusses the key concepts necessary in order to better comprehend the master

thesis. The main concepts of the research are web 2.0 and development aid. Therefore, the

entire chapter is devoted to the origins, the key principles, and the contemporary use of

development aid and web 2.0.

2.1 Web 2.0

2.1.1 Introduction

Before introducing web 2.0, one needs to first define web 1.0, because the definition of web

1.0 completely depends on the definition of web 2.0. It wasn’t until web 2.0 was defined that

web 1.0 could be explained, the entire terminology is new. To keep it simple, web 1.0 in its

simplest form is making information available to the public via online channels. The owner of

a web site would publish information online and the user would read, listen, or watch the

content (Armstrong & Franklin, 2008).

Web 1.0 started to disappear in the fall of 2001 when the dot-com bubble burst. Many people

concluded that the Internet was overhyped. However, what most people didn’t know was that

frequent shakeouts and bubbles are universal features of technological revolutions. Hi-tech

reforms mark the point that new technologies are ready to arise. Pretender technologies

disappear; success stories survive and show their strengths. The companies that survived the

crash seemed to have common attributes (O’Reilly, 2005).

These similar characteristics marked a turning point for the World Wide Web, the beginning

of ‘web 2.0’. The notion of ‘web 2.0’ began with a conference brainstorming session between

O'Reilly Media and Media Live International. In the practical field, this seminar came to be

known as the ‘web 2.0 conference’. Dale Dougherty and Tim O'Reilly (2005: 1), noted, “far

from having ‘crashed’, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications

and sites popping up with surprising regularity.” After a year and a half since the term ‘web

2.0’ was coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 it was cited on Google over 9.5 million times

(O’Reilly, 2005).

In their brainstorming session, O’Reilly and Dougherty (2005) divided existing web

applications in 1.0 and 2.0. Ofoto had become Flickr, mp3.com had become Napster,

Britannica Online had become Wikipedia, and personal websites had become blogs. Their list


was endless but it helped them identify the success characteristics of 1.0 applications and

what the key aspects had evolved into.

However, the term web 2.0 has no established definition and large disagreements exist about

what the term exactly means. For some people it is a ‘meaningless marketing buzzword’ and

means one or more of the following terms: Social Software, Social Media, Collaboration,

Sharing content, Tagging, Social Networking, Blogs, Wikis, MySpace, Facebook, Social

Bookmarks, Podcasting, Mash-up, YouTube, RSS, Flikr, tag cloud and folksonomy, while

others accept it as conventional wisdom. In order to grasp a clear understanding of the

concept web 2.0, it is best to start at the original web 2.0 paper of Tim O’Reilly who coined

the precedent term (O’Reilly, 2005).

2.1.2 Key Principles web 2.0

O’Reilly and Dougherty (2005) discuss seven key principles of web 2.0 in their paper ‘What

is Web 2.0?’ These key principles are, I quote: As first principle, “the services, not packaged

software, with cost-effective scalability”, simplified the current visible manifestations. Second

principle is “the control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more

people use them” or in simple words data on an epic scale. The third principle is, “trusting

users as co-developers” or user-generated content. “Harnessing collective intelligence” or

harnessing the power of the crowd is the fourth principle. “Leveraging the long tail through

customer self-service” or enabling the architecture of participation is the fifth principle. The

sixth principle is “software above the level of a single device” or underlying web

technologies. And the last and seventh principle is “lightweight user interfaces, development

models, AND business models”, simplified the network effects and openness. So, before one

labels something as a web 2.0 initiative, we should check against these seven principles. The

more features they have the more it comes close to being a web 2.0 initiative (O’Reilly,

2005).

The most relevant features for this paper are discussed below. These are 2.0 manifestations,

data on epic scale, user created content, architecture of participation and harnessing collective

intelligence. I do not discuss principles six and seven, which are underlying web technologies,

network effects and openness because then we enter into in depth technical discussions, which

are not relevant to the master thesis. Underlying web technologies in its simplest form are


software’s being run through a browser such as for example Google document. Network

effects and openness relates to the new copyright licenses for user created content.

2.1.2.1 Visible 2.0 manifestations: Multi-media sharing and social networking sites

The first principle of web 2.0 is today’s most popular application. Manifestations of such are

multi-media sharing and social networking sites. These sites date from around 2002 with

widespread use starting in 2004. Media sharing sites allow people to post podcasts (audio

files), videos, photos, etc. Examples of such sites are Flickr for photos, YouTube for videos,

iTunes for podcasts, Slideshare for presentations, scribd for documents, and so on. Media

sharing sites also allow users to contribute and tag their contributions with key words. On

these, websites users can also post comments or give ratings (O’Reilly, 2005).

In web 2.0, the largest Internet successes are that of social networking sites (SNS). Based on

the definition by Boyd and Ellison (2007:1): “a SNS is a web-based environment that allows

users to (1) create a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) construct a list

of users in that system with whom the user maintains connection, and (3) view connection

lists (his/her own or friends’ lists) and traverse between other connections’ profiles.” Social

networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and hi5 “allow the creation of online

communities of people with common interests” (Boyd, 2007: 9).

Nowadays, Facebook (2010) is one of the biggest and most successful Internet stories; “it

facilitates interaction among likeminded people by sharing information through the digital

mapping of real-world social connections” (Facebook, 2010). According to Alexa which is

the largest web information company, Facebook is the seventh most visited global website,

while MySpace is ranked sixth (Alexa, 2010). “Both of these websites attract from the same

pool of primarily 18-30 year olds and although different in style, they offer similar

functionality” (Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini, 2007).

In order to understand Facebook’s success and popularity several researchers have been

conducted. The research of Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2007: 1162) states that Facebook

“plays an important role in the process of forming and managing social capital by improving

self esteem and low life satisfaction as well as crystallizing relationships that may remain

short lived”. One of the exceptional aspects of Facebook is that it makes use of the online and

offline trends. People use it as a tool for maintaining existing or previous relationships and


research about people they have just met offline. Most SNS are set up to search for new

online friends also called ‘social browsing’ with the “intention of moving that relationship

offline” (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2007: 437). According to Ellison and Boyd (2007: 10),

“social network members use online channels less to meet new people and more to intensify

offline relationships”. In an interview with Jakob Nielsen (2007) on BBC news, a randomly

picked Facebook user explained his usage as follows:

“That one of her main uses of Facebook is to keep in touch with people she has

recently met, “It’s like the stage in between email and texting. It’s a bit more

personal than email but you’re not quite at the stage to give them your mobile

number yet so you add them to Facebook” (Nielsen, 2007:1).

Another user explains that they use Facebook to check if others “have added anything

interesting” (Nielsen, 2010: 1). Hart, Ridley, Taher, Sas and Dix (2008), in their Facebook

study ‘Exploring the Facebook Experience: A New Approach to Usability’ asked “to rate the

ease-of-use on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being very easy, 5 being very difficult) the majority

of participants (85%) stated that it was very easy or easy” (Hart et all, 2008). None of the

remaining participant’s responded felt it was difficult or very difficult (Hart et all, 2008). The

authors of ‘Exploring the Facebook Experience’ (2008) also analyzed user experience.

Experiences that were selected the most were curiosity and enjoyment (Hart et all, 2008).

2.1.2.2 Data on epic scale

The second principle is ‘data on an epic scale’. According to Paul Anderson from the JSIC

Tech Watch (2008), comprehends this as a fact that huge amount of data is generated and

used. A lot of services convince people to give detailed information about themselves such as

name, address, date of birth, pictures, interests etc. which they then make publicly available,

or use for their own system in order to target advertisement. Intelligent companies capture

process and aggregate the available data and turn it into strong companies (Anderson, 2008).

Companies that collect most information become the most successful 2.0 businesses. This

online created and aggregated information is labeled as the invisible rain of information (Von

Baeyer, 2004). Similar to eBay, Amazon also has made a science of user engagement. Experts

claim that Amazon sells the same products as their competitor Barnesandnoble.com but still


Amazon outpaces competition due to its user leverage. Amazon has more user reviews,

invitations to participate and they “use user activity to produce better search results”

(O’Reilly, 2005: 6).

2.1.2.3 User-created content

The third principle of web 2.0 is ‘user-generated content’ or ‘user-created content’ (UCC).

There is no widely accepted definition for the former term but the Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) has tried to describe it very broadly. It describes

user-created content as “content made publicly available over the Internet, which reflects a

certain amount of creative effort, and which is created outside of professional routines and

practices” (Vickery & Wunsch-Vincen, 2007: 8). Due to today’s consumer, market user-

created content is easily fabricated. Cheap cameras and software have paved the way for

many to upload their own photos, videos, music, and write on blogs, hence generating their

own content.

One of the very new sets of UCC technologies that already existed in 1.0 but became

extremely popular in the web 2.0 eras is blogging. In web 1.0 blogs were created as online

logbooks on which the author could put log entries and if they wished, publish them. Blogs,

like log books, are cumulative and each new entry is appended to the previous ones

(Armstrong and Franklin, 2008). In its simplest form, a blog is an online diary. Web 2.0 blogs

offer a variety of characteristics that are not available in logbooks. Other features are the

possibility to receive blog updates on portable devices so that one can keep up with constantly

upgraded content. People can link their own blogs on other websites and also “via a

mechanism known as trackbacks, they can see when anyone else links to their pages, and can

respond, either with reciprocal links, or by adding comments, this magnifies their visibility

and power” (O’Reilly, 2005: 8). According to Rich Skrenta, creator of the first Apple II

computer virus Elk Cloner, blogging is the “live web” (O’Reilly, 2005). However, O’ Reilly

describes blogging as “weblogs in the web 2.0 eras turned from ease-of-publishing

phenomenon into a conversational mess of overlapping communities” (O’Reilly, 2005: 7).

Another important aspect of blogging is that most blog systems only allow people to make

posts or to comment on other people's posts if they have logged in. One interesting fact of the

need to log in is that people may not use their real name (or even a nick name that they are

known by), so that although they have to log in they can remain anonymous to other users of


the system (Armstrong and Franklin, 2008). Blogs can be texts, videos, and even micro blogs,

which Twitter, is the leading example of.

2.1.2.4 Harnessing collective intelligence

The fourth principle of web 2.0 and key feature of sites born in the web 1.0 era but survived to

lead the web 2.0 eras appear to be the fact that they embraced ‘the power of the web to

harness collective intelligence’ or ‘harnessing the power of the crowd’ (O’Reilly, 2005: 5).

The former means that Internet applications make more use of the Internet by enabling the

users to act independently but collectively. Web 2.0 is steered by the idea of ‘ask the

audiences’ (O’Reilly, 2005). JSIC labels this concept as ‘crowd sourcing’ or ‘the rise of the

amateur’ (Anderson, 2008). More technically web 2.0 applications harness collective

intelligence by hyper linking. Users add new content and others users can discover these new

contents and link to it. O’Reilly (2005) compares it to how synapses are formed in the brain.

According to him, associations of synapses become stronger through repetition or intensity,

the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web

users.

Three such impressive examples of harnessing collective intelligence are Yahoo! Google and

eBay. Yahoo is an index of links or an aggregation of the best work of millions of web users.

However, over the years Yahoo! has entered into the business of various types of content

creation, “its role as a portal to the collective works of the net's users remains the core of its

value” (O’Reilly, 2005: 5). Google in contrast works with a method called Page Rank, which

uses thee “link structure of the web rather than just the characteristics of documents to provide

better search results” (O’Reilly, 2005: 5). Google’s date is collected indirectly each time they

use a service such as Google or eBay (Anderson, 2008). eBay also uses the power of

harnessing collective intelligence. Their products are the collective activity of all its users. For

O’Reillly (2005), eBay grows organically in response to user activity, and the company's role

is as an enabler of a context in which user activity can occur.

2.1.2.5 Architecture of Participation


The fifth principle of web 2.0 or the architecture of participation needs to be understood as

parallel worlds. An application or service is developed to facilitate mass participation and the

more the service is used the better it gets (O’Reilly, 2005). That is one of the major side

effects of 2.0 applications. Companies such as eBay, Amazon, Google and Yahoo are all

perfect examples of architecture of participation.

One of the most extreme experiments of user participation online is Wikipedia, a tool that

enables the collaborative creation of sets of web pages. It is open to anyone who has interest

in some topic and each topic can be given its own web page (Armstrong and Franklin, 2008).

One of their unique features is that they can record all the changes that have taken place and

see who all contributed to the different topics. In simple words, Wikipedia is an online

encyclopedia in which any web user can add and edit information; this is a revolution in all

aspects of content creation.

Another concept of architecture participation is the concept of folksonomy, not to be confused

with taxonomy. Sites such as Flickr have launched the concept of folksonomy. According to

Tonkin (2006):

“A folksonomy is a type of distributed classification system which is usually

created by a group of individuals, typically the resource users. Users add tags to

online items, such as images, videos, bookmarks, and text. These tags are then

shared and sometimes refined” (Tonkin, 2006:1).

For example, a Flickr photo of a cat might be tagged both “kitten” and “cute” which allows

for retrieval along natural axes and user created activity.

2.1.3 Conclusion

Some believe that the powerful ideas of web 2.0 will have a long-term impact. Not only on

the exact technical manifestations but the user-created content, data collection, crowd

sourcing, P2P sharing, etc. Web 2.0 is changing businesses, organizations, and society in

general. Companies such as Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, social networking sites, and

multi-media sharing sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and Flickr have marked

today’s web unchangeably. These sites have become integrated into many people’s daily


practices. There are numerous social network sites in the online world all catering to diverse

audiences (Boyd, 2007:1). Critics of SNS believed that it would “impoverish the

communication environment’. Web 2.0 has the advantage that it allows online collaborative

activities across country boundaries. In this setting, participation becomes intrinsic. Web 2.0:

“is inherently social and is concerned with the co-creation and use of knowledge.

The barriers to use web 2.0 are low and it is a natural extension of the way that

many people are already using the web rather than a completely new departure”

(Nie, 2001: 430).

I believe that due to its low barriers web 2.0 has been able to penetrate in nearly every sector,

including development aid.

2.2 Development Aid

2.2.1 Introduction

Foreign economic aid is one of the most important aspects of international relations. Aid can

be a powerful tool for promoting growth and reducing poverty (Burnside and Dollar, 1997: 6).

Nearly all developed countries, and even a few underdeveloped ones administer and

contribute to substantial aid programs. According to Robert Wood (1986: 10) development

assistance or “foreign aid is a name covering many different relations between suppliers and

recipients; foreign aid is a label, and a great deal of political ingenuity has gone into

determining what it does and does not apply to.” Foreign aid is generally divided between

military aid and economic aid, which is mostly used as a synonym with development aid.

Development aid or development assistance according to the definition of the Development

Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD members “refers to financial flows that qualify as

Official Development Assistance (ODA)” (Finn, 2006: 13).

“ODA is defined as the sum of grants and loans to aid recipients that are: (a)

undertaken by the official sector of the donor country; (b) with promotion of

economic development and welfare in recipient countries as the main objective;


(c) at concessional financial terms, where the grant element is equal to at least 25

per cent” (Finn, 2006: 13).

Wood (1986) points out that the DAC excludes all grants loans, and credits for military

purposes from its definition of development assistance. He states (p.11): “On the one hand, a

donor’s decision to call aid ‘economic’ or ‘military’ is often politically shaped and bears little

relationship to either the donor’s real motivation or the aid’s real impact.” Thus, according to

Wood (1986: 11), in reality, “The DAC distinguishes ODA and ‘other official flows’ (OOF).

OOF is carrying a grant of less than 25 percent.”

For Rosenstein-Rodan (1961: 107), “The purpose of an international program of aid to

underdeveloped countries is to accelerate their economic development up to a point where a

satisfactory rate of growth can be achieved on a self-sustaining basis.” Development aid is not

to immediately raise the standard of living in recipient countries but “to permit them to make

the transition from economic stagnation to self-sustaining economic growth” (Rosenstein-

Rodan, 1961: 107). In simple words, “foreign aid is about the development among the poorest

people in the world, among the most marginalized and oppressed peoples and societies”

(Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen, 2003: xv).

2.2.2 History of development aid

Development aid has its first origins in the United States of America in the nineteenth

century. The first event is illustrated by the 1812 Act for Relief of the Citizens of Venezuela.

When reading the history of development aid, one can say that development aid was mostly

established after the Second World War in the aftermath of World War II.

One of the first largest development aid initiatives was the Marshall Plan. Or officially known

as the European Recovery Program (ERP) “It was a humanitarian program to aid Europe’s

postwar recovery and extend a helping hand to those in need” (Gimble, 1976: 1). To finance

the ERP the US transferred some 2-3 per cent of its national income to help restore Europe

(Finn, 2006). The Marshall Pan, characterized aid by a structure of

“Openness to and alliance with foreign capital; import of organizational and

production technologies; monetary, fiscal and trade policies extending the


domestic reach of international market forces; and, despite considerable

variation, a general ‘dissociation’ of the ‘entrepreneurial-repressive state… from

the nation” (Wood, 1986: 4).

Fernando Cardoso and Enzo Faletto (1979) labeled the latter explanation of aid as ‘dependent

development’. The Marshall Plan distributed over $13 billion between 1948 and 1952 to

Western European countries constituted as the Organization for European Economic

Cooperation (Wood, 1986). Above 90 percent of the development, aid dispensed under the

Marshall Plan was in the form of grants (Wood, 1986).

The post war period paved the way for development organizations and grew dramatically

during this period. It increased by 4.2 percent per annum in real terms over the period 1960-

88, to reach nearly US$70 billion by 1988 (White, 1992). Not only did it clear the road for

development organizations to rise but also for the creation of institutions. For example,

Oxfam was first created to Greek refugees and CARE was originally the Centre for American

Relief in Europe (White, 1992). The creations of institutions lead to the rise of multilateral

aid. In the 1970’s, multilateral aid was properly developed and the concept of aid via NGO’s

was launched in the eighties. I believe that the history of development aid clarifies that its

model has changed throughout centuries frequently evolving into new concepts of

development aid.

2.2.2.1 Historical Intention and Motives of development aid

“The international development cooperation is a process with many actors, each with their

own motives, interests, goals and strategies” (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen,

2003: 1). Historically aid has served a multitude of objectives such as serving commercial,

political, and economic objectives (Dollar, 1997). According to Hjertholm and White (2000),

an example of the dubious aid intentions of donor countries was when the Ministry of

Agriculture decided to transfer America’s food surplus. The intention behind this act was to

‘develop new markets’. McKinlayandLittle (1979 in Hjertholn and White 1998: 46)

reached “a similar conclusion with regard to American aid in 1960 and 1970, stating that

humanitarian concerns were all but absent in USA aid allocation, this instead being shaped

wholly by US self- interest.”


It is apparent that there is an unequal power relation between developing and donor countries.

This unequal power relationship is one of “the greatest obstacles to economic, social and

political change” (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen, 2003: 5). In order to

progress, it is required that the resource-weak groups be strengthened politically in relation to

those in power (idem). A perfect example of unequal power relationship is that of the DAC

which is responsible for monitoring aid performance but has no developing country as

member, not even as observers. Another example of such is the Special Program of

Assistance for Africa who has no African representation (Hjertholm and White, 1979). The

only way for donor recipients to take part in aid discussions is through ‘Consultative Groups

or Round Tables’. Nonetheless, development aid according to the Marshall Plan was not set

up for donor countries to have a special position over recipients.

Motives for supporting development aid began changing towards the end of the 20 th century.

The motives of the donor countries shifted towards moral and humanitarian principles,

political and national security considerations, and economic and trade considerations and less

on self-interest. The past twenty years, the motives for international development aid arose

from wishes to sustain and improve the global environment; to limit international migration;

to stop the flow of narcotics; to reduce the risk of epidemics such as HIV/AIDS; and to fight

terrorism. The starting point for moral and humanitarian arguments for foreign aid is the idea

that a person who has sufficient means or extreme means has a definite obligation to help

people who are poor and have poor access to resources (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-

Pedersen, 2003). This similar way of thinking applies to the relationship between the rich and

poor countries. Closely related to this principle is that “all human beings have a right to

development, which was widely supported at the World Conference on Human Rights at

Vienna in 1993” (idem: 10). Moral and humanitarian motives play an essential role in

multilateral cooperation.

2.2.3 Traditional Structures of development aid


2.2.3.1 Multilateral Aid

Ever since the Second World War, the OECD countries have chosen to dispense their foreign

aid through multilateral organizations such as the European Union (EU), World Bank,

International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), and regional development banks.

The most important ones are the World Bank, UN, and EU. The European Commission is

unique because it plays a dual role. It receives development funds from EU Member States

and channels funds through other multilateral organizations (OECD, 2009). According to the

former institution, DAC member countries engage with multilateral institutions for many

reasons (OECD, 2009: 4): “These include the ability of multilaterals to provide economies of

scale, access to know-how, ensure political neutrality, provide public goods, and reduce

burdens on donors and partner countries.” Aid Watch (2010) believes there is a tendency for

rich countries to give more money to multilateral development banks such as the World Bank

and the Asian Development Bank because voting is weighted and so member states can have

more influence over where the aid money goes. Member states do not have as much influence

when they contribute to United Nations agencies because voting is equal and less of the

money is returned to the donor countries (Aid Watch, 2010).

Next to this, multilateral aid arrangements develop a sense of collaboration among countries

with the supplementary advantage of reducing conflict. Problems such as poverty, disease,

and conflict through multilateral efforts suggest that they are “world problems” and not

exclusively the problems of a recipient country and an interested donor nation (Aid Watch,

2010). Multilateral approaches to solving problems expand a sense of goodwill. Multilateral

development organizations are less attached to any country’s foreign policy goals and are

more humanitarian in orientation (Gilles and Yontcheva, 2006). Multilateral aid is much more

likely to go to developing countries on the basis of need, and of where it has the most

potential for good (Aid Watch, 2010).

Another reason for using multilateral institutions by governments according to Gilles and

Yontcheva (2006) is to show the public that they are going to conduct development aid for

more humanitarian purposes and less political or commercial ones. These signals

governments send is credible because the donor government cannot control the multilateral

organization completely and multilateral organization have a reputation for more needs-based

aid giving. In many OECD countries, citizens have more confidence in international


organizations than their own governments. For example, “in Italy, domestic corruption is

perceived to be widespread, while the EU, is perceived to be much cleaner” (Milner, 2004:

23). Thus, multilateral aid organizations are viewed as better aid providers than their own

government. Whenever voters aren’t hostile to development aid, governments will most likely

shift towards managing aid themselves.

To summarize, multilateral aid,

“For DAC Purposes, aid contributions qualify as multilateral assistance only if

they are made to an international institution whose members are governments and

which conducts all or a significant part of its activities in favor of development;

and those contributions are pooled with other amounts received so that they lose

their identity and become an integral part of the institution’s financial assets”

(OECD, 2005:102).

Any development assistance that doesn’t fulfill the above criteria qualifies as bilateral

assistance.

2.2.3.2 Bilateral Aid

Bilateral foreign aid is an inter-state affair, that is, aid from a government in the North to a

government in the South (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen 2003). According to

Arvin (2002: 35): “Bilateral assistance refers to disbursements made by the donor to the

recipient state without having it pass through an intermediating multilateral institution such as

the World Bank or a regional development bank.” Bilateral aid is aid that is immediately

reaching its destination and can begin working for the recipient government. For the DAC,

“Any ODA that includes non-core/multi-bi assistance (i.e. voluntary contributions

from donors to a multilateral agency supplementary to core membership

contributions) earmarked for specific purposes, whether to a specific partner

country, region, sector or theme is classified in DAC statistics as bilateral aid

because the bilateral donor effectively controls or directs the use of funds”

(OECD, 2009: 5).


About two-thirds of the official development assistance is bilateral. Six of the most important

groups of bilateral donors are: USA, Japan, France, Germany, and Great Britain. Small like-

minded bilateral donors are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland and to some degree Canada.

According to Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen (2003: 41): “large countries such

as the USA and the former colonial powers have always given most of their aid bilaterally,

primarily for political and commercial reasons while small countries, such as the Nordic

countries, have started with multilateral aid and gradually developed considerable bilateral aid

programs.” Bilateral aid has often been the most active area of government-to-government

contact (Jones, 1977).

One of the major criticisms of bilateral aid is that it is based mostly upon self-interest. Donor

governments impose harsh political and economic restrictions on the recipient countries. An

example of such is when the United States gave Pakistan economic and military aid despite

years of sanctions in the past. In return, the aid money must be spent on American goods or

services (McKinlayandLittle, 1979). Not only does America provide aid to its strategic

powers but also colonial powers are guilty of such acts. Another example of the self-interested

reasoning behind bilateral aid is that North governments can use direct aid to boost their

image by providing aid to countries in the South that have negative attitudes towards that

specific North government (Gilles and Yontcheva, 2006).

“Bilateral aid was often based on irrelevant criteria aimed at political ends,

subject to changes and interruptions from budget to budget, and thus

unsatisfactory for mitigating inequality in the world.... There was also a tendency

for bilateral aid to be tied to grandiose projects when an equal or greater need

was for general aid to overall programs of development” (Balogh (1967:328)

cited in Milner (2004: 12)).

However, every country has its own motivation to donate in bilateral terms. According to

Gilles and Yontcheva (2006), from the IMF institute, the US and France are usually pursuing

their foreign policy goals, Japan pursues its economic interests and Sweden is more attuned to

recipient needs.

2.2.3.2 Aid via development aid NGO’s


The third structure of development aid is the NGO’s. NGO’s are often referred to as third

sector organizations, or in Belgium third pillars (derde pijlers). Some label NGO’s also as

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) or charities. NGO’s were created around the 1960’s.

They channel a large share of development assistance. Proponents of development aid NGO’s

claim that they represent the voices of the poor and care about the most vulnerable

populations. They allocate according to the needs of the beneficiaries. Motives of the NGO’s

are mostly of moral and humanitarian kind. In general, extremely motivated people who

deeply believe in certain ideas found NGO’s.

According to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the

comparative advantages of NGO’s are as follows: “They have local accountability, they

conduct an independent assessment of issues and problems, they have strong expertise and

advise, they can reach important constituencies, they conduct awareness raising and provide

and disseminate information” (Chege, 1999: 1). The strength of NGOs lies in their “proximity

to their members or clients, their flexibility and the high degree of people's involvement and

participation in their activities, which leads to strong commitments, appropriateness of

solutions and high acceptance of decisions implemented” (idem: 1).

NGO’s have become quite prominent in the field of international development during the past

twenty years. Shah (2005) states why NGO’s have become increasingly important in the past

decades. Robbins begins with the fact that the end of the Cold War made it easier for NGO’s

to operate. Secondly, IT revolutions have also contributed to the increased attention of

NGO’s. Thirdly, new communication advances “have helped create new global communities

and bonds between like-minded people across state boundaries” (p. 128-129). Fourthly, The

expanding media has made more people aware about the global problems and people expect

governments to take action. Fifth and last reason, NGO’s have increased recourses, growing

professionalism and have provided more employment opportunities. More important, Shah

(2005) suggests: “that some believe NGOs have developed as part of a larger, neoliberal

economic and political agenda. Shifts in economic and political ideology have lent to

increasing support of NGOs from governments and official aid agencies in response.” In

1996, it was estimated that seven billion dollars was channeled through NGO’s, rather than

governments (Chege, 1999). According to Chege (1999: 1): “NGO’s in Africa manage nearly

$3.5 billion in external aid, compared to under $1 billion in 1990”.


NGO’s mostly tackle issues that governments aren’t willing to take up. They literally bypass

governments. Hence, NGO’s are continuously growing. The United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees, “has some 400-500 NGO partners and in 1997 provided $272

million in funding through 443 NGO’s in 131 countries” (Chege, 1999:1). Virtually every UN

agency works with NGO’s (idem). Governments are attempting to control NGO’s with

policies such as matching grants, tax deductions, and tying grants to past performance.

2.2.3.4 Private Initiatives (PI’s)

According to its definition, a PI is a common name for all development aid activities that take

place outside of traditional development aid (vierde pijler). There is not a lot of academic

literature available on private aid initiatives as it is a recent phenomenon in development aid

practices. Private aid initiatives practices vary from country to country. In Belgium, there is

an organization that combines all private initiatives which is called ’vierdepijler organisatie’

or fourth pillar organization. The Flemish Minister President Kris Peeters launched the fourth

pillar organization in December 2008. In Wallonia, there is a similar fourth pillar

organization, which is called ‘Cellule d’Appui pour la Solidarite Internationale Wallonne’.

PI’s are easily described with an example. The fourth pillar website of the Flemish

development aid organization gives the example of Eva, Sophie and Jan, who travelled to

India and visited an orphanage, they decided they would like to support the orphanage in the

future. After returning to Belgium, they put everything in action to find raise funds to support

the Indian orphanage. Another example on their site is that of Frederik and Roos who decided

to build a well in Mali with the support of their own company. However, one can claim that

these initiatives have existed already many years through missionary works. But recent

research has proven there is a new fresh wave of private projects (Vierdepijler, 2010). These

new PI’s are becoming much more organized and effective and receive increased attention

from governments.

According to the research of HIVA, in Flanders there exist more than 1100 active PI’s

(HIVA, 2009). 30.000 tot 60.000 Flemish individuals participate in these initiatives to help

develop the South. On a yearly basis about 47 to 68 million Euros is collected to support these

types of projects. HIVA (2009) claims that development aid is becoming a societal

phenomenon. Development aid is becoming less and less a task of governments, NGO’s or


international organizations since more and more civilians, schools and companies are willing

to change the situation in the South.

2.2.4 Conclusion

International development cooperation is based on the belief that outside interventions of

governments are necessary in order to promote development in the poorest regions. However,

when reading the history of development aid it becomes clear that the various aid strategies

throughout the centuries are focused on the Western world, and not at advancing the interests

of the developing world. Donors have tended to dominate the aid scene through multilateral

and bilateral aid. Multilateral aid is given through international agencies and aid given

directly is bilateral. The motives for channeling aid through multilateral agencies such as the

EU and development banks are mixed but still contain elements of donor’s countries own

national interests. Nevertheless, it is still much harder for donors to exercise direct influence

when using multilaterals.

It was expected that throughout the 90’s that aid donations would increase. However, due to

the end of the cold war, countries that were once donating had become recipient countries and

less money was available (Degnbol-Martinussen & Engberg-Pedersen, 2005). Therefore, new

ways of development cooperation had to be created. In the 1980’s, many NGO’s came into

existence. Public donations, companies, and individuals funded these NGO’s and the

government subsidized a smaller portion. Another recent phenomenon is the private initiatives

that are funded by people and directly executed. NGO’s have become major players in the

development aid scene and nearly every UN agency works with a NGO. I believe that one

should not underestimate the power of these private initiatives while their work is claimed to

be successful.

2.3 Development Aid 2.0


2.3.1 Introduction

Throughout the years, development aid has been extremely criticized. Some accuse recipient

countries, NGO’s, and international organizations of corruption. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 84%

of opinion makers agreed with the statement that, “because of corruption, foreign assistance to

developing countries is mostly wasted” (Burnside and Dollar, 2004: 19).

The Pearson Report (1969) has described foreign aid in 1969 as a moral obligation of rich

states. One of the most notorious critics of the moral obligation model to foreign aid is Peter

Bauer. His basic view is that neither individuals nor states have any moral obligation at all to

help others (Schleifer, 2009). Bauer believes that “only if wealth is accumulated in an unjust

way can a moral demand be made for redistribution” (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-

Pedersen, 2005: 11). But this is not the case in relation to the global distribution of wealth.

Therefore, Bauer asserts that the rich countries should in no way be responsible for poverty in

developing countries (Schleifer, 2009). Bauer states “the differences in living standard and

access to resources arise from the differences in what countries and populations have earned

as a result of their own efforts and those of their forebears. If individuals wish to change this

by giving up part of their well-earned property, there is nothing to prevent it, but no one is

obligated to do this” (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-Pedersen, 2005: 11). Thus

governments should not use taxes to support foreign aid, they have no right to do so unless the

people have given their consent to do so. The opponent of development aid also “rejects any

notion of giving foreign aid to the poor on the basis of the argument that it is their right as

human beings to be able to satisfy their basic needs. No one has a right to more than he

deserves and earns by lawful means” (idem: 11).

Some people have come to share the same thoughts as Bauer and due to incidents such as the

financial crises; citizens in general have become more skeptical about how development aid is

executed. The current financial crisis shows us how the world is totally interconnected.

Whatever happens in the South can lead to consequences in the North and vice versa. Topics

such as migration, climate change and terrorism are borderless. Therefore, I proclaim that we

should not shut our eyes to the extreme poverty in the South. The financial crisis is giving the

world an opportunity to review international assistance.


Cooperation between rich and poor countries needs to acquire a new meaning for both parties

(Gilles and Yontcheva, 2006). This applies to both bilateral and multilateral cooperation, and

NGO’s in both North and South. Thus, according to Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg-

Pedersen (2006: xiii): “it is important to think through how foreign aid can be improved at a

time when this form of international cooperation is under economic and political pressure.”

The question is:

“Should development cooperation continue as it has been, or is there need for

decisive changes? Power relations are such that donor actors in practice have the

greatest influence in planning foreign aid- even though in recent years there has

been much talk about partnership” (Degnbol-Martinussen and Engberg

Pedersen: xiv).

Donor organizations need to recognize that there is an enormous diversity between recipient

countries. These countries need to become active members of establishing development aid

models so that donors can better understand their motives, interests and development goals

and strategies (Gilles and Yontcheva, 2006). When reading the evolvement of development

aid, it becomes clear to me that there is a worldwide plea for a new way of conducting

development aid. Mike Brantjes founder of ‘Worknets’ and the Dutch Minister of

Development Aid, Koenders labeled this new way of development aid as ‘development aid

2.0’ on Monday, the 17th November 2008.

2.3.2 Key characteristics of development aid 2.0

Development aid 2.0 resembles much to web 2.0. The architecture of participation is quite

similar. Development aid 2.0 just as web 2.0 stands for massive collaboration, self-

organization, collective intelligence, and crowd sourcing. In these, ‘web 2.0 characteristics’

the aspect of the human being is central and become part of the real world (1% club, 2009). In

development aid 2.0 there is no leader: everyone is a leader. Projects are steered through

participation or harnessing collective intelligence in the same way web 2.0 harnesses

intelligence to make their software run. Unknown people are organizing festivals using web

2.0, others are becoming shareholders of their favorite band (sellaband.com) so that they can

enter a record studio without having to be dependent on large record labels (1% club, 2009).

These are examples of collaboration that go a step further than Wikipedia, people are


controlling the process instead of the process being directed from above. According to the

‘oneprocentclub’ (2009), the main question is that if we can write an encyclopedia together

such as Wikipedia, can we solve global poverty through online collaboration as well?

Half of the world’s population has to live of one dollar a day and one billion people do not

have access to potable water. For oneprocentclub, it is impossible to tackle the world’s

poverty situation with one large plan. One plan cannot guarantee to improve the economy in

developing countries, stabilize the political situation, increase the level of education, build a

health sector, and provide food safety and battle environmental changes. By the time the

development plan has been written out, the world has changed again. Therefore, in

development aid 2.0, the plan is no longer important but the people are (1% club, 2009).

Development 2.0 is a new way of working. Recipient countries no longer want to follow the

strategy of ‘show me’ but the strategy of ‘follow me’. Development aid 2.0 works from

bottom up instead of top down. Trust is essential as through trust, collaboration can begin. In

order to enhance participation investments need to be made in structures. So, that knowledge

and information is available to everyone. Development aid in 2.0 is no longer linear and aid

needs to adapt to its specific situation. Therefore, there needs to be a large variety of solutions

to the many different kind of aid problems (1% club, 2009).

In order to get a better understanding of development aid 2.0 one needs to define the key

characteristics of traditional development aid. Due to the recent existence of development aid

2.0, traditional aid is now labeled as development aid 1.0. Development aid 1.0 is planned

from above; planners are usually politicians or governors that provide aid as they think is

necessary. Traditional aid is one large concept that fits all countries. A governmental reason

for having a supply driven development aid strategy is that donors’ country could advance

their own economic or political agenda. Governments can choose to conduct aid bilaterally or

multilaterally through large development institutions. These institutions govern from top

down and recipient countries are treated as victims. In development aid 1.0, aid is structured

through programs and cooperation is not a word commonly used (1% club, 2009).

In contrast, development aid 2.0 is demand driven, aid is developed from bottom up. It is no

longer a concept of one-size fits all but aid is developed for each case. There are many

different types of development aid. Assistance 2.0 is executed much more through people, the


human is central, and cooperation is essential. Trust is the key ingredient in this new way of

assisting the poor. Furthermore, recipient countries are no longer treated as victims but as

states that are responsible for their own development (1% club, 2009).

2.3.3 Web 2.0 as a tool for development aid

Development aid 2.0 is about cooperating with each other, together delivering aid based on

humanitarian arguments. In order to better collaborate which each other web 2.0 is the ideal

medium. Web 2.0 in development aid is a tool to ‘give people the power to share and make

the world more open and connected. Worldwide there are 300 million users of which 95

million active users in Europe (Gail Power, 2009).

Social networking sites and multimedia sites can easily be used as tools to promote

development aid or discuss with members or possible volunteers. For example, on Facebook

an organization can create three ways to dialogue about their organization. Organizations can

do this by first adding themselves on Facebook, then by driving the conversation, promoting

the ads and fully use the applications in a fun and useful way (Gail Power, 2009). It is

important that organizations provide interesting content so that people continue to stay

connected (idem).

An example of governmental development organization that promoted itself through

Facebook is UKAid. They use it mainly for building awareness and communicating around

development activities steered by UKAid. More than 1500 people are fan of the facebook

group UKAID. UKAid uploads their page every day, they receive open applications for

volunteers via Facebook and receive feedback (Power, 2009).

Another organization that has mobilized online is ‘the millennium campaign to end poverty in

2015’. The ‘millennium campaign to end poverty by 2015’ is outlined by the millennium

development goals (Labella, 2009):

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education.

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women.

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality.

Goal 5: Improve maternal health.


Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability.

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development.

The aim is that by 2015, these goals are reached. ‘End poverty 2015’ calls for people to stand

up take action and also mobilize online in order to reach these goals. In order for aid

organizations to increase mobilization, they have to promote their cause on social networks

and need to have a clearly identified social media strategy in place (Labella, 2009).

Social networks as a tool for development aid has recently been used in the case of Haiti.

Social networks helped to provide information about the earthquake and finding causalities.

After the earthquake, NGO’s, governments, companies, and residents used Google, Twitter,

Facebook, and YouTube to disperse information. Google announced during the Chili

earthquake the adaptation of the people finder application in order to locate the victims of the

natural disaster. Google also simplifies the process to donate money to Unicef and Direct

Relief International. The largest search engine also inserted links on their webpage to

different applications such as YouTube of Maps to follow the catastrophe live. The past

natural disasters in Haiti and Chili have proven the power of Twitter as an online

communication instrument. Via Twitter, donations were given to the Red Cross of Chili. On

Facebook, support pages were set up with pictures and other information that took place. A

quick look at YouTube shows that people have uploaded videos of when the earthquake took

place (Ondernementoday, 2010). In general, social and multimedia sites are used to disperse

real time information.

Most of the time traditional organizations are not fast moving. Private organizations that are

not part of the traditional development corporation structure can work much faster. Examples

of such are the newly established commercial development initiatives fully based on web 2.0

technologies. These companies can actually be labeled as the fifth pillar of development aid;

they are making use of technological possibilities and incorporate collaborative practices to

overcome limitations in the practice of traditional development corporation. A perfect

example of such is Pifworld, which facilitates projects of NGO’s and private initiatives of all

different themes. Pifworld stands for ‘play it forward’, which is the basic principle that makes

the pif-world go round. When you find and support a project you really care about, you can

invite your friends to do the same. When you enter the website of Pifworld, you see a globe


with 35 projects. When you click on one of the items, a passport pops up, and a movie. Each

project has a budget. Due to project applications donors can see what exactly is going on with

the funds. These ‘web 2.0 development companies’ can even directly help reach the UN

Millennium Development Goals. By promoting these projects on their website. For example

Kieva, the successful micro-financing platform, contributes directly to the first millennium

development goal because of direct contribution to small entrepreneurs. With micro-aid, small

business owners can manage to stay out of poverty (Pifworld, 2010).

Another example of organizations using web 2.0 is a project called ‘My Netlog, Your Netlog,

Our Rights’. This is a project that wants to raise awareness via Netlog about children rights

for themselves and peers in the South (FOD, 2008) An example of aid 2.0 initiatives is

‘SOME4D’, Social Media for International aid and development. It is an online platform that

“brings together all who are interested in social media usage for International aid and

development by Dutch based organizations” (Some4d.ning.com, 2010: 1).

More definitions and understandings of development aid web 2.0 are to be found in the result

section. As there was not sufficient literature on development aid 2.0 available, I had to make

‘understanding aid 2.0’ part of the research through interviewing pioneers in this matter.

2.4 Conclusion

The most important characteristics of web 2.0 for development aid 2.0 are harnessing the

collective intelligence or simply said harnessing the power of the crowd; the control over

unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them or data on epic

scale; enabling the architecture of participation and cost–effective scalability (O’Reilly 2005).

Harnessing the collective intelligence contributes to development aid 2.0 in the sense that

through web 2.0 organizations can easily contact people worldwide. The Internet is

borderless. Organizations can reach out to the online world in order to raise more awareness

for the problems in the South or to raise funds or to invite people to social events. For

example, Netlog has a paying service that allows companies or organizations to contact all

users on Netlog. The organization or company can define which profiles they would like to

contact. When these people have been contacted, they can provide feedback to the

organization or company. This feedback can be collected and used to enhance the business


model or the organizational approach. The more feedback an organization or company

receives the better it will be able to work. This exactly what is meant with the statement of

O’Reilly that one of the characteristics of web 2.0 is the control over unique, hard-to-recreate

data sources that get richer as more people use them (O’Reilly 2005). In the case of

development organizations, they can send out mass mails via social networks and collect the

data to enhance their development projects.

Another major characteristics of web 2.0 that contributes to development aid 2.0 is the

architecture of participation. People can take part in development projects in the South from

behind their computers in the North. An example of such is Pifworld, where people can

contribute to projects in the South and follow the entire projects online. Participation is key in

development aid 2.0. Not only virtual participation but also physical. Donors and recipients

need to regard themselves as equal and work for the greater good. Development aid partners

need to learn to participate in aid 2.0 without pushing their own political agenda’s to the front.

Cost effective scalability is one of the main advantages of web 2.0. Reaching out to the people

for help can be done via free social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. About two

decades ago, such massive campaigns online were unthinkable. For small organizations such

as in the Flemish fourth pillar there was never an option of reaching out globally. Through

web 2.0, a cry for help can be heard on the other side of the globe. Web 2.0 in development

aid is a tool to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.

Development aid 2.0 attempts to help some of the world’s most severe problems based on

web 2.0 theories and with the aid of digital technologies. Development aid 2.0 is a new way

of thinking. The characteristics of web 2.0 enable aid 2.0 to be executed from bottom up

instead of the traditional top down method.

3. METHODS AND DATA


3.1 Introduction

In order to find the answer to the main research question: ‘What is the role of web 2.0 in the

Flemish fourth pillar structure of development aid?’ I carried out a multi-sited study based on

the model of Wellman and Haythornwaite (2002). These authors executed a multi-sited study

that encompassed diverse aspects of the discipline and its relation’s to the Internet. This can

be done by identifying sites to visit and people to interview by a mixture of sources, online

and offline. Using a combination of a literature study, online surveys, and in depth interviews,

I will be able to answer my main question.

3.2 Research Method

Due to limited scholarly research on the topic of web 2.0 in development aid, a qualitative

method is the most suitable method for in depth exploration. There is barely any literature

available to base my choices, therefore the research has to be conducted iterative based on the

data itself. Qualitative research allows me to explore new ideas. I have an inclination for

naturally occurring data rather than experiments and just as Hammersley (1998) describes: I

have a preference for inductive, hypothesis-generating research rather than hypothesis testing

research. In many qualitative research studies, there is no specific hypothesis at the outset.

The former statement also counts for this specific project.

3.2.1 Interviews

Before I conducted the study, I needed to have a clear understanding of development aid 2.0.

Therefore, I began researching the existing literature. I stumbled on the March 2010 edition of

the magazine of the Dutch Development Aid (Internationale Samenwerking) in which was an

extensive article on the concept of development aid 2.0. The head of the redaction Miss

Lonneke Van Genugten went on a trip of seminars to find out what the concept of

development aid 2.0 actually means. She started her search with the event “Fill the Gap in

Amsterdam”. At this event, the concept of open space was used. In the open space they could

sit on pillows, floors, benches, etc and brainstorm about ‘development aid’ and ‘web 2.0’. The

guest speaker at this event was the 29-year-old Canadian Mrs. Jennifer Corriero who has as

personal slogan ‘Social media for social change’. Miss Van Genugten hoped to understand


what ‘development aid 2.0’ is by discussing with Miss. Corriero. I decided to work along a

similar research path to grasp the full concept of ‘development aid 2.0’. From the magazine of

the Dutch Development Cooperation, I selected the experts I considered of great relevance

and could contribute to the theoretical knowledge that is needed for my research.

Due to the fact that I conducted my internship at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Commerce and Development aid I had an email address from the Belgian Ministry of Foreign

Affairs. I sent out interview requests via this email address, which one can immediately see

that it comes from a federal government. This way my invitation seemed more formal and

serious. The experts that I interviewed are Thomas Hiergens, Mike Brantjes, Gert Nulens,

Chris Vleugels and Femke Hulsenbek.

I started with the people at the internship participating in the development aid 2.0 academic

platform combined with the Vrije Universiteit Brussels and lead by Dr. Leo van Audenhove. I

began my series of interviews with Thomas Hiergens, who takes part in the development aid

2.0 platforms and also works on the redaction of the Belgian development magazine

(Dimensie 3). Mr Hiergens contributed to understanding development aid 2.0. His answers

give me a better picture of what the concept actually means. Having this basic information

and the theories derived from literature, it allowed me to begin conducting more in depth

interviews on development aid 2.0.

Mike Brantjes predicted a long time ago the gigantic impact of the social media. Mr. Brantjes

is the founder of worknet, which is according to their definition a form of organization that

enables a tailor-made community (individuals and/or organizations) to effectively collaborate

with the relevant tools on a common purpose. His expert new media knowledge contributes

further to understanding aid 2.0.

Gert Nulens is a researcher at SMIT for IBBT research projects, and for Steunpunt Re-

Creatief Vlaanderen. In the past, he worked as a teaching assistant at the department of

Communication sciences of the Vrije Universiteit of Brussels. The projects he is currently

involved with focus on eCulture. I thought this to be interesting for understanding the social

media phenomena in general.


Chris Vleugels has also been working for the past two years on e-culture projects. He was also

part of the TIRO project (Teens and ICT: Risks and Opportunities). At the moment, he is

researching the role of new media in raising awareness for development aid focused on the

youth. As Mr. Vleugels is working on a similar project, he was able to give a clear overview

of development aid 2.0.

Femke Hulsenbek, program officer at Pifworld. “Pifworld bundles people's individual efforts

for a positive change worldwide”. According to the website of Pifworld (2010) they enable

kids to go to school, free child slaves, protect endangered animals or even build a massive

wild life park. Their slogan is “If we can dream it, we can do it, just by playing it forward”.

Mrs. Femke Hulsenbek explained me the concept of these new web 2.0 aid initiatives.

I prepared for each interviewee separate but similar questions in relation to development aid,

aid 2.0 and web 2.0. I asked the experts a series of questions relating to web 2.0 and aid 2.0.

Examples of such questions were ‘what is aid 2.0 and what is the role of development aid

2.0?’ This inquiry directly answers the main research question. For each expert I had prepared

specific questions related to their field of study. I asked Mr. Gert Nulens questions on e-

culture as I thought it would also relate to aid 2.0 in some way. I did the same to Mrs. Femke

Hulsenbek and posed her a series of questions about her organization. An example of such

query was ‘can web 2.0 using Pifworld as an example contribute to the Millennium

Development Goals?’. Mike Brantjes and a former employee of Pifworld were cited in the

Dutch development magazine, IS. Therefore, I asked them during the interview to explain

their statements on aid and web 2.0 more in depth. In addition, other questions related to the

effects of web 2.0 and development aid was asked. The answers to these questions provided

me with a broader understanding of development aid 2.0 how and why it is used.

3.2.1.1 Case Specific Interviews

Next to the general interviews on web 2.0 and development aid, I carried out a series of

interviews specific for the fourth pillar of the Flemish development aid. These interviews

were conducted in order to better understand the data collected in the survey in relation to the

role of web 2.0 in development aid. For the fourth pillar interviews, I selected five

organizations that do not use web 2.0 tools in development aid and five organizations that do.

The five organizations that do not use web 2.0 are ‘Sebastian Indian Social Projects, Finado,


Rahmanif, Fatimacenter and Volkstuinen.’ The five organizations that do use web 2.0 are

‘Fanfakids, Vrijwillig Wereldwijd, Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen, Zuiddag and Support

Ghana’. I asked the heads of the organisations a series of specific questions related to their

organization in order to understand what the role of web 2.0 is in the aid sector of the Flemish

private initiatives.

I confronted the five organizations that do not use Facebook to find out the reasoning behind

their decision. I posed all ten organizations what the use of having a website is and how does

the communication proceed with members and volunteers. I asked the five organizations that

do use Facebook how they experienced this. At the end of the interview I discussed with all

ten organizations ‘what are the advantages of web 2.0 applications and what the ultimate goal

of web 2.0 in development aid is. The answers of these queries gave me a better

understanding of the data acquired in the survey results.

3.2.2 Survey

Before commencing the survey, I collected my data survey by first identifying the Flemish

private initiatives. I was able to do this by visiting the fourth pillar initiative

www.4depijler.be, a website that combines all fourth pillar initiatives, social profit in

Flanders. I set up an Excel spreadsheet with the names of the organizations, contact

information and I marked in the spreadsheet whether they have a websites or not, what they

do with their websites and whether they are on SNS or not. There are a total of 376 Flemish

private initiatives. These initiatives range from helping orphanages in India to helping people

in Europe grow plants. I first sent out a request to participate in my master thesis to all the 376

initiatives. Only 30 replied that they were willing to participate. Consequently, I set up an

online survey using the software of makesurvey.net. I created an online survey based on the

model of Dillman (2000).

The survey consists of three parts. The first part includes a few general questions about what

web 2.0 and development aid 2.0 mean. The second part is more about how these initiatives

use web 2.0. And the third part is to check whether there are immediate effects of the use of

web 2.0 in development aid. The survey has a combination of open and closed likert scale

questions. The survey was conducted anonymously not to create competition amongst the

organizations when the results will be transferred to the fourth pillar structure. When I sent

out the survey to the 30 participants only three replied. Therefore, I decided to send the online


http://www.4depijler.be/

survey out to all 376 organizations, hoping to have more respondents. After having sent two

reminders between the 20th and 30th of April 96 organizations replied.

With the outcome of the survey data I have an overview of how why and what the immediate

effects of 2.0 in the fourth pillar is and have an overview of created and received content.

3.2.3 Content Analysis

My next step was to open every private initiative website available. I screened these sites for

web 2.0 elements. I checked whether they had Facebook, MySpace, blogs, or they only

uploaded pictures videos, etc. on their websites. I selected the organizations with a Facebook

page to conduct a content analysis. To conduct an expert evaluation of the organizations

Facebook pages I based my evaluation onto a content analysis of Facebook groups, by Ginger

(2008). The author of the study marks how many comments are made on Facebook, how

many discussions take place, whether or not photo’s are being uploaded, whether or not links

and/or favorite pages are added. Next to this, he also checks how many friends there are and

what the ethnicity is of the group composition. Using these units, he tries to find out if there is

an online dialogue. One has to realize that making a content analysis of Facebook pages is not

similar to text book or discourse analysis and its definitely case specific.

Ginger’s Facebook group analysis was by far the clearest analysis of Facebook pages I could

find. Therefore, I decided to use his model but leave out the group composition unit. I focused

on interactivity with the aim to find dialogue between the initiative and ‘friends’. Out of the

376 PI’s only 14 organisations have a Facebook page. These organizations are ‘Banaleuven,

bee acholi, Bonjourafrique, bouworde, Fanfakids, Quality of Life Nepal-Sarnagkot, Hogar

Hermana elisa El Carmen vzw, La Xascarilla, Rock Bujumbura, Rose vzw,

Senegambiagroup, Vrijwillig wereldwijd, We are Burma and Zuiddag.

In the content analysis, I analyzed activity. I checked how many wall postings were posted,

how many posts were from the organizations, how many posts were from the members, how

many likes and comments. I also verified what types of postings were made. Next to this, I

checked if they uploaded videos, photos, events, and if they linked pages. I also inspected

whether the discussion board was used and if there was overall dialogue present on their

Facebook groups. I verified the content since the creation of their pages.


4.0 Results

This section covers the entire results collected throughout the explorative research. The first

set of general interviews gives you a broader understanding of web 2.0 used in development

aid. The case specific interviews are focused on understanding the role of web 2.0 in the

fourth pillar of the Flemish development aid. The results of the survey and the content

analysis give a statistical interpretation of the role of web 2.0 in the fourth structure of

Flemish development aid.

4.1 Interviews

As there is not a lot of literature available on development aid 2.0 part of my research was to

define its meanings. Therefore, I interviewed five people who work in the sector of

development aid 2.0 in relation to aid and web 2.0.

The respondents all have a different opinion of what web 2.0 means. Mike Brantjes, the

founder of worknet stated that web 2.0 is user-generated content. For Gert Nulens, researcher

at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, it means that the division between the expert and amateur

has disappeared. The power of web 2.0 is within the users. Before people only consulted the

Internet for information. Nowadays, people go on the Internet not only to inform but also to

produce information themselves. The Internet went from being a static phenomenon to an

interactive phenomenon.

Opinions also differ about the role of development aid amongst experts. Thomas Hiergens

from the Belgian Development Cooperation said that the first question one needs to ask is

what is development aid 1.0? He is not sure what it means but he assumes that it refers to

development organizations having an online presence. According to him, Aid 2.0 refers to the

usage of social media. The role of web 2.0 in development aid is awareness raising.

According to Mike Brantjes who coined the term aid 2.0. Development aid 2.0 is not using the

social media for aid initiatives. Development aid 2.0 is more a new way of thinking. One has

to separate web 2.0 from development aid 2.0. In aid, 1.0 development was conducted based

on guilt and the natural human instinct that something must be done. In aid 2.0, aid is

conducted in joint efforts and guilt is not the leading drive but a mutual feeling to work

together for a better world. Web 2.0 is only a tool for development aid to stimulate

cooperation. Aid 2.0 is working from bottom up instead of top down.


In contrast, Gert Nulens had not heard of the term aid 2.0 but makes an educated guess. He

assumes that development aid 2.0 is to be connected everywhere. For development

organizations, this means being able to launch social actions through the Internet. Through the

use of web 2.0 in development aid, it is easy to quickly spread information and pressure

politicians and companies.

Femke Hulsenbek of Pifworld more or less agrees with Mike Brantjes and states that aid 2.0 is

a new way of thinking. Aid 1.0 is conducting aid in a top down structure. Aid 2.0 is

interactive and enables both sides: the beneficiary and the donor countries working together

from bottom up. The role of development aid 2.0 is incorporating web 2.0 in the traditional

structures of development so that organization can work together for a better world via web

2.0. For Chris Vleugels aid 2.0 is the link between web 2.0 and development aid. Aid 2.0 is

using social media to connect people. The prosumer has a very important role in this structure.

The underlying concept is to have a bottom-up approach and push for dialogue.

One can assume that aid 2.0 is a temporary hype, however for Mike Brantjes aid 2.0 is not

hype. Today’s world will only evolve more and more. One cannot imagine the world without

web 2.0 anymore. It has become totally embedded in people’s lives and also in development

aid organizations. It is very important for these aid organizations because they can reach out

to many more people and organizations to support their cause. Gert Nulens believes that some

web 2.0 applications are a hype but not aid 2.0.

Organizations engage in web 2.0 for several reasons: According to Mr. Nulens they engage

firstly in web 2.0 for fundraising and secondly for raising awareness. For Mrs. Hulsenbek,

organizations can use it to empower the beneficiary, improve communications, and help to

improve projects. It also makes development aid more transparent. Chris Vleugels believes

that organizations use it to communicate with staff in other countries and reach out to others.

It is still used the most as a communication tool.

Web 2.0 is mostly a communication tool used in the North but how should it be used to

involve people in the South? Thomas Hiergens believes that web 2.0 in development aid is

more a tool to create awareness amongst the population in the North. We have not yet arrived

to a scenario where the donor is constantly chatting with the receiver in the South. What


someone can do is create an event here in the North for a project in the South and then Skype

with the receiver so that everyone can see it and share the joy of the receiver when he is told

that enough finances are raised for his budget. However, Mike Brantjes looks at it differently.

It is not about chatting with the receiver in the South. It is about the way of thinking. The

underlying reasoning is that people in the South need to understand that when they are in need

they can just ask the North and that we will work around their demands instead of blindly

supplying them with aid. Gert Nulens stated that involving the South in the 2.0 stories

depends more on technological advancements and broadband penetration in the South.

However, he warns for technological determinism. With the term, he means that we cannot

look at web 2.0 as a means of miracle that will wipe away the largest world problems. One

need to look at it is a new media tool.

The effects of using web 2.0 in development aid are rather unknown. Even though Mr.

Hiergens assumes that, the effects depend on the type of development aid. It is not fully

necessary for every development aid organization to use web 2.0. Some types of development

aid should use web 2.0 because the results are much more visible. These results are most

visible in the fourth structure. For Femke Hulsenbek, the main impact is fundraising and

transparency. Mike Brantjes believes that the effects are more equality, cooperation and

working in a demand driven way.

The most useful applications for development aid 2.0 are according to Gert Nulens, Facebook,

and Twitter. However, Mike Brantjes developed a specific aid 2.0 software package called

worknets in which all necessary 2.0 applications can be combined specific for each

organization and can be shared amongst all organizations such as for example research

institutes and schools.

There is one item relating to web 2.0 and development aid that everyone does agree on and

that is that all development aid organizations should participate in web 2.0. Mike Brantjes

immediately answered that all organizations should participate because otherwise they are not

using the available means effectively. Through web, 2.0 organizations get more for their

dollar. For Gert Nulens organizations can come closer to their public through web 2.0. For

example, a politician on Facebook or Twitter can send messages to the people in real time.


However, in terms of fundraising Thomas Hiergens doesn’t believe that being present on

social networks contributes to increasing budgets. In order to raise funds, one needs to

approach the person, have contact with the person. Just reading information on a website or

on social networks doesn’t motivate people to donate more. Gert Nulens, who previously

stated that one has to look at web 2.0 as a medium; believes that the increase in donations

depends more on the type of advertisement. There is not much difference between the classic

media and new media; the advertisements for donations need to be conducted in the same way

in order to receive new or more financing. For Mike Brantjes it is not a matter of financing. It

is a matter of finding alternatives because governments are reducing aid budgets to the

organizations of the traditional development aid structure.

Even though it doesn’t mean an immediate increase in aid budgets, it can contribute to

reducing poverty worldwide and contributing to the Millennium Development Goals. Thomas

Hiergens believes that it contributes directly to MDG8, which is specifically aimed at

enhancing the world’s partnership. This means fair trade and more support for debt relief. He

believes that it doesn’t directly contribute to MDG1-7 whom deals more with reducing hunger

and poverty in general. On the contrary, Mike Brantjes believes that it contributes directly

through working more efficiently through web 2.0 technologies. Femke Hulsenbek explains

that they have projects at Pifworld that immediately contribute to reaching the MDG target.

They have a specific project Kieva, which is a successful micro-financing platform that

contributes directly to MDG.

Throughout the expert interviews, that there are differences among experts in the attempt to

define development aid 2.0. Some believe that development aid 2.0 refers to using social

media in development aid structures. And others believe that development aid 2.0 is a new

way of thinking about aid. This new way of thinking is defined in cooperating with recipients

and working in a bottom up and demand driven aid structure. First comes the ‘new aid 2.0’

thoughts and as a result, the technological advances will follow. The world has not yet

reached an aid structure where the North can constantly chat with it’s aid recipient in the

South but by implementing development aid 2.0 this goal can be reached. The interviews gave

a clear overview of the different meanings of development aid 2.0. There is a clear definition

of development aid 2.0 but experts differently interpret it. Based on the above interviews, I

come to accept that development aid 2.0 is understood as a combination of a new demand


driven and bottom up theory combined with the usage of social media by aid initiatives.

Another aspect that becomes clear throughout the interviews is that web 2.0 is just not a hype.

It is totally embedded into (Western) people’s lives and will only develop more in the future.

For organizations to maximize their results, they need to make use of all web 2.0 tools

available. The interviewees do agree that Facebook and Twitter are the most useful 2.0

applications for aid organizations. The majority of experts are convinced that web 2.0 in

development- aid organizations can empower the beneficiary, improve projects, and enhance

communications. However, the experts do not seem to agree on the concrete effects of web

2.0 in development aid. Some are convinced that it contributes largely to fundraising and

finding alternatives because governments are reducing their aid flows worldwide. While

others believe that, it only contributes to theory, meaning that it enhances equality and

cooperation.

4.2 Online survey

The reason for conducting this survey is to check whether the Flemish fourth pillar

organizations share the same opinion as that of the experts. 96 Organizations participated in

the online survey.

I started the survey by first asking general questions to find out if the organizations knew the

meaning of web 2.0 and development aid 2.0. 59 percent of the respondents had never heard

of web 2.0 and 69 percent had never heard of development aid 2.0. One can assume that these

respondents use Internet and web 2.0 applications in their private lives but just didn’t know

that today’s Internet is often called web 2.0.

A smaller minority interpreted web 2.0 as the participative web, the Internet in general and

some understood it as social networking sites and multimedia sites such as Facebook and

YouTube. So, only some people seem to be aware of the concept web 2.0. 20 percent of the

respondents inferred aid 2.0 as a new way of thinking about aid, working demand driven and

in a bottom up structure. The previous statement for web 2.0 counts for aid 2.0 as well. A tiny

minority is aware of the concepts aid 2.0.


The result of the survey revealed that 73 percent of the Flemish PI’s don’t use web 2.0 for

their organization and 27 percent do. These numbers contribute in explaining why the PI’s

don’t know the concepts, because they do not seem to use it much for their organizations.

Maybe they only use web 2.0 for private purposes, but this question was not integrated in the

survey.

Thus, the remaining percentages below only relate to the 27 percent that does use web 2.0.

Initiatives that did not use web 2.0 could skip to the last two questions of the survey. As my

research goal is to discover the role of web 2.0 in development aid, there was no point to

include extra questions not relating to the main research subject. Hence, I asked the PI’s why

they use web 2.0? 7% replied that they use it for awareness raising, 2% for raising funds, 6%

for support enhancement, and 11% to promote the name and the purpose of their organization.

See the visible presentation below in bar graph 2.

Raising awareness.

Marketing: Fund raising.

Raising support.

To promote the organization.

Other reasons.

N/A.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Reasons for using web 2.0 amongst PI's.

Respondents (%)

Figure 2: Reasons for using web 2.0 amongst PI’s

I didn’t think of organizations using web 2.0 to build their name. Throughout the study and

based on the interviews I was thinking about raising awareness, fund raising and so on, but I

had never thought that the majority answer would be so basic as in using web 2.0 to promote

the organization. However, the results of the question ‘why does your organization use web

2.0 tools’ might be a distorted image. Respondents did not have the option to ‘mark all of the


above’. One organization, namely Bouworde sent a mail saying that they have marked

‘Different reasons’ as answer to question four because there was not an option ‘all of the

above’. It is not clear if other organizations did the same.

Considering that the results might be distorted’ another question helped to concur the fact that

organizations mostly use web 2.0 to promote their initiatives. This is reflected in the

responses I received when asked ‘whether they have noticed any changes in any elements

since the use of web 2.0 in their organizations’. 20 out of 27 percent claimed that their

organizations have become more famous. Find the complete results in graph 3 below:

Increase in membership (Go to question 9)

More attention to the problems in the South (Go to question 12)

Your organization became more famous (Go to question 12)

Nothing changed, everything stayed the same (Go to q12)

N/A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Changes in PI's due to use of social applications.

Respondents (%)

Figure 3: Changes in PI’s due to use of social applications

The survey results showed that amongst the common applications used by PI’s was first

Facebook and second favorite option blogs. Find below graph 4 with complete results.


FacebookTwitter

Myspacehi5

NetlogFlickr

YoutubeBlogsOther

N/A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Types of web 2.0 tools used by PI's.

Respondents (%)

Figure 4: Types of web 2.0 tools used by PI’s

On Facebook, 11 percent of the organizations have more then 100 followers. There is no point

discussing the percentages of the other followers on other applications as most of the answers

resulted into 1 percent spread over the Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and blogs. The answers were

given to the question ‘how many followers/ members do you have on the pervious mentioned

applications”? The results of 1 percent dispersed over Twitter, Flickr, YouTube is a distorted

image because the respondents could check boxes from 0 to 25, from 25 to 50, from 50 to 75

and from 75 to 100 one time. For example, the respondents couldn’t fill out twice from 25 to

100 because the survey software limited the possible responses. The organization Bouworde

and Natuurkoepel mailed me that they only partly filled in question number six due to these

limitations. No one else mailed me; therefore, I assume for the other respondents this was not

an issue.

The fourth pillar organizations all have different reasons for not participating in web 2.0. The

majority responded that they did not have the necessary knowledge and another almost equal

majority thought that having a website was sufficient. Others just didn’t have a particular

reason. I assume that the majority PI’s are just not interested in social networks because their

aim is to keep their organizations small and manageable. To completely close the survey I

asked the fourth pillars an open question on how does web 2.0 contribute to development aid

in general. There were 50 respondents that replied that they have no idea what web 2.0 in

development aid means or what development aid means or what web 2.0 is. However, I found

this very strange because when I analyzed the 376 websites of the initiative I found that 315


organizations use some form of web 2.0 applications. I eliminated five answers because they

didn’t relate to the question. The most valuable answers were: “Web 2.0 does not contribute

to development aid”; “It contributes to making social contacts for sporadic help though it

doesn’t guarantee cooperation”; “Web 2.0 contributes to making the organization better

known (especially on Facebook), people can write their personal opinions down and we can

present ourselves much better”; “It helps bring people better together to easily organize for

activities”; “More fame and attention for the organization”; “More fame, support, publicity,

and raising funds”; “Informative”, “Its an interactive element”; “Create a dialogue with the

online community”; “Makes the communication easier and makes it easier to spread

information”; “If you want to reach youth you have to use web 2.0”; “It’s a cheap way to

communicate, you can reach a lot of people through social networking sites”; “It’s easy to

spread messages via YouTube or to announce activities via Facebook; it is effective and more

efficient then spreading advertisements or flyers around”; “We don’t use web 2.0 only

Facebook and Twitter”.

The survey results showed in big numbers that private initiatives in Flanders don’t really

know the concept of web 2.0. This is quite contradictory to reality because when I analyzed

the websites of the initiatives, I noticed that most PI’s are using some form of web 2.0

elements on their websites. These web 2.0 elements in the form of uploading videos and

pictures via picassaweb or having a web shop or a blog. Yet, they do claim never to have

heard of web 2.0. The same counts for development aid 2.0. PI’s are known to be working

from a demand driven perspective but yet they claim not to have heard of aid 2.0. Some even

dare to claim that they have not heard of development aid in general, although they are

working in the development aid sector. In general, the majorities of the Flemish private

initiatives are not present on social network sites and are not planning on using social

networks in the future. The ones that do use SNS mostly use it to better promote their

organization because funds and membership (volunteers) doesn’t really increase as a result of

being present on SNS.

4.3 Content Analysis of Facebook groups

The third step was a content analysis of Facebook pages. Of the 376 initiatives, 14

organizations had Facebook pages. At the same time, some organizations use their personal

profile pages to send out invitations about their organizations. As a result, it is not clear in

reality how many are using Facebook for their organizations.


By analyzing these pages, I checked whether there was an online dialogue. I analyzed their

activities: How many postings were there since the creation of the Facebook page? Who

posted the information? Were there events posted? Was there an ongoing dialogue on the

discussion board? Were there links or pages attached?

I discovered an online dialogue in 6 of the 14 organizations, either in form of excessive Likes

(Thumbs up!) or in comments. 13 Organizations posted photos and 3 organizations posted

videos on their Facebook pages. Only 5 of the 14 initiatives used Facebook to post events.

Two organizations made use of the discussion boards on the Facebook page. 12 used

Facebook to post links. Six of the 14 initiatives posted only organizational announcements on

Facebook. Organizations that work for and with young people have more interactions on their

Facebook page then others. Young people commented mostly in forms of Likes!

Table1: Results Facebook group content analysis

Postings

Facebook groups

(n = 14)

photos 13

videos 3

events 5

discussion board 2

links 12

organizational announcements 6

online dialogue 6

The majority of the sites did not have any recent news posted or a minifeed, this indicated that

there was a severe lack of activity.

To summarize the results of the Facebook content analysis in a few lines I can say the

following; barely one procent of the Flemish PI’s are present on Facebook, communication

mostly runs top down in the form of event announcements. And organizations that mostly

work with youth have a bottom up activity mostly in the form of likes, thumbs up.


4.4 Interviews of fourth pillar structure

I interviewed five organizations that do use web 2.0 and five organizations that don’t use web

2.0 and asked them a series of questions to better understand the survey results.

The organization Sebastian Indian Social Projects (SISP) believes that there is too much mess

on social networks. They tried to use social networks to raise funds a few years ago but SISP

only got confronted with Internet crime. Therefore, they decided to quit using social media

and went back to basics. Finado doesn’t make use of web 2.0 because everyone in the

organization is of older age. They say they don’t feel like learning the new tools. The

organization Volkstuinen has the same reasons as Finado for not using social media. The

boards of directors of the organization are above 45 years old and claim that they do not have

the necessary in- house knowledge or skills to use web 2.0 applications.

The Palestinian initiative Rahmanif is not using social media because they have only recently

launched their initiative. They have not had time to set up their online social media networks.

When I called Luc Somers from The organization ‘Support Ghana” and asked him why his

initiative wasn’t present on Facebook. He told me that he is present on Facebook and sends

out event invitations for his organization through Facebook. However, he does this through

his personal Facebook account. That’s why I could find any trace of his organization on

Facebook. It is not clear how many organizations that are using their personal profiles to

promote their organizations.

The survey results showed that the majority of PI’s in Flanders find that having a website is

sufficient enough. For SISP having a website is only to inform and update people on the latest

organizational news. Finado shares the same thought as SISP and finds that websites are very

informational and static. “People can see what is happening”. Rahmanif set up a website to

attract donors in a very short time. For Fatima center having a website is to make the

organization more known and direct people to the web shop to buy their fair-trade products.

The website’s main goal for Support Ghana is to acquaint people with the program, the aims,

and the mission. They also use it to give an historic overview of the organization and post

pictures. For Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen, the website is more for their own public, the

donors. They also use it to spread the latest news about their orphanage in Chile. The website

also provides the initiative the possibility to post financial updates and so give donors

transparency in budgetary matters. And Fanfakids uses their website to announce events.


Do these websites attract more people or only people that the organizations already know?

SISP believes that people that are looking for information about India and young people that

are interested in doing volunteer work in India find her website. Finado doesn’t believe their

website attracts more people. People have to have heard from the organization in order to find

it online. Fatima center believes that most people find them online through mouth-to-mouth

publicity. However the people that find their website are already interested in development

aid. Support Ghana also concurs with this statement. Nevertheless, visitors are mostly people

the organization has been in contact with. For example, they visit schools and distribute flyers

for the children to take home to their parents on which their website is marked. Support

Ghana notices that at the end of the school visit, there are more hits on their website than

usual.

PI’s tend to work from a demand driven perspective. People go on holiday in the South, they

see the problems and motivate others to create a project around the need. Is their

communication also bottom-up? Four times a year SISP sends out a newsletter with donor

information. This information can also be found on the website. They also have three times a

year meetings among the volunteers, donors and the organization. At this meeting, donors can

speak their minds. This information is taken into account by the organization. So one can say

that communication within SISP works for fifty percent top down and fifty percent bottom up.

Finado also sends out a newsletter four times a year. There are no annual meetings for

members, donors, or volunteers to speak their mind. If they feel the need to contribute, they

can email the organization. Finando mainly communicates from top down. Rahmanif

communicates bottom up because the members and volunteers of the organization are mainly

family members and friends. Another organization that sends out newsletters every four times

a year is Fatimacenter. They also have an annual meeting were people can speak their minds.

The organization uses both bottom up and top down communication. Support Ghana,

Fanfakids, and Volkstuinen only communicate from top-down.

So, we now know that communication in Flemish PI’s is mostly based on a top-down

strategy. But how do they recruit volunteers? SISP recruits volunteers and or members

personally. Mrs. Danielle Van Krieken who set up the organization is convinced that it is the

only effective way to recruit. The head of SISP also believes that people are not going to

donate because they see something on a website. People need to be personally convinced; the

former happens at schools, events, and solidarity markets. Mrs. Van Krieken used to be part

of the union and therefore has a large personal social network. It is with this network that she


was able to recruit 600 sponsors for SISP. FINADO is an organization that helps children in

Haiti and Ethiopia. Most of the time people find their way to FINADO through mouth-to-

mouth publicity in the adoption world.

The initiative, fatimacenter recruits mostly in their commune. They approach commerce’s and

convince them to sponsor projects. But most of their financing comes from the sale of fair

trade products. On the other hand, the initiative Support Ghana doesn’t actively recruit. They

do not want to become a larger member organization or focus on recruiting external funds.

Most of the financing comes through family members and friends. However, they did

organize one fundraising event, again through a friend, ‘Swim for Ghana’. The initiative

Volkstuinen also doesn’t have to recruit sponsors or members. Volkstuinen is an initiative that

gives people for a small annual fee a portion of farmland on which they can grow crops. The

organization only has 94 gardens therefore when all the land is occupied they don’t need extra

members. The demand is already higher than the supply.

The Chilean orphanage named Hogar El Carmen, also doesn’t raise funds. They receive

donations through the godparents system. A nun set up the orphanage a long time ago and

there are still contacts with the religious community. As a result, once in a while religious

inheritances are donated to the orphanage. The organization Vrijwillig Werldwijd, finds their

volunteers mostly through Hyves. They receive emails from interested volunteers that they

then reply on. Fanfakids also doesn’t have to recruit volunteers. Fanfakids is part of Centrum

West in Brussels, which is governmental organization to help unfortunate kids. The children

are sent via schools to Fanfakids.

Zuiddag recruits volunteers through schools. The recruiting mostly works top down. Mrs.

Ellen De Raeymaecker contacts the schools and explains the initiative. The project is that

students get one day off from school to go work in a corporate, entrepreneur activity,

organization, or commerce for one day. The salary the students receive for one day is then

donated to Zuiddag who sponsors youth projects in the South. Sometimes recruiting happens

from bottom up. Students find their way to Zuiddag on Facebook or MySpace and asked the

initiative to contact their school because they also wanted to participate in the Zuiddag

projects. Through the students, contacts are made with the school. The former is their

preferred way of recruiting but due to Belgian legislation is not always possible.

Communication for students in schools has to always pass through the school board. Rock

Bujumbara collects old music instruments and students from technical schools repair them for


free. These musical instruments are made accessible to musicians in Bujumbura for a

marginal fee. In Belgium Rock Bujumbara has their own network of 100 people and therefore

do not have to recruit outside their social network.

Not only do PI’s recruit volunteers and funds via face to face contact some of the PI’s also

make their organizations better known without the use of social networks. They each do this

in their own specific way. Volkstuinen distributes flyers and posters in the immediate

neighborhood. They publicize announcements in local papers. For Volkstuinen mouth-to-

mouth publicity is still the most effective. Support Ghana links their website to other people’s

websites. They think it is important to have your website on as many other websites such as

other development organizations, community websites or online newspapers.

Volunteers and funds are mostly raised through face-to-face contacts and not via social

networks. One can dare to conclude that social media aren’t really necessary for PI’s.

Therefore, I asked those organizations that also recruit face to face if they are planning on

using new media tools in the future. FINADO and Volkstuinen are not planning to use new

media in the future. The people in the organization claim to be too old and don’t have time.

Fatimacenter is planning to use more of social networks in the future because it is the ideal

network to recruit the young people. SISP never wants to be on social networks again.

However, the organizations that do see the advantages of Facebook are positive about its

usage. Zuiddag mostly uses Facebook to become more famous and raise awareness. For Ellen

Deraeymaecker from Zuiddag development aid doesn’t have to be a something boring.

Through Facebook, they connect young people in the South with young people in the North.

Even though there is sometimes no Internet access but whenever it does work, they can

communicate.

For Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen Facebook is the most important tool for the organization.

They use Facebook to reconnect people that were once living in the orphanage and lost

connection with their friends or teachers because of adoption and other circumstances. It is

also used to reconnect Belgians that used to have godchildren in the orphanage and lost touch

with them. “Facebook works really well, the children find each other easily through our

Facebook page.” There are daily activities on the Facebook pages. Children that were adopted

and moved to France also found their friends back through the Belgian Facebook page. Hogar

Hermana elisa El Carmen also uses Facebook to upload pictures of the godchildren. For the


Chilean orphanage, Facebook is the main tool of their organization.

Vrijwillig Wereldwijd began using Facebook recently. They started recently because they

would like to inform people that they could do other things when going on holiday to

developing countries. On Facebook, they can make contact with volunteers worldwide that

are leaving for a project or have already returned. These things cannot be done via a website,

therefore Facebook is a better solution. Fanfakids uses Facebook to announce the events. For

them is the most ideal communication tool. Support Ghana also uses Facebook to invite

people for events; one friend sends it to another friend and so on. Through Facebook friends,

your event can become much bigger.

I mentioned above that one could refer invites to friends of friends. But who are these so-

called friends? Are these people that are already interested in development aid or completely

new sympathizers? The friends of Zuiddag are mostly friends and friends of friends. For the

head of Zuiddag, it is interesting for her friends to be Zuiddag friends on Facebook. These

older friends of the organization’s leader can supply jobs on Zuiddag for students. When

Zuiddag visits schools, they try to get one email address from each classroom. Zuiddag adds

these students to their Facebook account and makes them Zuiddag VIPS. The students

(friends) they have on Facebook are mostly young people that would like to work for one day.

It is not directly because they are interested in development aid. Zuiddag tries to raise the

youth’s awareness for the South and development aid activities through fun activities such as

Zuiddag.

Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen doesn’t believe that sympathizers become friends on

Facebook. Most people that added themselves to the group, the organization have had offline

contact first. Vrijwillig Wereldwijd mostly attracted people that are already interested in

development aid through Hyves. Since the use of Facebook, they attract other people that are

not only interested in development aid. Through friends of friends, they become interested in

volunteer work and development aid. Fanfakids has also parents of the fanfa children on

Facebook as friends. However, the organization noticed that there are only parents of Belgian

natives on Facebook and not the parents of the immigrant kids.

The majority of the friends are mostly people that have come in contact with the organization

before and sporadically new people add themselves. Even so, this is definitely not the

majority group. But what do these friends write on the walls of organizations and what do


these organizations do with the received comments? Zuiddag doesn’t do much with the

comments. They try to react as much as they can on the comments but this is very sporadic.

Their aim is to response in a much more structured way. Zuiddag recently recruited a new

media assistant that will take care of web 2.0 applications in the near future. Zuiddag wants to

have an online dialogue in the future. The initiative doesn’t want to only react to the

comments. They want to have an online dialogue in the future. The organization wants to

make young people interested to organize Zuiddag seminars offline. Vrijwillig Wereldwijd

doesn’t have much dialogue on Facebook but on Hyves, they do have much interaction.

Fanfakids also doesn’t have any dialogue on Facebook because they mainly use it for

announcing events.

Facebook pages have comments; discussion boards add music and so on. I asked Fanfakids

why they add favorite pages to their Facebook profile. Fanfakids adds favorite pages for

educative purposes. For example, the kids recently went to perform in Bologna. Therefore, the

administrator added a page Bologna to Fanfakids Facebook profile. The administrator also

added a page durum because the kids learned to eat durums in Brussels.

The survey results showed that the preferred web 2.0 applications are Facebook. When I

asked the ten PI’s if they used next to Facebook other applications it became quite evident

that most of them don’t. Zuiddag uses Twitter with a link to the Facebook page. Every update

on Facebook is shown on Twitter. Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen uses the Google photo

application picassaweb. Vrijwillig Wereldwijd are very active on Hyves. Hogar Hermana

elisa El Carmen tried to use Netlog but quickly cancelled it, as most people are active on

Facebook.

To end the interview I asked the PI’s what the ultimate goal is of web 2.0 in development aid.

Fanfakids believes that it is to reach as many people as possible. Vrijwillig Wereldwijd

believes that through web 2.0 aid organizations can attract more donors’ and volunteers.

People on the social networks can get a total different view of development aid. Social media

are an excellent medium to bring people closer together. For Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen,

it means to enhance the communication of participants. However, they don’t believe that

being present on Facebook donations will increase. The ultimate goal of web 2.0 in

development aid for Zuiddag means to reach a broader public. Having a website is not

sufficient. Websites are informational but to not provide interactivity. If you are working with

young people, new media is the ideal tool to communicate with them.


5.0 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

The main research question of this master thesis is ‘what is the role of web 2.0 in the Flemish

fourth pillar structure?’ In order to answer this question I conducted an explorative study

using qualitative methods such as conducting interviews, a survey, and a content analysis of

Facebook groups. Through these qualitative techniques, I was able to answer my main

research question.

The present study concludes that the role of web 2.0 is rather limited to basic 2.0 applications

such as photo sharing. Social networks, the most important part of web 2.0 only plays a minor

role in the fourth pillar of Flemish development aid. PI’s have not fully grasped the concept of

web 2.0 and its potentials. These private organizations have not yet crafted themselves to

development aid 2.0 initiatives. This is quite odd because PI’s are present in bottom up form

as their work is based on demand. One can conclude from the latter perspective that Flemish

fourth pillar organizations are situated in between aid 1.0 and aid 2.0. However, the initiatives

seem to be lacking the necessary knowledge and willpower to further develop in the future

and hence more commercial aid initiatives are arising.

Key principles of web 2.0 are sharing information and allowing for more collaboration. These

are the same elements of development aid 2.0. This master thesis shows that we have not yet

come so far in collaborating and working bottom up through web 2.0 in the fourth level of

Flemish development aid. This master thesis can be a basis for further study. Others can

analyze the role of web 2.0 in the first, second and third pillar using the same methodological

model. Other studies can also compare and contrast the use of web 2.0 tools of organizations

that work with youth and organizations that don’t.

5.2 ResultsThis master thesis presented a broad overview of the use of web 2.0 in the Flemish fourth

pillar structure. Throughout the research, I found that Flemish PI’s do not use web 2.0 to their

full extent. Firstly, out of 376 initiatives only 14 organizations are clearly present on social

network sites. This reflects only a marginal percentage. However, the PI’s do use some form

of web 2.0 tools such as uploading photos and having a guestbook onto their sites. Next to

using these basic 2.0 applications, they are also very active in hyper linking. A remark that


needs to be made is that development organizations are often not aware of the technological

tools they are using. When I asked the Flemish private initiatives what is web 2.0, over 50

percent of the respondents replied that they had no idea what web 2.0 was and they had never

heard of it. Even though 315 organizations use the basic applications of web 2.0, it is quite

clear that the concept is unknown to the users and its use is not fully exploited. I even

received comments such as “We do not use web 2.0 applications, we only use Facebook and

Twitter”. Organizations that fully exploit 2.0 are commercial development aid organizations

such as Pifworld and Oneprocent club. They try to bring developing projects closer to the

public by using web 2.0. These are true development aid 2.0 initiatives. Yet, these

organizations are not yet part of the official development aid structure.

When conducting a content analysis of Facebook groups, I only found 14 out of 376

initiatives present on Facebook. On the other hand, we do not know how many organizations

use their personal profiles on various networks to promote their initiative. I was only able to

see the group pages of the organizations. It is important to note that organizations that are

working with and for children or young adults are much more active on SNS than other

organizations. Six of the fourteen organizations that were using SNS were organizations

helping to advance children in the South through the help of children in the North. When I

interviewed the ten PI’s it also became clear that most initiatives are not present on SNS

because they claim not have the necessary knowledge. The former statement is proven by the

online survey that 73 percent of the respondents do not use web 2.0 and 31 percent stated that

the reasons for not using web 2.0 was that they did not have the necessary knowledge.

PI’s do not mainly use social networks to raise funds but mainly to promote the name and

purpose of their organization. The results showed that of those organizations that do use web

2.0 for their initiative, 7% replied that they use it for awareness raising, 2% for raising funds,

6% for support enhancement, and 11% to promote the name and the purpose of their

organization. Also, donations do not necessary increase as a result of being on SNS. The

organizations I interviewed mutually agreed that in order to raise budgets for development

projects, one has to approach and convince the public personally. The survey showed that

only 9 of the 27 percent using web 2.0 tools had an increase between 0 and 25 percent in

donations, however membership to these organizations drastically went up.


Web 2.0 in development aid is mainly used as a communication tool. Organizations use web

2.0 applications to spread information, upload photos newsletters, and announce events and so

on. Web 2.0 applications are used in combination with the classic media. Next to announcing

events through Facebook, organizations distribute flyers in their neighborhoods. One cannot

rely only on web 2.0 applications to communicate with the outside world. Advertisements

cannot solely pass through web 2.0 channels but also have to pass through classic channels.

Web 2.0 can help to reach a larger public, but other channels are still needed. Mike Brantjes,

founder of ‘Worknets’ warns that web 2.0 applications should not be regarded as a solution

for the problems of the developing world. Web 2.0 needs to be viewed as an extra

communication tool for development aid 2.0.

Through the several interviews, content analysis, and online survey I conducted, it became

clear that Flemish PI’s mostly communicate from top-down. Besides the annual meetings

where members, sponsors, and volunteers can speak their mind, there is not much bottom-up

activity. I tried to discover bottom-up dialogue on Facebook groups and found that six of the

14 groups have a bottom-up online dialogue. Again, these are mostly organizations that are

involved with youth projects. Most organizations have not yet developed themselves with the

concept of development aid 2.0 in mind.

Development organizations frequently use the basic aspects of web 2.0 such as blogging and

photo sharing. They mostly use social networks to spread organizational information. The

PI’s are still at the beginning stages of developing towards development aid 2.0 initiatives.

There is not much evidence of a bottom up approach in most organizations. However, one can

note online dialogue and bottom up activity with youth organizations. Most people that add

themselves as friend on PI’s Facebook groups are mostly already interested in development

aid. The former answer was proven, by asking the organizations ‘who are the people that are

surfing to your sites and who are your online friends?’ Five out of five PI’s agreed with the

statement that it was mostly only people already concerned with the South that visited their

sites. Yet, there seems to be a small shift in broadening and deepening development aid

awareness through social networks. On Facebook for example, people can forward events to

each other, links and or pages this way friends can make other friends interested in topics they

were never interested in before. This way people that were never interested in the problems of

the South can now through online interaction with others become more aware or interested.


Thus, there is a small shift from offline deepening awareness through online broadening of

awareness in development aid.

5.3 DiscussionAccording to the literature, the Internet has evolved the past two decades into web 2.0 or the

participative Internet. Web 2.0 has many different definitions for some people it is a

meaningless buzzword and for others it means social software or social media. The obvious

characteristics of web 2.0 are the current visible manifestations of social networks such as

Facebook which is the seventh most visited global website. In the survey the majority of the

respondents, also said Facebook is the most important social media site to use. The key

principles of web 2.0 are the fact that it enables the architecture of participation and the more

people use web 2.0 applications the better it gets. Due to today’s consumer market, tools to

create videos, photos, and such are much cheaper and accessible to a large population. This

economic evolution allows people to produce large amounts of user created content. Web 2.0

is said to be completely embedded in Western lives; it has changed the way organizations and

business are run.

However, it seems that the literature is somewhat wrong on the web 2.0 matter being

completely integrated into today’s business and organizations. There were only 14 out of 376

Flemish fourth pillar organizations that were clearly present on SNS such as Facebook.

Therefore, one cannot say that Web 2.0 is completely embedded into our lives. Also, the

terminology used to describe today’s Internet, as Web 2.0 is quite unknown amongst many

organizations. Even the term social media is something that most people are not acquainted

with. The 14 Flemish private initiatives that are present on Facebook didn’t show much

interactivity. The potential of the social networks are not being exploited, as it should.

Even though the social media are not used, the key principles of web 2.0 are prevalent in

development aid 2.0. The uttermost important feature of web 2.0 is that allows for

participation. The definition of aid 2.0 also states that aid should be conducted in an equal

manner in which all parties participate for the common good. Web 2.0 stands for data on epic

scale, the more people participate in aid the better it gets. Enabling the power of the crowd is

another characteristic of web 2.0, which contributes to aid 2.0. Through the participative

Internet, organizations can now at low cost reach out to the world. Aid 2.0 is said to be a new

way of thinking and is based on the principles of web 2.0. In spite of this, the technological


applications only make out a small part of aid 2.0. The thinking, the theory of how to execute

aid 2.0 comes first and web 2.0 follows and can be used. But in the research, we notice that

even in the fourth structure of development aid, aid 2.0 is not implemented. Private Initiatives

are working in a demand driven way, which is one of the characteristics of aid 2.0, but they do

not have the other features such communicating and completely working from bottom-up. I

believe in theory in the development aid sector some items such as structure are borrowed

from aid 2.0 but others such as working from bottom up are mostly left behind. Aid 2.0

doesn’t exist in the traditional four-structured Belgian development aid.

The only real development aid 2.0 organizations that exist are the new commercial 2.0 aid

businesses such as Pifworld and Oneprocentclub. These organizations not only base

themselves on the 2.0 aid theory but also use the web 2.0 tools. Organizations such as

Worknets create tools for the traditional development aid structure to help them turn more

towards an aid 2.0 structure. I don’t think aid 2.0 is really a new concept but its more a natural

development of the traditional aid structure; evolvement is just a natural process. What is

important to point out in aid 2.0 is the architecture of equal participation. For countries to

mutually agree that, no political or economical agenda are pushed to the forefront as a reason

to participate in development aid.

Now that we are at the end of the master thesis, I must add that I didn’t expect to draw the

conclusion that the role of web 2.0 in the Flemish fourth level structure is quite marginal. I

use Facebook to communicate with my friends and family including elderly family members

(80+). I use it to announce changes in my lives, to communicate about what I am doing and

where I am at all times. I have Facebook, Yahoo, and MSN on my smartphone, which I check

frequently throughout the day. I have immediate access to worldwide news, family, and friend

news. I could not live without the social applications that web 2.0 provides. Therefore, at the

start of my research I assumed that web 2.0 was embedded in my life and according to the

literature into millions of Western lives and organizations I thought I would find a similar

result in the Flemish development aid sector. I chose the PI’s because these are mostly small

organization run by a few people. I thought that due to its small size the role of web 2.0 would

even by larger as it easier to manage. But this was not true: the role of web 2.0 was restricted

to a bare minimum of using basic tools such as photo sharing and in some cases blogs.

Organizations that are on social media mostly use it only to promote their name instead of

raising awareness or attempting to raise more funds.


5.4 Suggestions for further researchAll research begins with curiosity and involves looking around, filling in empty spaces and,

“generally figuring out ways to usefully categorize and explain what it is that one has learned”

(Stebbins, 2001: v). I conducted this research in an exploratory way because exploration has

an open character and emphasis on flexibility and pragmatism. For Stebbins (2001) the main

limitation of exploration is that its methodological approach fails to produce conclusive and

generalized results. However, inconclusive comes in degrees, research can be more or les

inconclusive (idem). In this master thesis, the results can also not be generalized to other

countries fourth level development structures, as it is case specific for Flanders. The method

however can be copied for further research. I believe that in my case the results are rather

conclusive. The conclusion is that development aid organizations do use the basic components

of web 2.0 and they are based on demand driven work as in the aid 2.0 model yet web 2.0

doesn’t play a major role in the execution of development aid projects.

One of the main limitations of the study was the measurement of the specific concepts. I

failed to include in some of the answer categories ‘all of the above’ therefore I believe not to

have properly measured why organization use web 2.0 tools. Another item that I have failed

to measure is the increase in membership and donations as a result of using web 2.0 tools.

Due to the survey software I was using, I was unable to allow respondents to check multiple

boxes for the several applications. Therefore, the results showed a dispersion of one percent

over the different web 2.0 applications, which doesn’t say much but does reflect the

inaccuracy of the measurement. For further study the measurement, techniques need to be

improved so that respondents have the possibility to check multiple answers.

In the future, other students, researchers, or academics can analyze the role of web 2.0 in the

first, second and third structure using the same methodological model. Another study can also

be to compare and contrast the use of web 2.0 tools of organizations that work with youth and

organizations that don’t. An additional study as a result of this master thesis can be to find out

how web 2.0 can contribute more to development aid.


6. Bibliography

4de pijler Homepage. (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://www.4depijler.be/

Anderson, P. (2008, April 30). Technology and Standards Watch (TechWatch) : JISC.

Www.jisc.ac.uk JISC : Supporting education and research. Retrieved March 29, 2010,

from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/techwatch

Armstrong, J., & Franklin, T. (2008, September). A review of current and developing

international practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education.

Franklin Consulting. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from http://franklin-

consulting.co.uk/LinkedDocuments/the%20use%20of%20social%20networking%20in

%20HE.pdf

Arvin, B. M. (2002). New perspectives on foreign aid and economic development. Westport,

Conn.: Praeger.

Boyd, D. E. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History and scholarship. Journal of

Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (n.d.). Aid Spurs Growth in a Sound Policy Environment. Finance

and Development. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from

http://204.180.229.21/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1997/12/pdf/burnside.pdf

Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (1997). Aid, policies and growth. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2004). Aid, policies, and growth: revisiting the evidence.

Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Development Economics Vice Presidency.

Chege, S. (1999). Donors shift more aid to NGOs: But cooperation between governments and

NGOs is critical for greater effectiveness. Africa Recovery, 13, 1st ser., 6. Retrieved

April 7, 2010, from http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/131ngo.htm

De sociale netwerken: belangrijke informatieverspreider bij natuurrampen. (2010, April 13).

Ondernemen Today : Het dagblad van de KMO. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from


http://www.ondernementoday.be/article.php?news_id=4328

Degnbol-Martinussen, J., & Engberg-Pedersen, P. (2003). Aid: understanding international

development cooperation. London: Zed Books.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York:

Wiley.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Privacy concern within social networking

sites: A comparison of Facebook & MySpace.Paper presented at the Thirteenth

Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks

and Social Capital: The Role of Facebook. Annual Conference of the International

Communication Association.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook friends: Social

Capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer

Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.

Facebook. (2010). Factsheet. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet

Finn, T. (2006). Aid and Development. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 13, 9-61. Retrieved

April 5, 2010, from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13171/

FOD. (2008). My netlog, your netlog, our rights. Brussels: Buitenlandse Zaken, Handel en

Ontwikkelingssamenwerking.

Gilles, N., & Boriana, Y. (2006). Does NGO aid go to the poor? empirical evidence from

Europe. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, IMF Institute.

Ginger, J. (2008). Content Analysis: Facebook Groups [Scholarly project]. In Illinois Digital

Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from

http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3669/Content_Analysis_Abridge


d.pdf?sequence=2

Hammersley, M. (1998). Reading ethnographic research: a critical guide. London: Longman.

Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., & Dix, A. (2008). Exploring the Facebook Experience:

A new approach to usability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University.

Jones, D. (1977). Aid and development in Southern Africa: British aid to Botswana, Lesotho,

and Swaziland. London: Croom Helm.

Labella, P. (2010, May 14). Meet the Campaign Endpoverty 2015. Speech. Dublin, 9

November 2009.

Lampe, C., Steinfield, C., & Ellison, N. (2007). A Familiar Face(book): Profile Elements as

Signals in an Online Social Network. San Jose: ACM Press.

McKinlay, R. D., & Little, R. (1979). The US Aid relationship: the test of the recipient's need

and donor interest models. Political Studies, 27(2), 236-50.

Milner, H. V. (2004). Why Multilateralism? Foreign Aid and Domestic Principal-Agent

Problems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University.

Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet. American Behavioral

Scientist,, 45(3), 420-435.

Nielsen, J. (2007, May 14). Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' BBC NEWS | News Front Page.

Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm

OECD. (2009). 2008 DAC Report on Multilateral Aid. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/11/42901553.pdf

O'reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What Is Web 2.0. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved March 29,

2010, from http://oreilly.com

Pearson, L. B. (1969). Pearson Report (World Bank Report). World Bank.

Pifworld, the Charity Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from

http://www.pifworld.com/


Power, G. (2009, December 03). Gail Power from Facebook talks about the future of social

media. Simply Zesty – Online PR and Social Media. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from

http://www.simplyzesty.com/sz-news/future-social-media-gail-power-facebook/

Rosenstein-Rodan, P. N. (1961). International Aid for underdeveloped countries. The Review

of Economics and statistics, 2. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1928662

Schleifer, A. (2009). Peter Bauer and the failure of foreign aid. Cato Journal, 29(3). Retrieved

April 7, 2010, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-1.pdf

Shah, A. (2005, June 01). Non-governmental Organizations on Development Issues in Global

Issues. Global Issues : social, political, economic and environmental issues that affect

us all â �� Global Issues. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from

http://www.globalissues.org/article/25/non-governmental-organizations-on-

development-issues

Social Media For Development - Social network for social media in the international aid &

development area. (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://some4d.ning.com/

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

Tonkin, G. M. (2006). Folksonomies: Tidying Up Tags? Computer Science | University of

Bristol | UK. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from

http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/pub_info.jsp?id=2000478

U. (n.d.). Multilateral aid. AID/WATCH. Retrieved April 05, 2010, from

http://www.aidwatch.org.au/where-is-your-aid-money-going/multilateral-aid

Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web

2.0, wikis and social networking. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development.


Von, B. H. (2004). Information: the new language of science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. A. (2002). The Internet in everyday life. Malden, MA,

USA: Blackwell Pub.

White, H. (1992). The microeconomic impact of development aid: A critical survey. The

journal of development studies, 28(2), 163-240.

White, H., & Hjertholm, P. (2000). Survey of Foreign Aid: History, Trends and Allocation

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Copenhagen. Retrieved April 3,

2010, from http://www.econ.ku.dk/Research/Publications/pink/2000/0004.pdf

Wood, R. E. (1986). From Marshall Plan to debt crisis: foreign aid and development choices

in the world economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

7. AnnexesAnnex 1: Interviews pioneers


1. Thomas Hiergens (Belgian Development aid)

2. Mike Brantjes (Worknets)

3. Gert Nulens (SMIT– VUB)

4. Femke Hulsenbek (Pifworld)

5. Chris Vleugels (SMIT-VUB)

Annex 2: Survey Results

Annex 3: Content Analysis of facebook groups

1. Banaleuven

2. bee acholi

3. Bonjourafrique

4. bouworde

5. Fanfakids.be

6. Quality of Life Nepal – Sarangkot

7. Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen vzw

8. La Cascarilla

9. Rock Bujumbura

10. Rose vzw

11. Senegambiagroup

12. Vrijwillig wereldwijd

13. We are Burma

14. Zuiddag

Annex 4: Interviews fourth structure

1. Sebastian Indian Social Projects

2. Finado

3. Rahmanif

4. Fatimacenter

5. Support Ghana

6. Volkstuinen

7. Rock Bujumbura

8. Zuiddag

9. Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen

10. Vrijwillig Wereldwijd

11. Fanfakids

Annex 1: Interviews Pioneers


1. Thomas Hiergens D5.2 – Attache Directie Sensibilisering 19 March 2010 16:00 – 18:00

1. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0. Wat betekent dit voor u?

De eerste vraag die je moet stellen is alvast wat is Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 1.0? Ik weet niet exact wat dat is. Waarschijnlijk betekent dit digitaal op het web aanwezig zijn.

Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 is voor mij de sociale media die op het internet aanwezig zijn.

Persoonlijk vind ik myspace het beste sociale netwerk. Dit omdat het meer gebruikt wordt door organisaties. Facebook is te individueel, meer op de persoon gericht.

2.0 is effectief het web gebruiken om aan sensibilisering voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking te doen. Meer mensen betrekken in ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Door 2.0 kan je draagvlak versterken, meer steun zoeken bij het publiek. Sociale media is handig, indien je 500 vrienden op myspace hebt, hebben 500 mensen jou story gelezen of gezien. Meer is er niet aan. In theorie en de realiteit is hetzelfde 2.0 is niet meer dan dat.

Ook heeft 2.0 zijn gevaren. Het is een hyper realiteit. Je kan het vergelijken met autorijden. Wanneer je iemand uitkaffert van in je auto zit je veilig. Niemand kan jou iets doen. Internet is hetzelfde, je zit veilig achter je computer en je kan rustig en anoniem iemand uitkafferen. Anoniem is een irreële realiteit, het is zelfs gevaarlijk. Voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 kan dit gevaar betekenen dat iemand jou project om het internet volledig afbreekt. Je wil aan heel de wereld laten zien wat je doet. En dan is er iemand die hier niet mee akkoord is en zijn gal uitspuwt over jou project. Mensen sabelen je neer in all realiteit. Heel u project is nel afgebroken. Neem als voorbeeld de vele haatgroepen die zijn ontstaan op facebook. Mensen geven hun ongezouten mening over u project zoals bijvoorbeeld commentaar “Geld van ontwikkelingssamenwerking verdwijnt in de zakken van de politici en het systeem”. Je kan dan wel gaan sensibiliseren maar heel het publiek heeft deze commentaar gelezen.

2. Is het noodzakelijk voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking om te gaan ‘tweepuntnullen’? Wat zijn de voor en nadelen?

Dit hangt af van bepaalde types van ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Voor geen enkel is het echt noodzakelijk. Sommige types lenen zich goed om steun te ontwikkelen bij de mensen. Maar men kan niet zeggen dat het door 2.0 alleen is dat er betere resultaten zijn.

De meeste resultaten zien wij bij de vierde pijler.

Eerst even een korte uitleg over de verschillende pijlers. De eerste pijler is de bilaterale samenwerking waarin land X en Y samenwerking. Dit is een samenwerking van overheidswegen. Bv. Een project in Congo van de overheid. Pijler twee is de multilaterale samenwerking. Dit betekent dat België via de Verenigde Naties (VN) een project steunt in Malawi. België zit samen met anderen in het project gesteund door verschillende partnerlanden. De derde pijler is de niet gouvernementele organisaties en academische instituties. Deze drie grote pijlers bestaan al van dag één, vlak na de dekolonisatie. Sommige


mensen denken zelf dat ontwikkelingssamenwerking niet veel meer is dan het verder zetten van de kolonisatie. De vierde pijler zijn de privé initiatieven. Bijvoorbeeld mensen die op reis zijn geweest en daar erbarmelijke omstandigheden hebben gezien en hier iets aan willen doen. Kleine concrete projecten, één waterput in het dorp. Dit zijn zéér kleinschalige projecten met meetbare resultaten. Web 2.0 is super interessant om deze concrete resultaten te kunnen tonen. Dit gaat niet zo goed als multilateraal.

Bij multilaterale ontwikkelingssamenwerking zijn ze meer bezig met capaciteitsopbouw. Bijvoorbeeld leraren opleiden. Je kan geen foto op het internet zetten van leraren voor en na hun opleiding. Zij zijn niets veranderd. De centen, donaties zijn verdwenen in het systeem. Voor de vierde pijler is het meer concreet. Bijvoorbeeld ik wil een waterput in een Indisch dorp bouwen zodanig dat deze mensen water hebben. Dus ik ga terug naar India bouw een waterput en maak een film die alles van start to finish laat zien voor de bouw van de waterput. De resultaten zijn zeer concreet en zeer duidelijk toonbaar. Nieuwe types van ontwikkelingssamenwerking zoals capaciteitsopbouw en budget help zijn niet echt toonbaar op 2.0.

Het oude type van ontwikkelingssamenwerking is dat vroeger werd er door de donorlanden een project opgelegd dat zij dachten dat goed voor de bevolking in de ontwikkelende was. En ook dit werd uitgevoerd ter plaats door de Westerse ontwikkelingssamenwerker. Het ontwikkelende land had geen ‘ownership’ over deze projecten. Het project is niet door hen ontwikkeld. Er is nu een shift van hier project en expertise naar een concept waarin het ontwikkelende land zelf het project uitwerkt. Een concreet voorbeeld hiervan is dat de waterput die intellectueel ontwikkeld werd door de westerse ontwikkelingssamenwerker niet intellectueel het eigendom is van degene die geholpen worden. Je hebt het niet zelf uitgedacht. De donaties worden nu rechtstreeks uitgedeeld aan de overheid van het Zuiden. Zij moeten het zelf bedenken en uitvoeren. De ontwikkelende landen krijgen enkel nog financiële steun. Dit is het principe van budget hulp. Dit is zeer moeilijk in kaart te brengen en ook hierover te sensibiliseren. Leg het maar uit aan u buur, het is nu al moeilijk uit te leggen. Van budget hulp kan je geen foto trekken.

Een ander nieuwe type van ontwikkelingssamenwerking is technologie overdracht. Hier kan je ook geen foto van maken. Het Westen zijn kennislanden geworden en de industrien zijn in het zuiden. De Westerse wereld heeft aidsremmers uitgevonden, internet enzovoort. Deze formules zoals in de geneeskunde zitten in handen van grote farmaceutica bedrijven. Allemaal Westerse bedrijven. Maar aidsremmers zijn het meest nodig in het Zuiden (Zuid-Afrika). Deze mensen willen de wetenschap niet doorgeven. Enkel verkopen. Daarom wil de overheid er in tussenkomen om technologie over te dragen. Voor hoever kan je technologie transfer op 2.0 zetten? Dit kan je enkel door images hieraan vast te hangen en mensen te sensibiliseren. Dus concreet, om technologie overdracht weer te geven op 2.0 moet je bijvoorbeeld kunnen vinden die sterft aan malaria en tegelijkertijd iemand van een corporate kunt doen spreken over het feit dat ze niet gratis deze malaria pillen willen uitgeven. Hiervan kan je dan een documentaire of 2.0 project van gaan maken. Dit gaat wel. Het abstracte principe van technologie overdracht en budget is moeilijk inschakelbaar in 2.0.

De nieuwe principes van ontwikkelingssamenwerking, paradigma bevinden zich in pijlers één en twee. Zowel in pijlers drie en vier kan 2.0 effectief gebruikt worden. Voorbeelden voor de derde pijler zijn verengingen zoals Greenpeace, 11.11.11 en Artsen Zonder Grenzen, deze kunnen 2.0 gebruiken om steun te winnen voor hun organisaties en fondsen te werven. Greenpeace heeft op hun website een link naar een centraal dossier. Indien je een vriendje van


greenpeace wordt dan krijg je voorrang op dergelijke informatie. Hiermee wil ik aantonen dat de derde pijler zich goed leent tot tweepunt nullen. Toch zijn er nog steeds geen reuze groot development aid 2.0 acties. Tweepunt nullen is beter voor de vierde pijler zijn er duidelijke concrete resultaten te tonen. Voorbeeld in de 4de pijler is er een VZW van 100 leden die elk 10 euro bijdragen en de waterput is klaar. Misschien drie feestjes en het project is volledig gesponsord. Deze groep is veel kleiner en beter beheersbaar. Zij hebben een beter zicht op draagvlak. Een ander voorbeeld een straatfeest voor een school in Malawi. De persoonlijke vader kent zijn sympathisanten. Web 2.0 is het meest effectief in de vierde pijler vanwege het overzichtelijke. Iedereen staat achter hetzelfde. Greenpeace daarentegen heeft duizend projecten en boodschappen. Misschien sympathiseren 60% niet akkoord met alle boodschappen of projecten. Greenpeace kan daardoor ook meer sympathisanten afstoten. Kleine initiatieven kunnen hun sympathisanten moeilijker afstoten want zij staan er volledig achter.

De belangrijkste vraag die men moet kunnen stellen is “Op welke manier hebben de vierde pijler initiatieven, het draagvlak van hun activiteiten weten te versterken door web 2.0?” ofwel onderzoek je de derde pijler. Ofwel pijler één en twee. De vierde pijler initiatieven zitten enorm in de lift en lijken allemaal te slagen. Mensen voelen zich goed. Mensen worden graag vriendjes met vierde pijler initiatieven. Mensen worden niet graag vriendje met de Belgische staat.

3. Trekt 2.0 meer donaties aan dan vroeger zonder de nieuwe media?

Mensen hebben meer sympathie; en zijn beter geïnformeerd maar geven niet meer geld. Ik heb voor Greenpeace als fundraiser gewerkt. Je moet mensen aanspreken. Zo gewoon dingen op een site lezen spreekt geen mensen meer aan. Het levert ook geen meer centen op.

4. Welke 2.0 applicaties zijn het meest effectief voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking? Geen antwoord.

5. Hoe meet jet het success van ontwikkelinginssamenwerking 2.0?

Ik kan enkel spreken voor de Belgische Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en dit zou zijn dat meer mensen zich inschrijven op de nieuwsbrief.

6. Wat is het doel van ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0?

Awareness raising.

7. Moet de overheid tweepuntnullen?

Misschien moet de overheid dit niet doen vanwege marginale resultatten. Wel voor het sensibiliseren van derden. Ook voor ons magazine Dimensie 3 te promoten. Het is nodig voor marketing. Nodig u vriendje uit.

Er is een blog voor de Vrijwillige Dienst van Ontwikkelingssamenwerking namelijk de bilaterale samenwerking. (BTC). Deze blog kan je volgen.

8. Hoe is de persoon centraal in ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0?


Focus op ‘story telling’ in sensibilisering. Ook in overheidscommunicatie. Gewone mensen hun verhaal laten vertellen. Hierdoor geef je hun meer steun. Door story telling kan je meer draagvlak voor u activiteit creëren. Dit kan gebeuren door cooperanten op terrein en aid receivers centraal. Het is niet omdat je 2.0 doet dat je aan ontwikkelingssamenwerking doet. Je kan de hulpontvangers beter inschakelen om te sensibiliseren. Mohammed kan zelf zijn verhaal doen. Het is zeer direct. Men verkleind de afstand tussen hulpverlener en ontvanger. De hulpontvager stapt in het 2.0 verhaal.

Voorbeeld in vierde pijler: Het lokale stamhoofd zegt dat het hier droog is onmiddellijk heb je een sterk verhaal, een people story.

9. Hoe de mensen uit het Zuiden betrekken?

Het is bedoeld voor het Noorden te sensibiliseren. We zitten nog niet in een situatie waar de hulpgever met de ontvanger voortdurend zit te chatten. Daar zitten we nog niet. Een ander voorbeeld is dat je een mossel soupe doet en je belt u stamhoofd in Malawi. Je zegt dat tegen het stamhoofd dat je net 12000-euro hebt ingezameld. Je hoort onmiddellijk zijn geluk door de telefoon en zet het op speaker iedereen kan genieten van dit geluk op het mosselavondje.

10. Kan development aid 2.0 contribueren aan de millenium development goals? Ja of Nee? En hoe?

2.0 kan enkel bijdragen tot draagvlakversterking. Niet tot het effectief behalen van het doel.

Wel behaald 2.0 het MDG 8, wat een meer specifiek doel is namelijk wereldpartnerschap. Dit betekent meer eerlijke handel, meer steun voor meer schuldkwijting. Meer ODA (schuldvordering)- meer officiële hulp.

Concreet gaat 2.0 niet bijdragen tot MDG 1-7 aan het behalen van het doel, armoede en honger.

In het algemeen zal de overheid zeer kritisch bekeken worden in 2.0 applicaties, het zal zeer marginaal zijn.

2. Interview 24th of March 2010Mike Brantjes- Founder Worknets. (Pioneer in Aid 2.0)1. Wat betekent web 2.0 voor u?

Web 2.0 is user generated content, het werkt van bottom up. De samenwerking is minder top down. In web 2.0 wordt er meer in clusters gewerkt. Hiermee wil ik betekenen partijen tot stand brengen.

2. Wat is hulp 2.0?

In het artikel van Internationale Samenwerking beschrijven ze hulp 2.0 verkeerd. Ik ben de bedenker van hulp 2.0. Dit betekent niet ontwikkelingsorganisaties die alles via web 2.0 doen. Nee dat is het niet. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 is de volgende versie van


ontwikkelingssamenwerking. 2.0 is een nieuwe manier om aan ontwikkelingssamenwerking te doen. Men moet web 2.0 en ontwikkelingssamenwerking gescheiden houden. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 is een vernieuwing en modernisering. In ontwikkelingssamenwerking 1.0 werken we vanuit een schuldgevoel. We moeten iets doen in de wereld. Het Noorden helpt het Zuiden. In ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 is er een internationale samenwerking, een gelijkaardige samenwerking. Men begrijpt dat het ontwikkelingssamenwerking beter is voor iedereen. Als we andere landen kunnen beter maken dan komt er ook een einde aan de migrantenstroom. Als we veiligere plekken kunnen creëren dan is er ook een afname van migratiestromen. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 is een andere beleving. Dus in korte woorden er is ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 en er is web 2.0. Web 2.0 is een middel van ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0. “ Je mag het middel tot het doel verheffen”.Het gaat over waarom?, Wat?, Hoe?, Wie? Waarom ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0? 1.0 was ontwikkelingssamenwerking vanuit een goed doel in Nederland, dit is dringend aan verandering toe. Het hoe? Is dat we meer transparantie nodig hebben. Het wie? Is eerder een gesloten infrastructuur, ngo’s. In hulp 2.0 gaat iedereen mee doen, scholen, instituten, een betere wereld voor iedereen. Nu in ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 gaan we rond de vraag werken. We gaan niet meer vanuit onszelf denken. We gaan vraag gestuurd werken, we organiseren rond de vraag heen. Hoe doen we dit? Voorbeeld Cordaid heeft partner community portals. Alle vrouwenbewegingen kunnen hier aan deelnemen. Bijvoorbeeld vrouwen bewegingen in de Filipijnen kunnen hieraan deelnemen. Want we in de toekomst liever willen zien is dat Cordaid deelneemt aan de platforms van de vrouwenbewegingen in de Filipijnen zelf.

3. Is hulp 2.0 een tijdelijke hype of kunnen we er echt iets mee realiseren?

Ik vermoed dat u hier spreekt over hulp web 2.0. Web 2.0 in ontwikkelingssamenwerking is geen hype. Web 2.0 is de wereld vandaag en zal enkel meer evolueren. Dit is niet meer weg te denken. Web 2.0 is relevant voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking omdat er veel meer en bredere groepen kunnen betrokken worden. We kunnen vee meer faciliteren, anderen eigen dingen doen.

3.5 Wat zijn de effecten van faciliteren?

Meer gelijkwaardigheid, vraag gestuurd werken.

4. Moeten alle ontwikkelingsorganisaties zich bezig houden met sociale media? Ja of Nee en Waarom zouden ze dit wel doen?

Iedereen moet dat doen. Als je dat niet doet dan besteden ze hun middelen niet goed. Je moet nog steeds een conferentie voor werkgroepen organiseren maar dan moet je nog steeds in contact blijven met elkaar en dat kan je doen via web 2.0. Meer voor de Euro krijgen.

5. Welk zijn de meest effectieve applicaties voor draagvlak versterking ?

Niet allen draagvlak versterken maar heel web 2.0 heeft een operatie kant. Zoals marketing dat is meer burgers betrekken. Voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking moet je kijken hoe ga ik meer uit jalen. Meer business cards op je bureau wil niet perse zeggen meer werk. Wat belangrijk is, is wat je met deze business contacten doet.


Daarom heb ik werknetten uitgedacht. Een netwerk is gedefinieerd over het aantal spelers, hoe meer spelers hoe beter het netwerk. Een werknet is een netwerk met een gezamenlijk doel. Als het doel wordt gehaald is het werknet effectief. Het hangt niet van het aantal spelers af. Met werknetten willen we applicaties voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking mogelijk maken. Organiseren om te kunnen samenwerken. Iedereen kan meedoen zoals scholen en kennisinstituten.

6. Is er een stijging van donaties door het gebruik van 2.0 door organisaties?

NA

7. In Belgie kennen we 4 pijlers van ontwikkelingssamenwerking: De bilaterale, multilaterale, ngo’s , academische instituties en private initiatieven. Behoort u organisatie tot de 4de categorie of is het meer een commerciële instelling.

Mijn organisatie is een publiek benefit company maar valt onder de commerciële categorie. Het is ontsprongen in het idee van ontwikkelingssamenwerking, in het perspectief dat mensen en organen spelers zijn die steeds dingen moeten uitvoeren. Doelen en organen blijven bestaan. Het echte werk zit hem in de samenwerking, er zijn allerlei platforms zoals gender en aids. Het echte werk wordt gedaan in de samenwerkingsverbanden. De huidige samenwerkingsverbanden hebben geen infrastructuur. Wij gaan dit met werknet faciliteren. Web 2.0 is hier een stap van want via de sociale media kunnen zij ook beter communiceren. Deze samenwerkingsverbanden moet je vast zetten op elkaar afsteunen. Je kan kiezen voor een file-sharing, een teleconferentie, etc. Je kan dit meeteen gebruiken. Iedereen kan toegang hebben tot dit samenwerkingsverband. Alles voor iedereen, ook bedrijven kunnen meedoen, of overheden, zoals eerder al gezegd ook scholen. Het principe is en blijft rond de vraag werken.

8. U schrijft in u artikel over hulp 2.0: “het is niet of hoe wat ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 definieert maar wat? Kan je meer uitleg geven?

Zie antwoord vraag 2. Hoe? Is het middel, conferentie en het middel. Persoonlijk contact is nog steeds belangrijk. Erna kan je het internet gebruiken. Het gaat over wat je doet, het hoe is het afgeleide. Een voorbeeld is twincities. Een gemeente in Nederland heeft bijvoorbeeld een zustergemeente in Tanzania. Als je er niets meedoet dan heeft dit totaal geen effect. Dan blijft het bij een leuk initiatief. Wat je wel moet doen is het bedrijfsleven met elkaar in verband brengen. Je moet effectief gebruik maken van de bestaande technologie.

9. U spreekt in u interview met IS over het feit dat men het Zuiden beter moet betrekken? Maar hoe doet men dit- als men nog niet weet wat de toekomstige (internet) broadband penetratie is in deze landen?

Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 gaat om de gedachte richting. Het middel komt er achter aan. Het is het model dat er aan vast zit. Jullie mogen bij ons aankloppen.


Bijvoorbeeld een ziekenhuis heeft vijf donoren en moet contact houden met al deze donoren. De richting moet veranderen, er moet een samenwerkingsverband rond het ziekenhuis gebouwd worden. Dit is een heel andere manier van denken. Je moet dat op elkaar afsteunen.

10. Is het effectiever voor de privé initiatieven om aan sociale media te doen omdat ze kleinere projecten hebben die gemakkelijker visueel te maken zijn?

Sociale media is interactie met mensen. De samenwerking staat centraal. Web 2.0 kan gebruikt worden voor draagvlak versterking. Efficienter samenwerken voor organisaties als werknet. In Nederland noemen we de 4de pijler initiatieven, particuliere initiatieven. Deze organisaties krijgen een stuk subsidie en een werknet online. Deze werknetten kunnen ook nog eens samen gekoppelt worden. Je kan makkelijker met elkaar in contact komen en dingen doen. Wel is werknet nog maar pas nieuw en hebben we nog geen uitkomsten. Bel in twee maanden om te zien hoe dit gaat.

11. Kan hulp web 2.0 bijdragen tot het behalen van de millennium doelstellingen?

Ja dit kan omdat je meer krijgt voor je geld. Je kan effectiever gaan werken. Dankzij de nieuwe technologie kan hulp 2.0 bijdragen. Uitleg Power Presentatie. Speech Nederlandse Minister Buitenlandse Zaken

3. Interview Gert Nulens 23 Maart 2010 16:00 – VUB SMIT Research InstituteEven een kort overzicht over mijn achtergrond. Eerst heb ik onderzoek gedaan over Nieuwe media en ontwikkelingssamenwerking maar meer op vlak van beleidsanalyse. Onderzoek van nieuwe media en de impact op nationale staten. Zoals bijvoorbeeld het telecommunicatiebeleid van de Wereldbank. Een ander onderzoek dat ik heb uitgevoerd is Information ITV, dit waren de eerste overheidsingrijpen van Nambia en internet. Nu hou ik me momenteel enkel bezig met de culturele sector. Tweepunt nullen van cultuurorganisaties.

1. Wat is web 2.0 volgens u? Dit kan je uitleggen met eculture en ontwikkelingssamenwerking

2.0 kan je op 2 manieren invullen. Eerst op een technische manier en twee op een sociaal maatschappelijke manier. Het technische gedeelte: is de data die vroeger afzonderlijk opgesloten zat nu met elkaar verbinden. Een concreet voorbeeld in Cultuurmanagement is dat in 1.0 het museum Louvre van Parijs in 1990 een online versie van hun museum op hun website hadden staan waar de schilderijen bekeken konden worden. Ook had het Victorian Albert museum dit. In 2.0 worden al deze verschillende collecties samen gebracht. Dit heeft te maken omdat vroeger iedereen verschillende standaarden en formaten had en hierdoor konden er geen uitwisselingen gebeuren. Nu zijn er standaarden ontworpen die iedereen gebruikt. En daardoor is uitwisselingen mogelijk in 2.0.De sociaal maatschappelijke manier is dat de scheidingsmuur tussen expert en amateur volledig aan het verdwijnen is. Wanneer je informatie over een bepaald schilderij wil dan kan je dit googlen en kom je zowel op de website van het museum terecht en op facebook waar een bezoeker bijvoorbeeld een foto van het schilderij toont. Of op een andere website waar


een bezoeker zelf informatie geeft over het schilderij. Vandaag de dag kan iedereen iets zeggen. De Macht van de potentiële gebruiker is groter geworden. In 1.0 was dit alles moeilijker om te doen. Wanneer ik in 1995 een eerste website aanmaakte had dit meer te doen met programmeren en was vooral tekst based. Nu kan je op 15 minuten een website opstellen. Ook het technische gedeelte is veel gemakkelijker geworden. De rollen zijn verandert van instellingen en experten. Parallel hieraan is 3.0 het semantische web: Nu zie je het huidige web van informatie. 3.0 is een web van data. Voorbeeld je kan in een search engine de lijst van alle Rubens schilderijen opvragen. Deze lijst kan je vinden als iemand die heeft aangemaakt in 2.0. In 3.0 gaat de computer, het internet zelf deze lijst samenstellen met wat hij online kan vinden. 3.0 is het intelligente web. Dit wordt gedaan door gebruik te maken van Thesaurus en ontologie. Deze worden op dezelfde manier door iedereen gebruikt. Bijvoorbeeld in ontologie is een schilderdij een onderdeel van beeldende kunst, het behoort tot kunsten. Dit verhoud zich steeds tot hetzelfde. 2.0 informatie heeft enkel betekenis als je het betekenis geeft. 4.0 is het Internet of things: connectie maken tussen virtueel en het fysieke. Voorbeeld: Je staat in een museum een Rubens schilderij te bekijken. Dit schilderij stuurt een signaal uit naar je smarphone waardoor je automatisch online informatie over dit schilderij ontvangt. (Schilderij met nummers and RFID tags- dit zijn antennes die ergens opplakken. RFID tags worden geactiveerd. Je krijgt informatie over het voorwerp. In de winkel bevind zich dit steeds onder de barcode. In de logistieke sector wordt dit vaak gebruikt omdat men dan kan volgen die fles gaat in doos X en gaat dan naar container Y en vaart op schip B en komt aan in land A en gaat vervolgens met camion B naar Z.- Hier zijn natuurlijk veel issues met privacy).

2. Wat is eculture? Relateerd dit naar 2.0? Misschien naar ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Dit heeft te maken met mijn voorgaande uitleg over het technische en sociaal-maatschappelijke gedeelte. De technische en culturele sector. Een voorbeeld is Europeana.eu, dit is waar men digitaal erfgoed samenbrengt. In het sociale 2.0 verhaal hebben gebruikers het hef in handen. Last.fm is hier ook een voorbeeld van. Dit is waar men online naar muziek kan luisteren. Je moet je wel eerst registreren. Jouw profiel wordt dan gelinkt aan mensen met een gelijksoortig profiel en liedjes waar jij nog niet naar hebt geluisterd worden dan voorgesteld aan jou. Vroeger om goede muziek te vinden moest je recencies lezen. De mening van anderen is even belangrijk in het 2.0 verhaal. Andere voorbeelden zijn librarything en bookmooch – wat een tweedehands boek uitwisseling is.

3. Gebaseerd op uw studies in Afrika, wat is volgens u ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0?

Is dit een concept? Een vaste definitie dat bestaat? Francine: Ja Gert: Dan weet ik het niet zo goed, wel ga ik het even opzoeken.

4. Waarom maken organisaties gebruik van 2.0? (Ontwikkelingsorganisaties ?)

Ik denk eerst aan fundraising. Een kan een goed middel hiervoor zijn. 2.0 gebruikers zijn machtig. Anderzijds kan het pijnlijk zijn voor bedrijven. Een voorbeeld is dat multinationals kindarbeiders heeft in hun ontwikkelingsproces kan dit zeer snel gelekt worden via 2.0. Bedrijven moeten hier enorm mee uitkijken. Dit is eerder de negatieve kant. De positieve kant


zijn de positieve simulaties. Er ontstaan zeer snel haatgroepen maar ook fangroepen op facebook. Vanuit ontwikkelingsorganisaties kunnen zijn 2.0 gebruiken voor sensibilisering, fundraising en bekend maken. Het is een slimme manier die moet ingeschakeld worden. Je kan vanuit ontwikkelingslanden zelf de buitenwereld op de hoogte houden. Bijvoorbeeld vroeger toen internet nog maar pas bestond had ik online contacten met Nigeria. Zij speelden mij internet informatie door. Ik geloofde die informatie niet en zes maanden later stond het in de krant. Nu kan dit allemaal veel sneller. Ook kan 2.0 een instrument zijn voor sociale acties dat kan ingezet worden voor ontwikkelingsdoelen. Op vlak van nieuwe media was ik betrokken bij beleidsadvies en telecenters in Zuid- Afrika. Met telecenters bedoel ik een barak ergens in the middel of nowhere in Zuid-Afrika met een telefoon, internet en fax. Wat we toen zagen was dat er een enorme grote impact op de gemeenschap was. Mensen konden afstandsonderwijs volgen en online naar werk zoeken.

5. Moeten organisaties tweepuntnullen? Of kunnen ze verder zonder?

Op vlak van Cultuur is het een manier om het publiek aan zich te binden. Elke organisatie wil zijn publiek beter binden. Zo kan deze ook beter ingezet worden. Vroeger ging me mensen naar hun platform brengen, men kon dan via unique hits en bezoekers per dag, hoeveel mensen er kwamen. Nu gaan organisaties naar plaatsen waar het publiek als is. Bijvoorbeeld politici die op facebook staan of politici die via twitter berichten uitsturen. Deze politici gaan naar de mensen.

6. Wat is het doel van ontwikkelingswerking 2.0 voor u?

In het algemeen is het een situatie waar iedereen altijd en overal geconnecteerd kan zijn. Iedereen is constant bereikbaar. Dit is een zeer recent gegeven. In ontwikkelingslanden is de gsm penetratie zeer hoog. Ik ken de cijfers niet maar dit gegeven draagt enorm bij. In de Westerse wereld heeft de komende vier jaar iedereen een smartphone. Waardoor we constant geconnecteerd zijn via het internet met vrienden, kennissen of familie. Dit brengt privacy issues meteen mee.Meer specifiek op ontwikkelingssamenwerking. De ontwikkelingsorganisaties begeven zich op een druk bezet domein. Het is niet gemakkelijk om daar je plaats te vinden. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking op 2.0 is een mogelijkheid om het zee snel oproepen van sociale acties. Het heeft een enorm groot potentieel, het kan zeer snel bedrijven en politici onder druk zetten.

7. Is 2.0 een hype?

Wel het is bijzonder moeilijk om op te vallen. 99% van de filmpjes op youtube bijvoorbeeld is onzin. We moeten wel op.

8. Welke applicaties zijn het meeste effectief?

De grote bekenden. Facebook en Twitter, denk ik.

9. Voor wie is 2.0 het meest effectief? Voor Individu of bedrijven?

Ik denk voor beiden. Zowel individu als organisatie.


10. Hoe betrekken we de mensen in het Zuiden in het 2.0 verhaal?

Ik weet niet wat de toekomstige voorziening is op vlak van breedband is in ontwikkelingslanden. Ik heb hier totaal geen overzicht over. Wel moeten we opletten voor technologisch determinisme. Hiermee wil ik zeggen dat je nieuwe media niet aanbied zoals een wondermiddel waardoor alle problemen van ontwikkelingslanden meteen zijn opgelost. Een voorbeeld van telecommunicatie en ontwikkelingssamenwerking, het eeuwige dilemma: Je moet eerst zorgen dat de mensen voedsel hebben in ontwikkelingslanden voordat je begint met nieuwe media. UNESCO bijvoorbeeld vind dat iedereen een recht heeft op informatie en dat voedsel en informatie een parallel beweging moeten zijn. Supporters van deze theorie geloven dat als mensen beter geïnformeerd zijn ook gemakkelijker een manier vinden om voedsel te vinden.

11. Krijg je door te tweepuntnullen meer donaties?

Dit hangt eerder af van de advertentie. 2.0 moet bekeken worden als een instrument. Er is weinig verschil met de klassieke media (Misschien om te antwoorden op u voorgaande vraag ligt de hype hierin. Bijvoorbeeld, mensen die denken dat ze door op facebook aanwezig te zijn wonderlijke dingen gaan gebeuren.)Na even ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2.0 als definitie gegoogled te hebben, lees ik dat het manier is om de donor inzicht te geven in de impact van zijn donaties. Ik denk dat dit veel gebruikt wordt door ngo’s.

4. Interview 1st of April 2010 – 45 minutesFemke Hulsenbek – Pifworld +31 (0) 20 470 78981. What is development aid 2.0?

It is a new stream, a new way of thinking. It stresses both sides of development corporate both sides. The traditional development aid programs and structures work from top down and develop programs with beneficiary countries. Development aid 2.0 is interactivity it enables both sides: the beneficiary and the donor countries to work together and try to work from bottom up. Web 2.0 enables two parties to work together and see what is needed. For example, don’t give them a tomato but learn them how to grow crops. It is an alternative- you can have real time communication on what is needed to end the growth of poverty.

2. What is the role of development aid 2.0?

Development aid 2.0 has been growing within organizations the last five years. It is relatively small. Today, every traditional NGO is busy with trying to incorporate web 2.0 in their traditional structures. Traditional organizations are most of the time not fast moving. Institutions that can work faster are much more the private organizations that are not part of the traditional development corporation structure. These organizations are working for a better world via web 2.0.


Francine: In Belgium development aid is divided into 4 pillars: multilateral aid, bilateral aid, NGO’s/ academic institutions and private institutions. To which pillar does pifworld belong? Pifworld doesn’t belong to any of the four pillars. In the Netherlands the 4 th pillar is called the PI, the private initiatives. Pifworld is a private organization that is not part of the traditional development aid structure. They are web 2.0 development initiatives working for a better world. They are based on the development aid 2.0 model. In the Netherlands there are 5 or 6 structures. We are now creating a website called pioneers for good which are development aid web 2.0 initiatives from all over the world. (I will send you the link)

3. Is web 2.0 important for development corporations to have?

There is no way back. Web 2.0 is a big influence in any kind of sector. (You need money.)

4. Does 2.0 attract more donations then not using new media?

It is not only about raising funds. The Dutch Ministry of foreign affairs gives donations to these pillars every year. But today the policies are changing. NGO’s are getting less and less money. They need to find alternatives. Web 2.0 is an alternative. Internet is coming up in development corporations. Things need to be done from bottom up web 2.0 can help to do things bottom up.

4.a What else can web 2.0 contribute to besides funding?

Empowerment of the beneficiary, improving communications, improvement of the project. More transparency.

5. What applications need to be used to increase effectiveness?

Technically? I will give you an example. If you want to build a school in Ghana, you need the African parties to upload their stuff on a website. Therefore, you need software that digests this information and make it concrete. People need to be able to see what happens to this project. It needs to be a system of checks and balances. If you see another project in Ghana that is building a similar school for double the price, you know that there is something wrong. There needs to be software to be able to visual the project.

5a. How is it done in the case of pifworld?

When you enter the website of pifworld, you see a globe with 35 spots (projects). When you click on one of the items, a passport pops up and a movie. Each project has a budget. We have project applications with which you can see what exactly is going on. In order to see such things you need web 2.0. Pifworld facilitates projects of NGO’s and private initiatives. Donors can see what exactly is going on with the funds. Pifworld has nothing to do with the project itself, they provide the application.

6. How is success measured?

We have a set amount of money that we want to raise. We break down the project and screen each criteria based on quality. When the project is raised we want visual results. (The technique should have – visuality).


6.a But how do you visualize projects such as technology sharing and knowlodge sharing ? You can’t visualize these things.

For example, if someone wants to conduct research on how many people use condoms in Kenia. It doesn’t matter that it is not visual. Non- measurable impact ?? has the same issues as in traditional development aid. For example, Awareness can be visualized in numbers. If someone reads this and likes it. There can be high chances of being funded. Some people mike non visual projects some people don’t. Yesterday, the Dutch Government has decided to give money to children education instead of water sanitation. So you see where there priorities lie.

7. What are the main effects of using web 2.0 in development aid?

This can be placed into different categories. The main impact is raising funds. The structure of the current development aid is outdated. How do the traditional development aid organization incorporate web 2.0 tools?? Web 2.0 tools enable transparency. It can show people what exactly is being worked on. They are going to play a much bigger role. Development 2.0 is going to start from what is needed and how are we going to do this. With Development Aid web 2.0 Donors all over the world can give for example 60 euro a year to a good cause and do this online. They will receive emails about the project and can actually follow it step by step. Kieva is microfinancing- you lend money and get it back. Development aid web 2.0 provides interaction between beneficiary and donor.

8. What is the future of web 2.0 as a tool for development corporations?

It depends on how big it will be. Platforms are very popular. People are more and more critical about development aid in general. It is no longer only about the poor people. Its about empowerment. People know more about foreign countries (Africa) and helping the poor because of the internet (the distance has become much shorter). There is much more interaction. But we don’t know how exactly it is going to affect the future? We don’t know how development corporations are going to incorporate web 2.0 in to their own structures. Is pifworld going to be next? We need to make sure that the new web 2.0 development aid initiatives are sustainable.

9. Can development aid web 2.0 contribute to reaching the millennium development goals (MDG’s)?

Within the next two months, we are going to add eight more projects to pifworld. These are eight projects in relation to the MDG’s. These projects are directly contribute to trying to reach the MDG target. For example Kieva, the successful micro-financing platform, contributes directly to MDG 1. You directly contribute to entrepreneurs that set up their businesses.

10. Would you like to add something else ? I have asked all my questions.

We don’t only work with Private Initiatives (PI’s) but also very large NGO’s. An example of such is Parks foundation which is our partner. They are creating the biggest wildlife park in


the world. There are too many elephants in Zambia and they are going to move them to South Africa. This is a project of 430 000 euro. An example of a smaller PI Is a promotional tour guide in Guatemala this was 750 euro. We have all themes: nature, health, education, emergency relief, etc. But there are platforms that work only with one theme such as Kieva- microfinancing and Acfo- water sanitation.

10.a One more question? Is pifworld also going to facilitate projects for multilateral aid, I mean UN organizations?

In the short term, No. We first need to make sure that our organization can sustain itself.

Femke: So have you learned anything new from our conversation ? Francine: Yes, I learned that you guys facilitate NGO’s and PI’s. Most PI’s don’t have incorporated web 2.0 yet. So pifworld can do it for them. I am conducting research in the fourth pillar and have the feeling they haven’t use web 2.0 much at all. So I can give my masterpiece a new twist by adding organizations such as yours because you guys have the most effects I see (assume). Femke: Yes we are like the 5th pillar. We are a new market, development organizations in web 2.0. All these web 2.0 development aid corporations face that they need to prove themselves to the beneficiary, the NGO’s and donors. We are a new market. Francine: So you guys are the actual development corporations 2.0 ?Femke: I would love to say yes. We respond to the current trends (we can not replace all aid). But we welcome a new edition of aid. Government of many Western countries are reducing aid so this is a new alternative.

5. Interview 8 April 2010 – 1hr.15 minChris Vleugels Face to Face Interview- STIBBInleidend gesprek: F.C: Mijn algemene vraag is ‘what is the role of web 2.0 in development aid’? Ondertussen ben ik al begonnen naar mijn onderzoek in de vierde pijler. Van de 360 wilden er initieel maar 30 meedoen. Tot nu toe heb ik nog maar 3 antwoorden ontvangen ik heb de indruk dat zij er niets van kennen. C.V: Dat kan al een mooie conclusie zijn dat ze gewoon het begrip web 2.0 niet kennen. Dat is toch wel een ernstige vaststelling. Ze zijn niet met het concept bezig maar wel met de toepassing. Maar het lijkt me wel dat je herinneringen moet sturen. Dus als conclusie kan je meteen al zeggen dat ze niet weten waar ze mee bezig zijn en als bijkomende vraag en extra in de discussie is moeten ze daar mee bezig zijn?

1. In welke pijlers zitten volgens u de grootste, meetbare en aantoonbare effecten?

Je moet wel zien dat je je onderzoek beperkt. Het is een masterproef. Je kan je beperken tot de Vlaamse NGO’s of Vlaamse Prive initiativen. Je moet wel uitleggen waarom je het enkel in Vlaanderen onderzoekt.

2. Hoe onderzoeken ?

Je kan beginnen met een literatuur studie en kijken of er in het buitenland onderzoek naar gedaan is? Ondertussen heb ik voor onze studie in het STIBB al gezocht naar recente studies maar vind enkel hypothetische stellingen. Een stelling die ik me herriner is die van Jennifer


Coriero, (F.C.: Ja die ken ik.) over hoe jongeren betrekken bij ontwikkelingssamenwerking en web 2.0 toepassingen. Voor de rest is er geen veldonderzoek aanwezig. Een boek waar ik ben bij begonnen is ‘Youth Social Media and Social Change – Het is een boek over hoe organisaties, jongeren kunnen betrekken om draagvlak te versterken?

Belangrijke vragen die je in je onderzoek kan stellen zijn: Internet is een vluchtig medium, je probeerd van top dow je publiek te betrkken. Hoe kan je daar controle over houden? Een andere interessante vraag is in hoeverre posten organisaties dingen op hun websites en in hoeverre posten mensen? Nog een belangrijkere vraag kan zijn gaan ze daadwerkelijk wel bottum up werken? In hoeverre maken ze gebruik van participatie communicatie met de achterban. In hoever is het daadwerkelijk bottom up? In eerste instantie moet je beschrijvend werken. In hoeverre maken ze gebruik van paricipatie- communicatie. Dit kan door middel van een inhoudsanalyze van de websites. Je kan dan voor methodologie kijken naar virtuele etnografie. Voor onze ontwikkelingssamenwerking en nieuwe media onderzoek gaan we Interviews, surveys en content analysis maken. Ik ben aan het denken om eerst een virtueel platform, blog op te richten. Daarna organisaties fysiek in contact brengen, focusgroepsessies en brainstorming sessies uitvoeren. Op die platforms kan ik dan ook eigen onderzoeken publiceren en mensen kunnen dan ook tips insturen. Je probeert alle partijen elkaar af te stemmen via web 2.0. Je kan je algemene onderzoeksvraag opsplitsen in deelvragen. Zoals hoe gebruiken Vlaamse initiativieven web 2.0 applicaties? Hier doe je dan een factuele analyse van websites. In hoeverre is er een bottom up approach. Ook kan je de effecten meten indien ze gebruik maken van web 2.0 applicaties. Daarna kies je vijf platformen, Je gaat de beste interviewen. Vraag naar impact. En dan selecteer je de 5 slechsten en vraag je naar het gebruik. Dus methodologisch gezien heb je dan een literatuurstudie, een analysche van een website, een survey, een inventarisatie en bespreek je met een aantal mensen. Dat zit methodologisch goed in elkaar. Sluit je thesis af met punten voor verder onderzoek, zoals bijkomende ideen; in hoeverre versterkt dit het draagvlak? Als extra kan je ook nog is nagaan of web 2.0 leid tot een verbreeding of verdieping ? Zijn veel meer mensen op de hoogte van ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Geraken ze meer geengaeerd?Met verdieping bedoel ik: Mensen die er al mee bezig zijn. Die krijgen nu een extra kanaal aangeboden om te verdiepen. Er is verdieping maar geen verbreding en dat zie je vaak. Verdieping is tpp down, een ander kanaal dezelfde boodscchap brengen. Het blijft top down, wij bepalen de boodschap. Verbreding is dan een bottom- up approach; meer mensen hebben inspraak. Al deze vragen zijn dan ook hypotheses.

3.Wat is hulp 2.0? Gaan de multilateralen en bilateralen ook zo werken?

Het is de koppeling van web 2.0 en ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Hulp 2.0 is de sociale media inzetten, connecteren van mensen. Internet-producer- consumer heft een belangrijke rol. Het achterliggende idée is the bottom up approach, waar men spreekt met de achterban. Zoals bijvoorbeeld de achterban van de NGO’s aanspreken. Is er een wisselwerking? Gaan ze in dialoog met hun achterban, gaan ze in dialoog met het brede publiek.

Takingitglobal.com is een netwerk waarop 500 Belgen dat discussierd over kwesties dat ons allen raken. Web 1.0 zijn statische websites waar je informatie kan vinden. Vinden staat centraal. Het belangrijkste is hoe kunnen mensen onze website vinden? Het zijn eilandjes op het internet.


Web 2.0 is het delen van informatie, het is het geconnecteerde. Ons eigen verhaal meer in de kijker zetten. Hoe doen we dat? Dit kan bijvoorbeeld door filmen op youtube te zetten en te integreren op onze eigen zebsite. Web 3.0 is het intelligente internet.

3. Tot wat dragen sociale netwerk sites bij tot ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Het is vooral een communicatie medium.

4. Waarvoor wordt web 2.0-het meest gebruikt in ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Vooral om aanwezig te zijn op plaatsen waar mensen zijn, ook om eigen mensen te bereiken. Het is nog steeds een communicatie medium.

5. Waarom voeren jullie de studie ontwikkelingssamenwerking, nieuwe media en draagvlakversterking uit?

De vraag kwam vanuit de Vlaamse overheid, Europees gezien is Belgie een land dat veel investeerd in draagvlak versterking. Veel subsidies geeft; maar er is geen zicht op de reultaten van draagvlak versterking. Daarom is er nu een project over hoe we de nieuwe media kunnen gebruiken voor draagvlak versterking. Hoe kan je jongeren betrekken? Wat is de plaats van dze nieuwe media en jogeren. We gaan dan een mediamix moeten gaan gebruiken. Kijken naar welke aanknopingpunten er zijn bij jongeren om sociale media in te zetten.

Ons inderzoek instituut SMIT zijn core business is nieuwe media. In de Noord-Zuid werking speelt nieuwe media een belangrijke rol.

Het HIVA onderzoekt draagvlak bij de beveling. Zij nemen een steekproef in de Belgische bevolking. Zij onderzoeken drie elementen van draagvlakversterking: Kennis, Houding gedrag: (geld geven, lid zijn).

6. Is mijn studie relevant voor academici?

Ja, u studie is een relevante bijdrage doordat het effectief alle prive initiatieven in kaart brengt. Hun aanwezigheid op web 2.0 en met welke applicatie. Je bekijkt hoe ze aanwezig zijn bottop up of top down.


Annex 2: Survey Results

SNS and multimedia sites such as Facebook and YouTube.

The Internet in general, its every day use.

The participative web.

Other.

Never heard of.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1. What does web 2.0 mean for you or your organization?

Respondents (%)

Development aid 2.0 is the execution of aid via the net.

Aid 2.0 is a new way of thinking: bottom up instead of top down.

Aid 2.0 are development organisations on SNS.

Aid 2.0 means something else.

Never heard of.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2. What does development aid 2.0 mean for you or your organization?

Respondents (%)


Yes

No (Go to question 10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

3. Does your organization use web 2.0?

Respondents (%)

Raising awareness.

Marketing: Fund raising.

Raising support.

To promote the organization.

Other reasons.

N/A.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4. Why does your organization use web 2.0 tools?

Respondents (%)


FacebookTwitter

Myspacehi5

NetlogFlickr

YoutubeBlogsOther

N/A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5. What web 2.0 applications does your organization use?

Respondents (%)

6. How many followers do you have on the below applications?

Respondents (%) 0-25

Facebook 5Twitter 2Flickr 1Youtube 2Blog 5Other 1N/A 83

25-50Facebook 1Twitter 1Flickr 2Youtube 1Blog 2Other 1N/A 92

50-75Facebook 3Twitter 1Flickr 0Youtube 1Blog 2Other 89

75-100Facebook 1Twitter 1Flickr 0Youtube 1Blog 1N/A 96

PLUS 100


Facebook 11Twitter 1Flickr 1Youtube 1Blog 84N/A

Increase in membership (Go to question 9)

More attention to the problems in the South (Go to question 12)

Your organization became more famous (Go to question 12)

Nothing changed, everything stayed the same (Go to q12)

N/A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

7.Have you noticed any changes in the below elements since the use of web

2.0 in your organization?

Respondents (%)

8. With how many percent have the financial donations increased since the use of web 2.0? Respondents (%)

Between 0 and 25 % 10N/A 90

9. With how many members did membership increase due to the useof web 2.0?

Respondents (%)Between 0 and 25 9More than 100 members 3N/A 88


We don’t have the necessary knowlegde.

SNS are no added value to the organization.

A website is sufficient for us.

No interest.

No specific reason.

N/A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

10. Why doesnt your organization use web 2.0?

Respondents (%)

11. Are you going to use web 2.0 applications in the future?

Respondents (%) Yes 23No 40N/A 38

12. Hoe draagt volgens u of uw organisatie web 2.0 bij aan ontwikkelingssamenhulp?Geen idee, want ik weet niet wat het inhoudt.geen ideeWeinig.geen ideeneengeen ideeIk vind dit een zeer moeilijke vragenlijst, kende het begrip web 2.0 niet en heb dit even opgezocht. Ik weet niet of onze organisatie Web 2.0 gebruikt, gezien we een website hebben vermoed ik van wel. Bij vraag 4 zouden we veel meer kunnen aanduiden. Als ik iets wilde invullen op de puntjes lukte dit niet... en ik ben misschien ICT-expert maar een leek ben ik nu toch ook weer niet. Ik hoop dat je met deze antwoorden iets kan. Onze website is vooral een communicatiemiddel om onze achterban te informeren en ook om het project bekendheid te geven..is geen verbetering, volgens mij.meer mensen komen op dehoogtegeen ideehet kan een breder draagvlak creëren of aanvaardbaarder maken , moderner laten blijken bij bepaalde web (2.0) internetgebruikersWat is "ontwikkelingssamenhulp"? Er worden maar nieuwe woorden uitgevonden waar de gebruikers zelf nauwelijks de betekenis bevatten.misschien wel interessante toekomstmaterie maar onze werking vergt nu reeds zoveel inzet hier aan vrijwillige tijdsinvestering dat alle overbodige informatica contacten niet haalbaar zijn; we werken trouwens ook in het ontwikkelingsland zelf ter plaatse ( brousse in Dem Rep Congo) zonder enig direct contact : geen gsm niets. We houden wel van nuttige informatica zoals de website en de internetverbinding maar hebben absoluut de tijd niet meer om nog veel 'praatuurtjes' door te brengen op de laptop. Het adm werk is


te overmatig en de promotie te delicaat dat je bepaalde zaken wel kan uitleggen in een persoonlijk gesprek maar niet zomaar vrijgeven voor iedere lezer. Een algemene nieuwsbrief uitgeven via mail spreekt me wel aan maar dan beperkt zich dat tot een adressenbestand. Persoonlijk ben ik erg nieuwsgierig hoe het allemaal in mekaar steekt en hoe het te gebruiken is maar voor het ontwikkelingswerk dat wij voor ogen hebben is het minder geschikt .. denk ik althans : ontwikkelingswerk is delicaat en men moet omzichtig omspringen met de gegevens. Bij het gewone professionele werk hoort ook een soort beroepsplicht en beroepsgeheim .. zo voelen wij het aan. Dank voor de aandacht hieraan besteed.geen ideeGeen ideezeer goed voor sociale contacten en losse hulp; geen waarborg voor grondig overwogen samenwerkinggeen ideeExtra bekendheid voor de organisatie (vooral door facebook), mensen kunnen hun opinie kwijt en kunnen zelf voorstellen waar de nood nog hoog is, etc...Het helpt (beperkt) mensen bij mekaar krijgen voor de activiteiten die we organiserengeen idee,want ik ken amperAlles wat we doen draagt bij aan ontwikkelingssamenhulp als we echt, met de nadruk op echt, bereid zijn om samen te werken. Nog teveel geeft men voorrang aan de eigen organistatie. Het eigen ik staat dik in de weg meestal. Ik had nooit van 2.0 gehoord maar wij staan wel op Twitter maar hebben te weinig tijd, medewerkers, om op de andere in te loggen en zelfs om Twitter bij te houden, ik geeft voorkeur aan het bijwerken van onze normale website en daar bezoekers naar toe te loodsen.Geen flauw ideexmeer mensen laten kennis maken met onze organisatieGeen idee vanwege absoluut geen ervaring hiermee.Zeer efficientNog niet over nagedachtDialoog met de bezoeker, community creërenik ken web 2.0 niet, dus kan ik uw vraag niet beantwoorden. Net zoals ik bij vraag 11 slechts ja of neen kan antwoorden, maar ik weet dat ook niet want ik weet niet wat web2.0 is....misschien gebruiken we het wel zonder het te weten? Misschien kunt u ook laten weten wat u met web2.0 bedoelt, dan kan ik proberen om de vragen doeltreffender in te vullen.meer bekendheid en meer in de aandacht brengen van organisaties die er gebruik van maken.volledig onbekend !bekendheid/draagvlakversterking/reclame voor fondsenwervende activiteiten/ bekendmaking sponsorsaangezien we het niet kennen, is er dus geen bijdrage van deze toepassingweet niet wat web 2.0 is , dus kan uw vraag niet beantwoordeninformatiefGeen ideeDoor het interactieve sharing elementnaam bekendheid, verbreding publiekGeen ideeHet Vlaams Centrum voor Inheemse Volken werkt niet met projecten, maar doet aan politiek lobbywerkjaBij vraag 4 gelden eigenlijk alle opties voor onze organisatie. Elke van deze punten draagt ook bij aan onze organisatie. Vooral voor het bekendmaken van activiteiten is web 2.0 nuttig. Maar niet enkel onze eigen website , blogs en facebook, maar ook andere web 2.0 mogelijkheden zoals websites externe (gemeente, internetkranten)NaambekendheidDenk dat dat nog te vroeg is. Liever een "meetbaar" resultaat, via directe contacten.Weet ik nietHet verbindt mensen die er sowieso bij betrokken zijn, vergemakkelijkt de communicatie en verlaagt drempels (informatieverspreiding, contact zoeken etc)


ik weet het nietVoorlopig heb ik daar geen hulp aan.Misschien ruimere bekendheid voor de organisatie.aangezien ik het niet ken, kan ik daar niet op antwoorden, evenzo als vraag 11is nog niet bekend genoeg denk ik bij de kleine organisatiesgeen ideeJe bereikt er meer mensen door en ze voelen zich ook meer betrokken.Mogelijk is web 2.0 een interessant medium, maar door gebrek aan tijd, kom ik er niet toe de nieuwe media (facebook, you tube) te verkennen en te gebruiken. Voorlopig zijn er ook geen jonge mensen in het bestuur die deze kennis wellicht wel zouden hebben. Dus geen desinteresse, wel gebrek aan tijd, kennis en jonge mensen ! Veel succes nog met de enquête, Bernadette, bestuurder-oprichter Future for Salegeen ideegeen idee.Niet, want niet in gebruik en niet bekend. Is af te leiden uit vorige antwoorden.Geen ideevermits ik niet weet wat web 2.0 applicatuie is, kan ik deze en vorige vraag niet beantwoorden.Geen idee wat de mogelijkheden zijn...Weet het nietkan op een eenvoudige en snelle manier bijdragen tot meer naambekendheidgezien ik het niet ken, kan ik er geen antwoord op geven.Groter bereik en meer sensibiliseringsmogelijkheidals men over "web 2.0" nog nooit gehoord heeft, hoe kan men dan antwoworden??Het zou wel kunnen dat we meer leden en dus ook meer bijdragen krijgen en dus zo meer hulp kunnen bieden. Maar wij zijn hier allemaal vrijwilligers, we hebben nog niet de tijd gehad om ons in te werken in nieuwe technologieëngemakkelijker te vinden en bredere toegang tot geinteresseerdenweet niet wat web 2.0 betekentIk begrijp niet wat er met die 2.0 wordt bedoeldOnze doelgroep is jongeren - zij leven in een cultuur waar 2.0 belangrijk is, voor sommigen zelfs dagelijkse kost. Als je deze groep wilt bereiken/sensibiliseren, is het evident dat je ook via 'hun' kanalen, 2.0 dus, werkt en info aanbiedt; Tegelijkertijd spreekt het veel meer mensen aan dan enkel de jongeren allen, het is visueel, maakt dingen vaak concreter.Informatie verspreiden en dus mensen mobiliseren.informatieverspreidinghet wekt interesse bij de mensen voor ontwikkelingssamenhulpgeen ideeheropbouw haitiEerst te weten komen wat 2.0 iswerk bidden in land, onderwijs en gezondheid, door colombianen voor colombianenhet is het nieuwe communicatiemiddel. Als je tegenwoordig veel mensen op een goedkope manier snel wil bereiken, dan moet je werken met sociale netwerksites om zo zoveel mogelijk mensen warm te maken voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking en het project waarmee je bezig bent.geen ideeOnze organisatie geeft vrijwilligers de kans om in Afrika vrijwilligerswerk te doen. We werven uitsluitend via Internet (een conventionele website). Op de site verwijzen we door naar blogs van voormalige vrijwilligers. Ook is de Facebook groep een goed kanaal gebleken voor het uitwisselen van ervaringen onder vrijwilligers onderling.U vindt nieuwe woorden uit:"ontwikkelingssamenhulp". Er is al teveel virtualiteit en er zijn al zoveel misverstanden. Als iedereen dan nog eens zijn mening zomaar toevoegt...We hebben nu als kleine organisatie al moeite om onze site te updaten. Algemeen vind ik nog steeds meer nadelen dan voordelen aan netlog, facebook en andereik heb nog ooit gehoord van web2.0. we hebben wel een website, dit is natuurlijk handig, maar hoe meer bekendheid-relaties-... hoe beter, dus er is wel interesse, maar ik denk voor internet-leken als wij, is die applicatie ons onbekend (en dus ook onbemind).beste: wij konden geen toevoegingen doen bij "andere". wij werken wel met yahoo-groepen en ruime emailzendingen.


Geen ideeWIJ GEBRUIKEN WEBSITE ; FACEBOOK EN TWIITER MAAR HEBBEN NOG NIET GEHOORD VAN WEB 2.0 WWW.DOCTORSONMISSION.BEMeer kennisniksnog nooit van gehoord, zit in burkina fasoNaambekendheid, werving van vrijwilligers, bekend maken van events, ...Informatie ter beschikking stellenHet is gemakkelijker om je boodschap over te brengen (YouTube) of om activiteiten aan te kondigen (Facebook). Veel effectier en efficiënter dan affiches te moeten gaan plakken of flyeren.Geen, we ontwikkelingshulp is een nevenaspect van onze organisatie. We zetten voorlopig ook nog maar zeer voorzichtige stappen in de 2.0 wereld omdat ons organisatiemodel op zich zeer stevig is. We zien 2.0 meer als een aanvulling op dat organisatiemodel.Geen idee.geen idee

Annex 3 : Content Analysis of Facebook Groups

Content Analysis: Facebook Groups model of J. Gingner – University of Illnois

I ll be gathering aspects from the following categories.

General information

Name Date accessed

Description Summary

Members

Activity Summary

PhotosVideos Discussion BoardWall PostsLinks PagesEvents

Full Text for Coding

Discussion Board Wall Posts

1. Bana Leuven


Accessed: 26th of April 2010-04-26

Description Summary

Bana Leuven is an organisation of Congolose people and friends of the Democratic Republic Congo. Its objective is to contribute to Congo.

Members

2,009 friends

Activity Summary

Photos: 8 photo albums: Photo Album 1: Affiches ActivitesPhoto Album 2: Mix LeuvenPhoto Album 3: La Voix des CongolaisPhoto Album 4: Independance Cha ChaPhoto Album 5: WereldfeestPhoto Album 6: Buffet CongolaisPhoto Album 7: Projet SALISAPhoto Album 8: Membre, amis, activtes.

Videos: No videos

Discussion Board: Note Board – No notes

Wall Posts: 43 posts (since January 2010)16 posts placed by the organisation (organisational announcements)5 comments placed by members18 Likes! (Thumbs up) 4 postings by others

Links/ Pages: LE CONGO RDC CHANGERA, MOI J’Y CROIS ET TOI ?

Events: 7 Events: Event 1: The official Congo 50th Independence CelebrationEvent 2: RDC 50 ans de non independanceEvent 3: Concert humanitaire pour en faveur des victimes de la guerre en RDCEvent 4: AnniversaireEvent 5: La semaine congolaise de l’ULBEvent 6: Diner independance: buffet, muziek en film


Event 7: 50 ans, juste une tombe pour Lumumba

Extra Remarks: There is no real dialogue taking place.

2. bee acholi


Description Summary:

Bee acholi is a non profit organisation that helps farmers in the South. More specific in the district Kitgum in Norther Oeganda. The name Bee acholi has a double meaning it stands for supporting bee project and acholi is the name of the people they are trying to support. The organization is created out of a group classmates interested in the environment, friends and symphatizers.

Members:61 People like this!

Activity Summary

Photos: 3 Photo AlbumsAlbum 1: Spaghetti-avond 2010 (124 photos) Benefiet, Buurtcentrum RabotAlbum 2: 2 Wall Photos, Album 3: KIWEPI – Mei 2009 Kitgum- Uganda No one added fan photos

Videos: No videos

Discussions Board: Zero,’0’-‘There are no discussions’

Wall Posts: 15 wall posts (since creation in xx)13 of the 15 wall posts are by Likes (Friends)! 3 are photo album postings1 is the link posting3 postings are event announcements (Spaghetti- night and a seminar around the organization, bee-event sponsoring)

4 postings are organisational announcements (sponsoring news, reunion news)

2 wall posts are by Others (Non Likes) Comments for congratulating the organisation

Links/ Pages: 1 Link


Link to live project page of bee acholi : http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bee-Acholi/122986305445

Events: No events

Extra remarks: I do not remark dialogue

3. Bonjour Afrique



Employees and partners of Telenet that are trying to help Africa. (more specifically Senegal)

Members: 187 members

Activity Summary

Photos: 47 photos and 3 videosSchool project in Senegal

Videos: No videos


Wall Posts: 26 wall posts (since creation end 2008)18 of the 26 postings are from the organisation announcing events and organisational information5 postings are from members of supporting and congratulating kind 1 posting is from another member of congratulating kind (“Great Job- Thank You”)

Links/ Pages: 15 linksLinks to garagetv.be for a movie on the project en djembe at the Pennezackenrock event.

Events: No events


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bee-Acholi/122986305445

Extra Remarks: I do not remark a dialogue

4. Bouworde



Is a non profit organisation that organizes vacation for volonteers. Everyone between the age of 15 and 30 can participate in social, ecological and technical projects in a building camp in Europe, Africa, Asia or Latin-America. This way the Northern can come in touch with Southern Youth, live in solidarity and help the needy.

Members: 603 Likes !No friend or member composition. One can only give a thumps up!

Activity Summary

Photos: 8 photo albums Album 1: Wall Photos (5 photos)Album 2: Trefdag 2009 (35 photos)Album 3: 1ste KP- weekend (10 photos)Album 4: Danku – Dag 2009 (7 photos)Album 5: Zoet NaZomer Zondag (24 photos)Album 6: Buna Fiesta 2009 (46 photos) Album 7: Fotowedstrijd 2008 (19 photos)Album 8: Fotowedstrijd 2009 (16 photos)

Videos: No videos


Wall Posts: 315 wall posts (since October 2009)65 wall posts are from the organisation (information about the organisation, events, organizational announcements, welcome notes to members – help requests 176 thumbs up (Likes!)74 comments on the wall from members

Links/ Pages: 6 links and 3 Favorite Pages


Links about the organisation itself, announcements. 3 Favorite pages about the organisation abroad (Italy, Marocco and Poland)

Events: No events

Extra remarks: I do remark dialogue in which in the form of excessive thumbs up (Likes!) and the amount of comments. On this webpage there is clear interactivity with the members and the organisation. Although, almost daily activity on the site.

5. Fanfa Kids



None available on the Facebook page

Members: 337 Friends

Activity Summary

Photos: No Photos posted by the organisation1 Album posted by Fanfakids Italy1 Flickr album posted by member1 Video posted by member

Videos: No videos

Discussions Board: Not available

Wall Posts: 99 wall posts (since December 2009)27 wall posts are from the organisation (information about when they have events23 comments on the wall from members 49 thumbs up (Likes!)Almost daily activity on the page

Links/ Pages: 4 links and 5 pagesAll links to the organisation.1 to Fanfakids on Youtube1 to Fanfakids on Myspace1 to Picasaweb photoalbums on fanfakids (29 albums)3 Favorite pages about the organisation abroad (Italy, Marocco and Poland)


5 linked Facebook pages to Music related pagesYAMA (Young Audiences Music Award) PAR TOT PARATA (Music Festival)Pieter Embrechts (Belgian singer and musician)Jeunesses Musicales International (JMI) Largest Youth music NGO in the worldderedeactie.be (Belgian Nieuws website)

Events: No events

Extra Remarks: I do remark dialogue in which in the form of excessive thumbs up (Likes!) and the amount of comments. On this webpage there is clear interactivity with the members and the organisation.

While I was online looking at their page a posting was made and within seconds an immediate thumbs up was made.

6. Quality of Life Nepal – Sarangkot



Quality of Life Nepal is a non profit organisation and its main purpose is improving the life of the low castes of sarangkot that live below the poverty line and are socially and economically deprived. Quality of life provide better school education, medical care, drinking water, economic projects and funds the local governental school so that the standard of living can be raised and children have a chance to survive and develop.

Members: 140 Likes No friend or member composition. One can only give a thumps up!

Activity Summary

Photos: 8 Photo album + 10 Fan Photos and 1 VideoAlbum 1: Wall photos (7 photos)Album 2: Day Care Centre 2010 (5 photos)Album 3: Day Care Cenre 2010 (5 photos)Album 4: Teacher Training (2 photos)Album 5: Profile Pictures (2 photos)Album 6: Aid to the Government School (56 photos)Album 7: Youth club (12 photos)


Album 8: Daycare centre- Parents Day (35 photos) 10 Added Fan photos

Videos: 1 Video on the project in Nepal

Discussions Board: Not available

Wall Posts: 92 wall posts (November 2008)30 wall posts are from the organisation (information on the project) 33 comments on the wall from members 26 thumbs up (Likes!)Almost daily activity on the page

Links/ Pages: 4 links and 4 Favorite pagesAll links to the organisation.1 to Fanfakids on Youtube1 to Fanfakids on Myspace1 to Picasaweb photoalbums on fanfakids (29 albums)3 Favorite pages about the organisation abroad (Italy, Marocco and Poland)

4 Favorite Pages Prisoners Assistance Nepal (Organisation to rid prisons of unnecssary suffering in hardship)Red Panda (Guesthouse in Kathmandu)Small Star (Project organisation to help Nepal)Radio 1212 (A combination of various radio station to help Haiti)

Events: No events

Extra Remarks: I do remark dialogue in which in the form of thumbs up (Likes!) and the amount of comments. However many of the comments are from the same members. While I was online looking at their page a posting was made and within seconds.

7. Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen vzw



Friends and symphatizers of the orphanage El Caren in Chili.

Members: 76 members


Links/ Pages: 6 linksLinks about the organisation and its events

Activity Summary

Photos: 7 Photos

Videos: No videos

Discussions Board: 2 Discussion postsDiscussion on Buscur familia

Wall Posts: 27 wall posts (February 2009)10 wall posts from the organization (random talks- chit chat)13 comments or more like discussions from members4 thumbs up (Likes!)Almost daily activity on the page

Links/ Pages: None

Events: None

Extra remarks: Even though the organisation doesnt have that many members or wall posts. But the wall posts that are available are very interactive. There is constant discussion between the page creator and its members. This is in the form of questions and answers.

8. La Cascarilla

Accessed: 27th of April 2010


This organisation supports the Cascarilla community in the Northern part of Peru. This in order to improve their education. Helping education is conducted in four levels: 1) Building new classrooms, 2) Launching a school for helping a better environment, 3) Using alternate engergy sources and 4) Microcredit for the parents.

Members: 91 members


Activity Summary

Photos: 13 Photos

Videos: No videos

Discussions Board: There are no discussions

Wall Posts: 10wall posts (December 2008)5 wall posts from the organization (organisational announcements)5 posts added by others

Links/ Pages: 2 Links1 photo link 1 link about the Cascarilla event

Events: 1 Breakfast promotion

Extra Remarks: none

9. Rock Bujumbura



Helps young people set up their own music group in Burundi. Old music tools are collected and repaired by students in Belgium and send to Burundi.

Members: 334 Friends

Activity Summary

Photos: 3 Photo AlbumsAlbum 1: November 09 Rock BujumburaAlbum 2: Rock photo’sAlbum 3: Wall Photos

Videos: None



Wall Posts: 1 wall posts (December 2009)

Links/ Pages: 1 link1 link to music for life and the help of rock bujumbura

Events: 8 eventsEvent 1: Comedy ten voordele van 11.11.11Event 2: Muziekkewis ZVC DINO LovendegemEvent 3: geschenkenbeurs tijdens kerstmarkt LovendegemEvent 4: Dino’s top 100Event 5: (h)eerlijk OxfamontbijtEvent 6: cd release Powerstroke “Once…We Were Kings”Event 7: oudleidings quizEvent 8: 48 uren

Extra Remarks: No dialogue

10. Rose VZW



ROSE vzw is an independent, nonprofit (called a "vzw" in Belgium) and volunteer organization based in Leuven. Its mission is to support and foster basic education for children from economically disadvantaged rural communities in developing countries. Towards its mission ROSE organizes fund-raising events such as concert and dinner and receives donations and support from individuals, companies, and like-minded organizations.

Members: 19 members

Activity Summary

Photos: 26 photos

Videos: no videos



Wall Posts: 5 wall posts (April 2010)1 posting by the organisation (announcements)4 postings by another member

Links/ Pages: 1 Link to Rose homepage

Events: No events


11. Senegambiagroup



Senegambiagroup is an initiative in the Gambia and Senegal. A group of people that volonteer to give Gambia and Senegal a better future.

Members: 24 Likes! (thumbs up)

Activity Summary

Photos: No photos

Videos: No videos

Discussion Board: There are no discussions

Wall Posts: 5 wall posts (February 2010)All wall postings by the organisation

Links/ Pages: 4 Links about the organisation4 Favorite pages1. taverne ’t Verrassingske2. Senegal vlaanderen3. ITPrint4 Senegambiafamily

Events: No events



12. Vrijwillig wereldwijd



The mission of vrijwillig wereldwijd is to help people that want to volonteer go abroad and help others. Projects are in Ghana, Burkina-Faso, Zuid-Afrika, Nepal, Vietnam, Suriname, Peru and Brazil

Members: 33 Likes! (thumbs up)

Activity Summary

Photos: 3 Photo AlbumsAlbum 1: SurinameAlbum 2: Kumasi, GhanaAlbum 3: No one added phan photos

Videos: no videos

Discussions Board: 2 discussions Ervaringen VietnamErvaringen Ghana

Wall Posts: 20 wall posts (November 2009)12 wall postings by the organisation (posting of photos)6 Likes (thumbs up) 2 postings by others

Events: 7 eventsEvent 1: Inloopmiddag voor alle landenEvent 2: Deelnamedag Burkina FasoEvent 3: Deelnamedag VietnamEvent 4: Deelnamedag NepalEvent 5: Deelnamedag PeruEvent 6: Inloopmiddag voor alle landen Links/ Pages: 1 link about the organisation

Events: No events

Extra Remarks: Small dialogue


13. We are Burma



We are Burma is an event that will bring together thinkers, politicians, artists, media and social entrepreneurs to encourage individuals in their own small way to take responsibility for the situation in Burma. The dual purpose of the evening is to bring attention to the Burma situation among European circles and to highlight the work being done in the field by small and medium NGO’s who risk their lives delivering cross border aid, relief, health services and educational programs inside Burma. Special focuses are those projects, which are engaged in delivering education services to these knowledge-starved populations. The event showcases popular local performers and keynote addresses from Burma experts and will also première several short videos. This combination of entertainment and of learning more about the situation in Burma will culminate in an invitation to get involved and help. They also highlight the upcoming elections in 2010 and encourage European politicians to actively get involved so as to elevate this process.

Members: 1,616 members

Activity Summary

Events: 1 event of We are Burma

Photos: 55 Photos

Videos: No videos

Discussions Board: 3 discussions Who would you like to see at the event? Who’s responsible?Why Burma?

Wall Posts: 130 wall posts (August 2009)41 wall postings by the organisation (posting of photos and news, many responses to members- interaction)


20 Likes (thumbs up) 49 postings by others 20 comments

Links/Pages: 24 links23 links to burma in the news and on youtube in photo albums and on facebook. 1 Link to Dharma Activity West

Events: No events

Extra remarks: This page has true dialogue. The administrator responds to the comments and posting either the next day or within the same day. People that dont know each other really intereact with each other.

14. Zuiddag



Zuiddag helps through youth in the North youth in the South. One day of the year young students work for a day in a company or organization or entrepreneur and donate the work they made that day to a youth project in the South.

Members: 269 Likes

Activity Summary

Photos: 5 photo albumsAlbum 1: Wall PhotosAlbum 2: Jongerenbijeenkomst 2010Album 3: Campagne 2009- Uganda op je schoolAlbum 4: Campagne 2009- Uganda in Belgium! Free time!Album 5: Campagne 2009- Werkdag!

Videos: 8 videos

Discussions Board: No discussions

Wall Posts: 184 wall posts (February 2010)30 wall postings by the organisation (posting of photos and organisational updates)120 Likes (thumbs up) 34 comments


Links/ Pages: No links and Pages

Extra Remarks: There is excessive dialogue in the form of Likes. It seems that young people tend to communicate more in form of symbols such as likes then actually make a conversation.

Annex 4: Interviews of fourth pillar structure

Interview April 26- at random selection of organizations that do not use social media. (In Dutch- via phone)_____________________________________________________________________

6. Organization SISP: Sebastian Indian Social Projects – Mrs. Danielle Van Krieken.

1. Ik heb gezien dat jullie geen gebruik maken van sociale media? Waarom niet?

Sociale media kennen veel rotzooi, wij hebben geprobeerd het te gebruiken in het begin, toen facebook en dergelijke applicaties net op kwam. Wij hadden ontzettend veel last van Internet criminaliteit. Wij hebben dit ook moeten melden aan e-cops. Een aantal van deze mensen zijn dan ook offline gegooid door e-cops. Dit is ook gebeurd op nootnet. Hier hebben wij nu een privé aansluiting, niemand kan ons daar lastig vallen. Veiligheid op het Internet is toch wel belangrijk.

Wij gebruiken het Internet niet meer, wij doen alles door ons persoonlijk netwerk. Mogelijke sponsors spreken en schrijven wij persoonlijk aan.

2. Waarom hebben jullie een website? Wat is het doel van deze website?

De website is vooral om laatste nieuwtjes over wat er ginder gebeurt te posten. Hoe evolueert de situatie enz. Mensen updaten.

3. Is er veel interactie tussen jullie leden, vrijwilligers en sponsors? Hoe gebeurt de dialoog top down or bottom up?

Wij sturen vier maal per jaar krantjes uit met informatie die belang kan hebben voor de sponsors. Deze informatie staat ook op de website. Alle grote sponsors zijn allen terplaatste geweest in Zuid-India. Zij hebben daar de school en de atelier bezocht.


Wij hebben drie mensen in het bestuur en organiseren vijf keer per jaar samen een vergadering. Hier kunnen sponsors en vrijwilligers hun inspraak doen, vaak nemen we dit in acht. Ik denk wel at voor onze organisatie er een bottom up communicatie gebeurd.

Wij hebben jaarlijks mensen die naar Zuid-India vrijwillige reizen. Een andere Mechelaar, Paul die is ter plaatse geweest en heeft een surfers groep opgestart. Kinderen uit de sloppenwijken mochten niet in de zee surfen van de hotels, deze Mechelaar heeft dit conflict opgelost en de jongeren leren surfen. Zij kunnen nu surfboarden verhuren en zelf ook les geven.

Wij voeren binnen de organisatie, wij hebben eenheden in Italië, Engeland en Frankrijk allen kleinschalige projecten uit. De persoonlijke aanpak is nog steeds het belangrijkste. Mensen aanschrijven helpt niet, Je moet ze gaan overtuigen, ze moeten het met eigen ogen zien. Sociale netwerken op het Internet helpt niet. Mond aan mond reclame is nog steeds nodig. Je persoonlijk netwerk gebruiken en uitbreiden. Contacten leggen met mensen die je kent!

Als voorbeeld wij geven een Indisch etentje. Dit publiceren we in de Mechelse stadskrant, we hebben dit georganiseerde met een ploeg van 37 vrijwilligers. Mensen zien hoe goed onze organisatie in elkaar zit. Dit is belangrijk.

Ik had vanwege mijn vorige positie als delegee in de vakbond en de socialistische vrouwenbeweging al een groot netwerk en dit heb ik dan ook gebruikt en uitgebreid. Het is gegroeid vanuit het persoonlijke netwerk en uitgebreid via via. Dit enkel met mond tot mond reclame zijn we enorm snel gegroeid.

Publiciteit is voor winkels, bedrijven maar niet voor organisaties. Het gaat nog steeds over Mensen. Daarom moet je ook mensen aanspreken.

De organisatie draait vlot omdat we 580 sponsors hebben die maandelijks een bijdrage storten. Er word voor educatie en voedsel voor kinderen gezorgd. Straatkinderen die verplicht waren te gaan in de seks industrie, kinderen die moesten gaan werken of van alles gaan verkopen om te overleven. Wij geven 10 rupies per maand aan de ouders zodanig dat zij voor voedsel voor hun kind kunnen zorgen en deze naar school kunnen laten gaan.

Ook hebben wij een atelier. In dit atelier worden kokosnoot schillen verwerkt. In India zijn er meer dan 300 miljoen kokosnoten. Het afval van de kokosnoot, de schil wordt verwerkt en gebruikt om allerlei soorten materialen te maken. Dit wordt gemaakt door mensen uit de buurt. In Zuid-Azie is de visserij stuk gegaan door overbevissing van de multinationals. Wij bieden mensen tools om uit de armoede te raken dat zij niet langer afhankelijk zijn van giften.

Om meer sponsors aan te werven, trekken wij naar solidariteitsmarkten, zoals kerstmarkten en sociale markten. Daar verkopen wij dan materialen uit de atelier; dit zijn armbaden, oorringen, potjes enz. Hier geven wij pamfletten mee waar mensen kunnen lezen hoe ze aan onze organisatie kunnen donoren.


Ook voeren wij schoolprojecten uit. Kinderen vertellen over hoe dat het leven is in Zuid-Azie met een les aardrijkskunde en geschiedenis. Via ouderdag op school sensibiliseren wij ouders over het feit dat het niet evident is dat iedereen naar school gaat in andere landen. Nogmaals wij spreken mensen hier persoonlijk aan!

4. Trekken jullie met de website meer mensen aan of gewoon enkel de mensen die de organisatie al kennen?

Mensen die iets zoeken over India komen vaak op onze website terecht. Jongeren die een stage willen doen mailen ons. Ondertussen hebben we regels uitgeschreven voor stages. Vooral mensen die kennis hebben over de situatie daar.

Extra: Wij volgen workshops over vrijwilligers van de vierdepijler enz.

7. Organization: FINADO (Ethiopië): Mrs. Greta Van Boven


Wij kennen dat niet, iedereen in onze organisatie is wat ouder, Ik heb zes grote kinderen en moet hen constant op de gevaren van het internet. Ik vind het gans gedoe ik heb geen zin om me er in te verdiepen.


Een website is statisch. Mensen kunnen kijken wat er gebeurt. Het is zeer informatief. Dat is voldoende.


Wij verspreiden vier maal per jaar een nieuwsbrief dus ja dit is top down communicatie. Voor interactie kunnen vrijwilligers en sponsors ons gewoon mailen. Er zijn 240 sponsorfamilies, soms sturen zij mailtjes om te vragen hoe het met hun kindje in Ethiopie is.


Dat kan maar dat denk ik niet. Ik denk dat het eerder mensen zijn die via via finado gehoord hebben.

5. Hoe doen jullie aan leden werving, sponsor werving of vrijwilligers rekrutering?

Vooral mond aan mond reclame. Er komen ook nieuwe mensen vaak ik denk door de ‘adoptiewereld’, zij zoeken naar kinderen. Soms weet ik hetzelf ook niet hoe dat die mensen


op onze site geraken. Je moet er toch ergens van gehoord hebben om het te kunnen vinden. Dus mond aan mond.

Iedereen die naar ons mailt krijgt automatisch de nieuwsbrief toegestuurd.

Het leden aantal is enkel het adressen bestand.

6. Bent u van plan in de toekomst sociale media te gebruiken?

Nee ik denk het niet. Onze organisatie verouderd en de jongeren hebben geen tijd. Wij staan ook niet op solidariteit beurzen. Wel de Haïti tak.

8. Organization Rahmanif: Miss Sofia


Wij zijn net nog maar een tijdje geleden gestart. Dus om praktische redenen zijn we er nog niet mee begonnen. In de toekomst zijn we wel van plan dit doen.


Vooral om sponsors aan te trekken, om projecten te realiseren in korte tijd.


Ja de leden, vrijwilligers en sponsors zijn vooral kennissen, familieleden en vrienden. Zij zijn wel van plan dit te doen. We communiceren telefonisch en via mail.


We krijgen invitaties om avonden met onze menu te regelen.

9. Organization Fatimacenter: Mrs. Anita Claes


Toch wel, Ja wij staan op facebook met de naam Vriendenkring FatimaCenter . Dit doen we vooral om de verkopen aan te kondigen. We staan sinds Novemember 2009 op facebook. Dit omdat we een geschenkenbeurs organiseerden.

Ook sturen de kinderen naar hun vrienden de uitnodiging via facebook. Maar ik vind dit hetzelfde als mailen.


2. Hebben jullie via Facebook nieuwe sympathisanten kunne rekruteren?

Neen zeker niet. Misschien een paar nieuwe maximum.


Vooral het kenbaar maken, naar de website verwijzen om de webshop te bekijken. De webshop begint nu te lopen.


Communicatie loopt vooral via de mail. Ook bezoeken we jaarlijks ons project in Thailand en nu hebben we een nieuw in Cambodja. Onze zoon is nog maar net ter plaatste geweest.

Ook hebben we veel inbreng van mensen die zeggen van zullen we dit zus ofzo aanpakken. Zoals het nieuwe initiatief Thaise massage (Bij de verkoop kan je nu ook een Thaise massage laten doen en Thaise hapjes eten.) We hebben vier maal per jaar digitale nieuwsbrieven en een open vergadering. Bij de verkoop zijn er wel 30 mensen betrokken.


Veel mensen komen op de website via mond aan mond maar toch denk ik date r ook andere komen op terecht komen. Vooral mensen die met ontwikkelingssamenwerking bezig zijn.

6. Gaan jullie in de toekomst meer sociale netwerken gebruiken?

Ja wij gaan dit zeker doen omdat het toch wel het geprefereerde medium is voor de jonge mensen.

7. Hoe doen jullie aan leden of fondsenwerving?

Vooral binnen de gemeente doen we dit. Rond de verkoop spreken we handelaars aan die een project steunen en bijvoorbeeld vragen of zij een leerkracht gedurende vier jaar om ter plaatste les te willen geven sponsoren. Maar we moeten het vooral hebben van onze opbrengsten uit de verkoop.

Dit jaar organiseren we een inleefreis voor zeven mensen op die manier kunnen ze het project beter leren kennen.

10. Organization Support Ghana: Mr. Luc Somers



Toch wel, Wij gebruiken facebook. Dit om events aan te kondigen zoals Ghana café. Wij sturen dit via facebook door naar vrienden. Deze kunnen dit doorsturen naar andere vrienden. Ik doe dit vanuit mijn persoonlijke account. (vandaar dat ik het niet kan zien)

1.5. Dus u staat positief tegenover Facebook?

Jazeker. Het is een goeie manier om mensen te bereiken. Ook komt er dan op hun profielpagina van kijk, het evenement komt eraan. Het bereik wordt groter. Je stuurt het naar vrienden die dat naar vrienden enz. doorsturen.

Onze organisatie is ook bekender geworden door Facebook. Vrienden die niet wisten waarmee we bezig waren, weten dat nu.

2. Wat is het doel van de website?

Ons programma kenbaar maken. De missie en de doelen kenbaar maken. Een historiek en foto’s weergeven. Een website is toch wel het aangewezen media kanaal van vandaag. Hier kunnen mensen een overzicht hebben van de organisatie. Facebook gebruiken we enkel voor evenementen.

3. Mensen die u website bezoeken, wie zijn dat vooral?

Vooral mensen die al aan ontwikkelingssamenwerking doen. Ik denk eigenlijk van alles. Mensen waarmee je sporadisch contact hebt gehad en die dan gaan doorklikken naar de website.

Ook doen wij initiatieven met scholen. Aan de leerlingen geven we dan folders mee waar de naam van onze website opstaat. Vaak gaan ouders ook die websites bekijken. Zij zijn dan ons doelpubliek. Wij merken vaak de dag nadat wij een scholenbezoek hebben gedaan dat er dan veel meer mensen naar de website surfen.

Naast de gewone website hebben we ook blogs. We maken deze blog op blogspot. We schrijven hier onze verhalen over onze werkreis. We zetten de blog niet specifiek op de website anders wordt het te verwarrend. Voor iedere werkreis creëren we een nieuwe weblog, wel zetten we de links naar de blog op onze website.

4. Hoe gebeurd de rekrutering van leden (indien jullie met leden werken), vrijwilligers of fondsen?

Wij proberen onze rekrutering te beperken. We werken vooral met vrienden. We willen geen grote ledenorganisatie worden. Dat is de bedoeling niet. We beperken ons tot scholenacties.

Wel hebben we voor een fondsenwerving eenmaal ‘Swim For Ghana’ gedaan. Wij kenden iemand die aan het trainen was voor het kanaal over te steken. Hij was aan het samenwerking


met andere organisaties en zo hebben we dan onze krachten bijeengestoken. Dus het is vooral het samenwerken met anderen om je doel te bereiken.

5. Hoe gebeurd de communicatie in de organisatie? Hiermee bedoel ik naar de sponsors toe? Vooral top down of bottom up?

Vooral top down communicatie. Geld inzamelen en sensibiliseren. Regelmatig samen zitten met elkaar. Gebruik maken van de vriendenkring en kennissen. In 2011 organiseren we een inleef reis via mond tot mond reclame.

Extra?

Belangrijk is ook dat je eigen website goed profileerd. Wij linken onze website ook op de website van de gemeente. Hier kondigt de gemeente dan onze evenementen aan. Ook kondigen wij onze evenementen aan in de Editie Pajot van het Nieuwsblad. Dit staan ook op de online website van het nieuwsblad. Dit is toch ook wel heel belangrijk, dat je de activiteiten aankondigt. Het is krachtig en je bereikt meer mensen. De pers ziet het dan ook en pikt dan ook rapper je organisatie op. Zo gewoon gaan ze er misschien niet op ingaan.

11. Organization Volkstuinen: Mr. Willy Goethals

1.Wat is het doel van jullie website? Mensen op grote schaal bereiken. Bekendheid maken. Helaas wordt de website door onze vrijwilliger niet goed opgevolgd.

2. Hoe doen jullie vooral dan aan naambekendheid?

Affiches en flyers in de onmiddelijke buurt. Mond aan mond reclame is nog steeds de efficientste manier.

3. Maken jullie gebruik van de sociale media?

Nee. We maken wel gebruik om op andere websites te publiceren. Websites zoals wattedoen. Ook publiceren we in de kultuurkrant. De Gentse wijk aan zet folders.

4. Waarom maken jullie geen gebruik van sociale media?

In het bestuur en de algemene vergadering ligt de leeftijd tussen de 45 & 50 jaar. De oudste is 87 jaar. Deze mensen krijg je niet warm voor sociale media te gebruiken.

5. Is er een plan om in de toekomst sociale media te gebruiken?

Ja dat is er zeker, we moeten enkel iemand vinden die zich daarmee wil bezig houden.


6. Wat hoop je te bereiken indien je sociale media voor u organisatie gaat gebruiken?

Ik hoop daar door meer zichtbaarheid te krijgen. Door een groter sociaal netwerk kan je toch gemakkelijker dingen gaan doen.

7. Werken jullie met leden of vrijwilligers, hoe werven jullie donaties?

Wij moeten geen donaties werven of leden. Wij hebben grond ter beschikking gekregen van de stad Gent en voor een kleine vergoeding mogen mensen deze tuinen bewerken. Wij hebben 95 leden tuiniers en 90 leden niet tuiniers, 8 bestuurders en 10 voor de algemene vergadering.

We hebben 94 tuintjes dus als we 94 mensen hebben is het vol en hoeven we geen andere mensen te gaan zoeken. De vraag is groter dan het aanbod. Nu werken wij aan co-tuinieren. Dit wil zeggen dat vrienden of familie van de tuinier deze ook mogen bewerken.

8. Hoe verloopt de communicatie intern en met de achterban is er dialoog.

Wij sturen mails uit. 80 percent van ons leden bestand plus bestuur heeft email. Toch merken we dat degene die geen email hebben zich achtergesteld voelen omdat de anderen meteen op de hoogte zijn. Dit brengt een beetje ruzie teweeg. Naar degene die geen email hebben sturen we brieven en we zeggen ook aan onze leden om steeds de andere leden te informeren dus via via.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview March 19 and April 26- at random selection of five organizations that do use social media. (In Dutch- via phone)

12. Organization Rock Bujumbura: Mr. Thomas Hiergens

1. Hoe werven jullie fondsen of leden ?

Verzamelt tweedehands muziekinstrumenten. Deze laten ze maken door technische scholen vierde en vijfde middelbaar. Dit wordt ter beschikking gezet in een lokaal in Bujumbura. Voor twee euro per jaar kunnen mensen zich aboneren op rock Bujumbura en dan in het lokaal gaan oefenen of repeteren wanneer het open is. In totaal zijn er in Bujumbura 70 muzikanten. Wij hebben een eigen netwerk van 100 mensen in Belgie.

2. Hoe staan jullie over sociale media?

We zijn aanwezig op youtube, myspace en netlog. Toch is tweepuntnullen niet genoeg om mensen te rekruteren, je moet zelf op zoek gaan. Het is niet omdat je een website hebt dat je gegarandeerd donaties en klanten hebt.


Ik geloof niet echt in facebook meer in myspace, daar heeft iedere organisatie zijn eigen pagina.

3. Hoe verloopt de dialoog met de achterban?

Ons netwerk bestaat uit vrienden en familie dus er is wel een enorme interactiviteit.

13. Organization Zuiddag: Mrs. Ellen De Raeymaecker

1. Ik heb gezien dat jullie een facebook pagina hebben. Wat doen jullie met de comments?

Wij doen daar niet zoveel mee. Ik probeer wel steeds te reageren maar dit is nog niet structureel. Het is wel onze doelstelling om dit structureel te maken. Momenteel ben ik de enige werknemer. Vanaf 15 Mei 2010 krijg ik wel een medewerker communicatie die gaat dan (Netlog, Facebook en Twitter) beheren. Dus de communicatie binnen de 2.0 technieken.

In de toekomst wil ik dat er een dialoog ontstaat. Het moet niet alleen blijven tot het reageren op de comments. Het is een eerste stap, als ze echt meer geïnteresseerd raken. Kan je het gesprek offline organiseren en zullen de jongeren wel naar een bijeenkomst komen.

2. Hoe rekruteren je leden of vrijwilligers? Indien jullie met deze werken?

Wij zullen binnenkort met twee personeelsleden zijn. De beheerraad bestaat uit zeven volwassen. Wij werken niet met leden. Iedereen die wilt meewerken is lid. We willen met jongeren mee groeien. Nu zijn we een jongeren traject aan het uit bouwen waar jongeren kunnen instaan voor de organisatie. We willen de beelden en de teksten van de organisatie in de handen van jongeren geven. Twee jaar geleden deden er 4000 jongeren mee aan Zuiddag, vorig jaar waren dat er 10000. Het groeit zo ieder jaar.

De rekrutering gebeurd via de scholen. Dus top down. We bekijken de steden en kiezen degene die strategisch belangrijk zijn voor ons eruit. Wij zijn begonnen met vier scholen het eerste jaar en het tweede jaar hadden we acht scholen. Vanaf dat er scholen zijn die hebben meegedaan in een bepaalde regio, komen automatisch de andere scholen mee.

Niet alleen is er top – down communicatie. Wij hebben ook Bottom – up communicatie. Via netlog hebben wij reacties gekregen van leerlingen die over deze actie hebben gehoord en ook willen deelnemen. Zij hebben ons project dan aan hun school voorgedragen en zo zijn wij dan in contact gekomen met hun directie. Wij hebben liever dat alles via bottom – up verloopt maar dit kan nu eenmaal niet. Het moet via de directie gaan voor de wetgeving.

Ook doen wij open oproepen via VVSG en maken we publiciteit in Klasse voor deelname aan de campagne.


3. Wat doen jullie in de scholen?

Het is een tweedelige taak. We doen aan educatie en fondsenwerving. Op Zuiddag gaan de leerlingen een dag werken voor een bedrijf, organisatie of zelfstandige. Het loon dat zij op deze dag verdienen wordt door gestort aan een project in het Zuiden. De leerlingen weten zeer goed waarvoor ze die dag werken. Omdat hun leeftijdsgenootjes uit het Zuiden eerst een scholen bezoek doen in Belgie om te komen vertellen waarvoor hun centjes gebruikt worden. Vorig jaar kwamen er jongeren uit Ugunda om het project Vredeseilanden te steunen.

4. Wie zijn jullie vriendjes op facebook? Kennen jullie die allemaal? Zijn het vooral mensen die geïnteresseerd zijn in ontwikkelingssamenwerking of anderen?

Een deel ervan zijn mijn vrienden en vrienden van mijn vrienden. Deze mensen zijn interessant om op onze facebook te hebben omdat zij kunnen zorgen voor jobs in de bedrijven.

Op netlog hebben we meer jongeren. Die meer geïnteresseerd zijn om aan mee te doen aan de actie. Vorig jaar hebben we via netlog betalende dienst naar 5000 onbekenden een mailing gedaan. Dat heeft wel een groot aantal nieuwe vriendjes opgeleverd. Op netlog staan ook meer leerlingen die nog niet hebben meegedaan maar interesse tonen. Op facebook staan vooral jongeren die al wel hebben meegedaan of van gehoord hebben.

Wanneer we naar scholen gaan proberen we van iedere klas, een email adres te hebben. Deze noemen we dan de Zuiddag Vips en die krijgen dan een invite via facebook.

Het zijn vooral mensen die interesse hebben in Zuiddag. Jongeren die een dagje willen gaan werken. Het is niet direct vanuit een interesse voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Wij proberen ze warm te krijgen voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking vanuit een creatief perspectief. Natuurlijk voor sommigen is het wel vanuit de interesse voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking.

5. Maken jullie gebruik van andere 2.0 applicaties ?

Myspace niet. Twitter gebruiken we heel recent met een link naar de facebook pagina. Het is tijdbesparend) zodanig dat er iets op de facebook verandert dit ook aangegeven wordt op Twitter.

6. Waarom maken jullie eigenlijk gebruik van facebook?

Vooral voor naambekendheid. Mensen gaan informeren en sensibiliseren.

Ontwikkelingssamenwerking moet niet perse saai zijn. Wij proberen jongeren op een leuke manier met elkaar te verbinden. We trachten de jongeren uit het Zuiden te verbinden met de


jongeren uit het Noorden. Vaak is er in het Zuiden een slechte internet verbinding maar wanneer het werkt, willen we dat ze met elkaar communiceren.

7. Vind u dat iedereen in de ontwikkelingssamenwerking moet gaan tweepuntnullen?

Vooral wanneer het jongeren zijn is het aangewezen om web 2.0 voor de organisatie te gaan gebruiken. Het hangt allemaal af van het doelpubliek. Als het jongeren zijn dan is het evidentie.

Wij proberen via 2.0 een sterk verhaal uit het Zuiden te brengen. Geen medelijdende video’s smekend voor giften. Belangrijk zijn ook soms structurele veranderingen en die kan je soms niet tonen.

8. Wat is het ultieme doel van web 2.0 in de ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Een groter publiek te bereiken. Een website alleen is niet voldoende. De website is voornamelijk voor scholen, bedrijven om informatie te verkrijgen. Het is de basic info. Het 2.0 gedeelte is communicatief, interactief om de jongeren hun mening te laten horen.

14. Organization Hogar Hermana elisa El Carmen vzw: Mrs. Liesbeth Jacobs

1. Ik heb gezien dat jullie een facebook pagina hebben. Waarvoor gebruiken jullie deze?

Om kinderen die vroeger in het tehuis woonden in contact met elkaar te brengen. Eigenlijk alle mensen die betrokken zijn met het tehuis in contact brengen met elkaar. Dit is zowel directie als begeleiders als peetouders uit België kunne elkaar hier vinden.

2. Werkt het in contact brengen van mensen via facebook goed?

Voorlopig werkt het zeer goed. Vooral tussen de kinderen onderling. Ook hebben we kinderen terug gevonden op facebook waarvan we het spoor zijn kwijt geraakt. Ook mensen die linken hadden met België en het Chileense tehuis hebben hier hun weg terug naar het tehuis gevonden.

3. Hoe deden jullie het in contact brengen van mensen vroeger, zonder facebook?

Dan stuurden wij brieven. Alle communicatie ging per brief. Deze brief kwam dan via via terecht soms via een familielid die nog regelmatig op bezoek gaat naar het tehuis.

4. Naast het in contact brengen van mensen. Waarvoor gebruiken jullie facebook nog?


Om foto’s up te loaden. Wij loaden foto’s van peetkinderen op. Ook gebruiken we daarvoor de Google foto applicatie picassaweb.

5. Dus Facebook is een belangrijke tool voor u organisatie?

Jazeker en email op zich! Facebook is ideaal voor de kinderen, zij vinden vlotjes elkaar terug. Er is dagelijkse activiteit op onze facebook pagina. Er zijn dagelijks kinderen die contact zoeken. Geadopteerde kinderen uit het tehuis die hun oude vriendjes weer opzoeken.

Ook kinderen uit het tehuis die in Frankrijk zijn terecht gekomen vinden hun weg terug naar het tehuis via de Belgische facebook pagina van het tehuis.

6. Dus een website hoeft niet meer? Wat is nog het doel van de website?

De website is vooral voor het eigen publiek. De sponsors. Om nieuwtjes te weten zoals wie van ons gaat naar ginder? Het heeft niet rechtstreeks iets met de kinderen te maken. Ook op de website krijg je transparantie over wat we met de fondsen doen.

7. Hoe doen jullie aan fondsen werving ? Via sociale media, website?

Nee we werken met een peetouder systeem die donaties geeft. Doordat het weeshuis opgericht was door een zuster hebben we veel banden met geestelijken en krijgen we af en toe erfenissen. Ook organiseren we eenmaal per jaar spaghetti avonden.

8. Hoe rekruteren jullie deze peetouders?

Vaak zijn dit vrienden van vrienden. Wij organiseren ook stages naar het weeshuis. Zo komen er regelmatig toch wel peetouders bij. Deze zijn dan families of vrienden van de stagairs.

9. Zijn er op facebook in de vrienden groep ook sympathisanten?

Nee niet echt. De mensen die er bijkomen hebben we eerst offline contact mee gehad.

10. Maken jullie gebruik van nog andere 2.0 applicaties?

In het begin was er sprake om Netlog te gaan gebruiken. Omdat enkele van de begeleiders op netlog zaten. Maar dan hebben we toch besloten het niet te doen. De meesten bleken dan toch op facebook te zitten

11. Wat is volgens u de rol van web 2.0 in de ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Vooral de communicatie bevorderen en het toenemen van de betrokkenheid. Door aanwezig te zijn op facebook zal het aantal donaties niet stijgen of groter worden.


15. Organization Vrijwillig Wereldwijd: Pascal

1. Ik heb gezien dat jullie facebook hebben. Wat doen jullie met de facebook comments? Is er sprake van een dialoog?

Wij zijn begonnen met facebook een maand geleden. Wij zaten of zitten voornamelijk op Hyves. Dat is zoals facebook maar voornamelijk gericht op Nederlanders. Op hyves hebben momenteel weel interactie en dialoog. We informeren en interesseren mensen daar.

2. Waarom zijn jullie op facebook gegaan?

Voor meer en extra bekendheid. Via deze weg kunnen ze ook vrijblijvend kennis maken met de organisatie.

Het doel van de facebook pagina is vooral mensen informeren over dat ze tijdens hun vakantie andere dingen kunnen doen dan puur toerisme. Op facebook maken ook vrijwilligers contact met elkaar voor hun vertrek of zelfs erna. Dit kan via de website niet. Facebook en Hyves bieden gewoon een betere oplossing.

3. Rekruteren jullie vrijwilligers? Indien ja- hoe doen jullie dat dan?

Via Hyves bijvoorbeeld krijgen we regelmatig mails met vragen over de organisatie. Hierdoor kunnen we mensen verder informeren. Ook zitten er op Hyves veel mensen die via onze organisatie naar het buitenland zijn geweest. Zij kunnen dan ook met elkaar praten. Interesse wordt toch nog het meeste gewekt door mond op mond reclame. Facebook en Hyves versterken gewoon deze mond op mond reclame.

4. Bereiken jullie vooral mensen die al interesse hadden in ontwikkelingssamenwerking of maken jullie ze er zelf warm voor?

Voordat we met hyves en facebook bezig waren, hadden we vooral contact met mensen die al geïnteresseerd waren. Nu door via facebook het netwerk te hebben van vrienden naar vrienden gaan andere mensen hier ook interesse voor beginnen te ontwikkelen. Toch is het grotendeels nog mensen die al geïnteresseerd waren.

5. Sturen jullie ook massa mails naar onbekenden?

Nee dit doen we niet je kan ook niet iedereen benaderen. Dat is ook onze bedoeling niet. Wij hebben ook een aanmeldingsprocedure waar we eerst iedereen zijn CV en motivatie opvragen. Dus massa mails naar onbekenden sturen lijkt ons niet aangewezen.

(De communicatie blijkt uit het gesprek, verloopt vooral top down.)


6. Wat is volgens u het ultieme doel van ontwikkelingssamenwerking en sociale media?

Door 2.0 kunnen de hulp organisaties zorgen dat potentiële sponsors, vrijwilligers, etc. meer in dept informatie krijgen. Ze krijgen een ander beeld van de ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden die er zijn.

Het is qua medium zeer goed, het brengt mensen dichter bij elkaar.

16. Organization Centrum West - Fanfakids: Mr. Bart Nagels

1. Ik heb gezien dat jullie een facebook pagina hebben. Is er dialoog via facebook?

Nee er is niet echt dialoog. Wij gebruiken het vooral voor het aankondigen van evenementen.

2. Waarom hebben jullie een facebook pagina aangemaakt?

Om de evenementen aan te kondigen waar de fanfakids gaan optreden. Het waar en wanneer. Hiervoor is het een communicatie middel bij uitstek.

3. Zitten jullie ook op andere 2.0 applicaties?

Ja wij maken ook gebruik van MySpace. Maar veel minder. Hier zitten vaak organisaties en bedrijven op met hun pagina’s. Festival organisatoren contacteren me vaak via Myspace. Maar de kinderen zitten hier niet echt op.

4. Wie zijn de facebook vrienden?

De kinderen zelf. Mensen die via via over fanfa kids hebben gehoord. Mensen die de fanfakids hebben zien optreden, maar dit is een minderheid.

5. Wat is het ultieme doel van facebook voor jullie?

Zoveel mogelijk mensen bereiken.

6. Is een website dan niet voldoende?

Wij kondigen ook onze optredens aan via de website. Mensen gaan niet dagelijks de website checken om te zien wanneer we optreden. Wanneer we dit op facebook posten krijgen mensen dit op hun profiel te zien. Mensen checken facebook wel dagelijks net zoals hun e-mails. Hierdoor bereiken we sneller veel mensen. Indien ze meer info willen kunnen ze dan de website bekijken.


De organisatie op facebook leid zijn eigen weg. Je kan in contact komen met fanfakids zonder er ooit over gehoord te hebben. Dit doordat het wordt doorgestuurd door vrienden van vrienden. Het bereik wordt groter.

7. Ik zag ook dat jullie favoriete pagina’s op facebook hebben toegevoegd? Wat is het nut daarvan?

Je kan zien ik heb een pagina over Bologna toegevoegd. Onlangs zijn we met de kinderen naar Italië, Bologna geweest. Een van de kinderen had dit toegevoegd aan zijn profiel, dus dan heb ik dat ook gedaan. Ik doe mee met de kinderen. Ik probeer pagina’s toe te voegen die met de organisatie te maken hebben. Zo heb ik ook de pagina ‘Durum’ toegevoegd. De kinderen hebben dit in Brussel leren eten en vinden dit heel lekker.

8. Wat is de leeftijd van de kinderen? 8 tot 15

9. Hoe doen jullie aan fondsenwerving?

We hebben ook een uitwisselingsproject met groepen uit Afrika. Dit wordt gesubsideerd door de overheid. Ik heb geen tijd om aan sponsor werving te doen.

10. Hoe rekruteer je de kinderen? Via sociale netwerken?

Ik werk voor het centrum west in Brussel. Wij geven naschoolse Nederlandse les aan anderstalige kinderen. Wij hebben verschillende ateliers. Een daarvan is fanfakids. Dit is uitgegroeid tot meer dan een atelier. Wij rekruteren vooral de kinderen uit de scholen uit de buurt. We willen ook andere kinderen betrekken uit ander gemeente en andere afkomsten om een betere mix te krijgen. Maar de organisatie bestaat vooral uit sociaal achtergestelde kinderen uit de buurt. Dus het is zeker niet de bedoeling om via sociale netwerken kinderen te rekruteren.

11. Hoe gebeurt de communicatie met de kinderen?

80% van de kinderen hebben thuis geen internet verbinding. De 20 % die dit wel heeft krijgen mails toegestuurd en volgen op facebook. Voor de grotere meerderheid geven we gewoon briefjes voor de ouders mee naar huis. Of we bellen hen op.

12. Zitten er veel ouders op facebook?

We hebben gemerkt dat de allochtone ouders niet op facebook aanwezig zijn, wel de autochtone ouders. 13. Wat is volgens u de toekomst van web 2.0 en ontwikkelingssamenwerking?

Het moet gratis blijven. Ik heb gehoord dat er sprake is van het betalend te maken.


De drempel mag niet verhogen anders zijn we het doelpubliek kwijt.

14. Wat zijn de voordelen van 2.0 applicaties?

Het werkt snel, je kan video’s en foto’s uploaden.
