As part of my on-going involvement and support for DemonFM, I’ve been following discussion between volunteers on the Facebook group that we use. This has been really interesting, and I’ve been impressed with the passion and depth of commitment that is being shown to DemonFM, the programmes that the volunteers put out, and the way they are working together to promote a consensual and inclusive working environment. For example, as well as discussing more mundane matters, like access to logs and how equipment works in the studios, the volunteers recently had a long discussion about the merits of the news values that the station does (or doesn’t) follow.
This was quite an extended, and at times heated discussion, but it was interesting to witness how the dynamic of the station has gravitated towards using social media to talk about these things, rather than email, meetings, or other more traditional forms of communication. It was an open discussion, that generated a lot of comments – over one hundred and eighty in total. So it will be quite a rich source of information for analysis.
One thing that I am increasingly interested in finding out more about, is the idea of what makes for good or effective communication in a social network/community media group like DemonFM? How does an organisation like DemonFM, that is de-centred, with very little in the form of centralised management or hierarchy, cope with the demands of producing an ongoing broadcast radio service? How does DemonFM ensure that volunteers are trained to a high standard and aware of their obligations? How does DemonFM ensure that a wide range of debate and discussion is articulated without censoring or over-moderating individuals comments and views? Does the station need an external source of authority to step in and clean up any mess when things get spilled? Or are the volunteers more than capable of communicating respectfully and honestly with each other, and with a minimum of moderation?
For example, we’ve had a series of extended discussions about the use of language within the recent Facebook thread, about the role-out of jobs and tasks, about the structure of the management team, about expectations of professionalism vs voluntarism, and so on. One of the strongest emerging themes continues to be the issue of ‘professionalism’ and the status that volunteering has in relation to ‘professionalism’. This has to be contextualised by explaining that many of the volunteers on DemonFM are working on undergraduate degree courses that promote the idea of them working in the creative industries, either in the broadcast or online sector. So, many of the volunteers are highly motivated by the idea that they want to mimic or model what the characteristics of a professional station employe might be. On the other hand, though, many of the volunteers are using DemonFM as an extra-curricula activity and regard DemonFM as a place for them to engage in some worthwhile, but more entertaining, occupations while studying at the university. Neither of which are misplaced, but there is certainly a tension at the centre of the station because of this.
Accommodating both is not straight forward, nor is it impossible, given the flexibility that the station has in that it is free to organise itself in any way that it wants. for my part, I am more interested in thinking about how DemonFM can meet the demands of the future radio industry, that is the broadcast, online, interactive and mobile forms of media of the future, rather than constantly looking back to the past and the way the radio industry might have been organised in the 1980s or 1990s. My interest is to figure out, then, what this means to the individuals who are working to support DemonFM? Are these categories of different types of volunteers, some whom see DemonFM as an integral part of their studies, and other who don’t, likely to shape and mould the way that they behave on the station? Is the division between ‘professionalism’ on the one hand, and volunteerism on the other hand, sustainable? Are volunteers who are hoping for a more casual and social interaction with DemonFM likely to react to these discussions in the same way? Will they be put off? Are they likely to get a sense that this is a passionate debate borne out of commitment, or will they think that this is a station beset by arguments, cliques and strife?
I’m be really interested in listening to the views and ideas of individual volunteers on this, and so I’m going to spend some time interviewing individuals on a one-to-one basis. I want to ask some questions about the experience that volunteers have of communicating using Social Media more generally? What their impression are of the way that volunteers communicate when discussing DemonFM, and where they might suggest improvements that can be taken forward to encourage a more harmonious and fulfilling level of interaction? My questions will therefore follow the underlaying binary between those volunteers who have expressed a desire for communication to be ‘professional’, and those who recognise the forms of communication to be more ‘voluntary’ in nature? These contrasting modes of thinking represent a huge split in opinion and potential outcomes, with a wide significant diversity of destinations if either is followed exclusively.
I suppose I am asking questions about mindsets, and what forms of interaction do volunteers want and at the same time are able to deal with? How would individuals maintain ‘respect’ for one another while at the same time being able to recognise the different starting points that other volunteers may have for when they make their contributors to an online discussion? What difference does this make to volunteers perception of their role within the station, and the difference in expectations that are placed on different types of volunteers? So, with my trusty audio recorder in hand, I’m going to set up a series of recordings with volunteers, and see if I can get put together this patchwork of different expectations and views from across the station and beyond.
Leave a Reply