114
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
with discourses of social investment. However, my participants also revealed working
on when describing how they engaged with the community. In this section, I consider
how company–community power relations shaped communities’ needs and ‘local
knowledge in my participants’ account.
Engaging with the community refers to participants’ recommended practices of
joint decision-making involving both the community and the company. The subsequent interview extract illustrates one participant’s view of community engagement:
Yeah, I think the most important [recommendation] is really engagement with the community.
I think the most successful projects I’ve seen have been where there was joint decision making
where there was really room, anticipatory planning and processes put in place. (P12, social
investment expert)
P12’s excerpt revealed her/his beliefs that community engagement was vital to
achieving success in O&G social investment. P12 also assumed that poor community
engagement resulted in the lack of “thorough stakeholder engagement, and no buyin commitments and joint planning with the community” (P12, social investment
expert).
Participants recommended engaging with communities in two ways: the first
was in relation to community empowerment, while the second related to managing
communities’ expectations. In the first, experts talked about a participatory approach
towards O&G social investment as something that should promote a community sense
of empowerment and ownership over the social investment project. In the second, the
experts talked about the importance of managing community expectations and the
implications of these expectations when they are generated by the absence of government provision of social welfare on a local level. In the following section, I elaborate
on how my participants referred to both ways of engaging with the community.
8.2.1 Community Empowerment
For O&G participants, community empowerment happened when the community
took ownership of the social investment. Community empowerment frequently
appeared in the participants’ interviews as the outcome of what participants called
a “true participatory social programme” (P8, translated original). According to P8,
there were social investment projects that were called ‘participatory’, which required
the attendance of community members in the project’s committees, but which were
ultimately not participatory or empowering.
P8’s account concurs with Hickey and Mohan’s (2004) criticism in regards to
participatory approaches that do not empower the community. According to Hickey
and Mohan (2004), so-called participatory programmes fail to empower the community when the community does not feel they own the design, delivery and development
of the project. Social investments that fail to transfer ownership to the community
are top-down approaches. Top-down approaches of social investment are rooted in
working on discourses of social investment.
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
with discourses of social investment. However, my participants also revealed working
on when describing how they engaged with the community. In this section, I consider
how company–community power relations shaped communities’ needs and ‘local
knowledge in my participants’ account.
Engaging with the community refers to participants’ recommended practices of
joint decision-making involving both the community and the company. The subsequent interview extract illustrates one participant’s view of community engagement:
Yeah, I think the most important [recommendation] is really engagement with the community.
I think the most successful projects I’ve seen have been where there was joint decision making
where there was really room, anticipatory planning and processes put in place. (P12, social
investment expert)
P12’s excerpt revealed her/his beliefs that community engagement was vital to
achieving success in O&G social investment. P12 also assumed that poor community
engagement resulted in the lack of “thorough stakeholder engagement, and no buyin commitments and joint planning with the community” (P12, social investment
expert).
Participants recommended engaging with communities in two ways: the first
was in relation to community empowerment, while the second related to managing
communities’ expectations. In the first, experts talked about a participatory approach
towards O&G social investment as something that should promote a community sense
of empowerment and ownership over the social investment project. In the second, the
experts talked about the importance of managing community expectations and the
implications of these expectations when they are generated by the absence of government provision of social welfare on a local level. In the following section, I elaborate
on how my participants referred to both ways of engaging with the community.
8.2.1 Community Empowerment
For O&G participants, community empowerment happened when the community
took ownership of the social investment. Community empowerment frequently
appeared in the participants’ interviews as the outcome of what participants called
a “true participatory social programme” (P8, translated original). According to P8,
there were social investment projects that were called ‘participatory’, which required
the attendance of community members in the project’s committees, but which were
ultimately not participatory or empowering.
P8’s account concurs with Hickey and Mohan’s (2004) criticism in regards to
participatory approaches that do not empower the community. According to Hickey
and Mohan (2004), so-called participatory programmes fail to empower the community when the community does not feel they own the design, delivery and development
of the project. Social investments that fail to transfer ownership to the community
are top-down approaches. Top-down approaches of social investment are rooted in
working on discourses of social investment.