130
9 Closing Reflections
Chapter 3 explored the body of literature on social investment programmes developed by O&G companies in different countries and the outcomes and/or impacts
of such programmes. The literature demonstrated that social investment is likely to
fail or succeed depending on its capacity to address host communities’ needs and
interests. Further, social investment based on universal designs may be harmful to
communities; rather, it should ideally be shaped according to local communities’
demands and cultures. Additionally, social investment was more successful if local
communities were active participants in the design, implementation and maintenance
of social investment programmes.
Chapter 4 outlined the theoretical lenses that informed this research. Specifically,
Freire and others’ understandings of power hierarchies and its mechanisms of ‘false
generosity’ helped me understand top-down, hierarchical approaches to social investment programmes (see Chapter 6; Freire & Macedo, 1995; Freire & Mellado, 1973).
Andreotti’s (2011), Escobar’s (2002, 2004), and Shrestha’s (1995) critical perspectives guided my thinking around ‘community-centred’ social investment programmes
that utilised labour, space and people in service of O&G businesses. These authors’
ideas also guided my thinking around social investment developed under compensatory claims; and how monetary compensation might not be sufficient to address
the needs of communities whose interests in capital accumulation is not a primary
societal focus (see Chapter 7). Post-structural theoretical perspectives also informed
this research. They helped me consider how power, discourse and agency appear
in social investment experts’ narratives. Post-structural perspectives informed how
I analysed the complex and contradictory relations of power in the discourses my
participants adopted when they talked about social investment.
Chapter 5 explained my research methodology. There, I introduced the participants and described the process of recruiting and interviewing my research participants. I outlined how I used Foucauldian discourse analysis to analyse my participants’ interviews and the guideline documents participants mostly drew on to inform
their social investment practices. In this chapter, I also talked about my use of
reflexivity when conducting this research.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 discussed my research findings and addressed my research
questions. In the next section, I summarise each of these chapters’ key points, while
revisiting my research questions.
9.2 Addressing the Research Questions
In Chapters 6, 7 and 8, I addressed four research questions: which discourses do
O&G social investment personnel draw on to talk about social investment; how are
the discourses adopted by the O&G participants reproduced in the social investment
guideline documents; what are the experts’ recommendations for future O&G social
investment; and which discourses are evident in participants’ recommendations for
future O&G social investment?
9 Closing Reflections
Chapter 3 explored the body of literature on social investment programmes developed by O&G companies in different countries and the outcomes and/or impacts
of such programmes. The literature demonstrated that social investment is likely to
fail or succeed depending on its capacity to address host communities’ needs and
interests. Further, social investment based on universal designs may be harmful to
communities; rather, it should ideally be shaped according to local communities’
demands and cultures. Additionally, social investment was more successful if local
communities were active participants in the design, implementation and maintenance
of social investment programmes.
Chapter 4 outlined the theoretical lenses that informed this research. Specifically,
Freire and others’ understandings of power hierarchies and its mechanisms of ‘false
generosity’ helped me understand top-down, hierarchical approaches to social investment programmes (see Chapter 6; Freire & Macedo, 1995; Freire & Mellado, 1973).
Andreotti’s (2011), Escobar’s (2002, 2004), and Shrestha’s (1995) critical perspectives guided my thinking around ‘community-centred’ social investment programmes
that utilised labour, space and people in service of O&G businesses. These authors’
ideas also guided my thinking around social investment developed under compensatory claims; and how monetary compensation might not be sufficient to address
the needs of communities whose interests in capital accumulation is not a primary
societal focus (see Chapter 7). Post-structural theoretical perspectives also informed
this research. They helped me consider how power, discourse and agency appear
in social investment experts’ narratives. Post-structural perspectives informed how
I analysed the complex and contradictory relations of power in the discourses my
participants adopted when they talked about social investment.
Chapter 5 explained my research methodology. There, I introduced the participants and described the process of recruiting and interviewing my research participants. I outlined how I used Foucauldian discourse analysis to analyse my participants’ interviews and the guideline documents participants mostly drew on to inform
their social investment practices. In this chapter, I also talked about my use of
reflexivity when conducting this research.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 discussed my research findings and addressed my research
questions. In the next section, I summarise each of these chapters’ key points, while
revisiting my research questions.
9.2 Addressing the Research Questions
In Chapters 6, 7 and 8, I addressed four research questions: which discourses do
O&G social investment personnel draw on to talk about social investment; how are
the discourses adopted by the O&G participants reproduced in the social investment
guideline documents; what are the experts’ recommendations for future O&G social
investment; and which discourses are evident in participants’ recommendations for
future O&G social investment?