48
4 Theoretical Framework
dominant and counter discourses that emerge in O&G social investment guidelines
and experts’ narratives.
Discourses are shaped by institutional ways of organising, regulating and
managing social experience (Willig, 2001). In this way, people and their actions
cannot be seen in isolation. They are located within complex webs of social relations
and institutions (Macdonald et al., 2002; Willig, 2001). Discourses are therefore
socially constructed and shaped by people and their actions, which are embedded
within broader societal contexts (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004; Fairclough, Mulderrig,
& Wodak, 2011).
A critical Foucauldian-informed approach provides the tools to consider both what
is said and not said in interviews and documents relating to O&G social investment.
In drawing on Foucauldian notions of discourse, I aim to identify both dominant
discourses of social investment, and those that are “[run] between and sometimes
[collide] with them” (Foucault, 1970, p. 30). I am also interested in the connections
and disconnections between the discourses evident in interviews and the guideline
documents, which are not interpreted here as mistakes (Jackson & Mazzei, 2008).
Rather, the whole interplay of discontinuity and differences is what constitutes the
objects, while simultaneously transforming it (Foucault, 1970).
Although in my understanding of discourse, discourse is not a mere reflection
of social identities and relations, and it is continuously changing and reconstructing
identities and relations as discourses are enacted (Pennycook, 2001; Walshaw, 2007),
I am also mindful that it is not language alone that shapes discourse but also the
materiality of things (Fleetwood, 2005; Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007) which
has an agentic role (Barad, 2003) in shaping discursive practices.
However, given that the context of this study is social investment, I recognise
the material consequences of O&G companies’ operations and their influence in
shaping social investment discourses and hierarchical relations of power between
companies and communities. I acknowledge the materiality of O&G pipelines and
other infrastructure while recognising that social investment experts discursively
constructed them in a variety of ways, for example, in relation to the disruptions and
benefits such infrastructure might bring to affected communities. While my focus in
this book is on analysing the discursive meanings of social experts’ attribute to O&G
operations, I also acknowledge the material consequences of such operations.
In this book, cannot have a broader understanding of participants’ discursive understandings and practices of social investment without considering their
subjectivity and agency. I turn to these two concepts now.
4.3 Subjectivity and Agency
Post-structural concepts of subjectivity and agency allow me to consider the fluidity
of participants’ understandings of social investment and themselves as actors within
the O&G sector. These concepts also allow me to investigate how social investment
4 Theoretical Framework
dominant and counter discourses that emerge in O&G social investment guidelines
and experts’ narratives.
Discourses are shaped by institutional ways of organising, regulating and
managing social experience (Willig, 2001). In this way, people and their actions
cannot be seen in isolation. They are located within complex webs of social relations
and institutions (Macdonald et al., 2002; Willig, 2001). Discourses are therefore
socially constructed and shaped by people and their actions, which are embedded
within broader societal contexts (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004; Fairclough, Mulderrig,
& Wodak, 2011).
A critical Foucauldian-informed approach provides the tools to consider both what
is said and not said in interviews and documents relating to O&G social investment.
In drawing on Foucauldian notions of discourse, I aim to identify both dominant
discourses of social investment, and those that are “[run] between and sometimes
[collide] with them” (Foucault, 1970, p. 30). I am also interested in the connections
and disconnections between the discourses evident in interviews and the guideline
documents, which are not interpreted here as mistakes (Jackson & Mazzei, 2008).
Rather, the whole interplay of discontinuity and differences is what constitutes the
objects, while simultaneously transforming it (Foucault, 1970).
Although in my understanding of discourse, discourse is not a mere reflection
of social identities and relations, and it is continuously changing and reconstructing
identities and relations as discourses are enacted (Pennycook, 2001; Walshaw, 2007),
I am also mindful that it is not language alone that shapes discourse but also the
materiality of things (Fleetwood, 2005; Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007) which
has an agentic role (Barad, 2003) in shaping discursive practices.
However, given that the context of this study is social investment, I recognise
the material consequences of O&G companies’ operations and their influence in
shaping social investment discourses and hierarchical relations of power between
companies and communities. I acknowledge the materiality of O&G pipelines and
other infrastructure while recognising that social investment experts discursively
constructed them in a variety of ways, for example, in relation to the disruptions and
benefits such infrastructure might bring to affected communities. While my focus in
this book is on analysing the discursive meanings of social experts’ attribute to O&G
operations, I also acknowledge the material consequences of such operations.
In this book, cannot have a broader understanding of participants’ discursive understandings and practices of social investment without considering their
subjectivity and agency. I turn to these two concepts now.
4.3 Subjectivity and Agency
Post-structural concepts of subjectivity and agency allow me to consider the fluidity
of participants’ understandings of social investment and themselves as actors within
the O&G sector. These concepts also allow me to investigate how social investment