50
4 Theoretical Framework
According to Davies (1991), ‘agency’ may refer to individuals’ compliance or
constraint in regards to particular dominant discourses. Agency represents an individual’s ability to recognise discursive constructions and to consciously comply
with and/or resist, challenge and change them. Post-structural understandings of
agency invest the subject with authority and the capacity to act to make changes, for
example recognising an individual or group of individuals might introduce a “counterdiscourse” that will challenge and potentially replace dominant ones (Davies, 1991,
p. 51).
By positioning social investment experts (including myself) as agentic, in this
book, I recognise the possibility of acting upon discursive constructions which constitute us, and social investment, in specific ways (Andreotti & Dowling, 2004; Bacchi,
2005; Davies, 1990, 1991). In other words, my aim is to open up new possibilities for
understanding and enacting social investment. At the same time, I aim to explore the
dominant discourses that shape social investment experts’ work, and how they/we
make sense of our work within/against these. We “may have access to powerful ways
of being that are not the result of normative judgement from within the dominant
discourses made by those positioned powerfully within them” (Davies, 1991, p. 45).
4.4 Summary
A critical positioning in this research aims at both documenting and challenging
the status quo in relation to O&G social investment (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002;
Macdonald et al., 2002). In the reminder of the book, the theoretical concepts of
power, discourse, subjectivity and agency provide me with the tools necessary to
explore and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about O&G social investment.
These tools also allow me to consider the complex role of the social investment
experts included in my study.
In the following chapter, I explain how I applied the theoretical perspectives
discussed to the research process. Specifically, I outline my research design and
the methods adopted to the discourses that emerged in interviews with O&G social
investment experts and in O&G social investment guideline.
References
Ainsworth, S., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and identities. The Sage handbook of organizational
discourse (pp. 153–174). London: Sage.
Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397.
Andreotti, V., & Dowling, E. (2004). WSF, ethics and pedagogy. International Social Science
Journal, 56(182), 604–605.
Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, discourse everywhere: Subject “agency” in feminist discourse
methodology. Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 198–209.
4 Theoretical Framework
According to Davies (1991), ‘agency’ may refer to individuals’ compliance or
constraint in regards to particular dominant discourses. Agency represents an individual’s ability to recognise discursive constructions and to consciously comply
with and/or resist, challenge and change them. Post-structural understandings of
agency invest the subject with authority and the capacity to act to make changes, for
example recognising an individual or group of individuals might introduce a “counterdiscourse” that will challenge and potentially replace dominant ones (Davies, 1991,
p. 51).
By positioning social investment experts (including myself) as agentic, in this
book, I recognise the possibility of acting upon discursive constructions which constitute us, and social investment, in specific ways (Andreotti & Dowling, 2004; Bacchi,
2005; Davies, 1990, 1991). In other words, my aim is to open up new possibilities for
understanding and enacting social investment. At the same time, I aim to explore the
dominant discourses that shape social investment experts’ work, and how they/we
make sense of our work within/against these. We “may have access to powerful ways
of being that are not the result of normative judgement from within the dominant
discourses made by those positioned powerfully within them” (Davies, 1991, p. 45).
4.4 Summary
A critical positioning in this research aims at both documenting and challenging
the status quo in relation to O&G social investment (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002;
Macdonald et al., 2002). In the reminder of the book, the theoretical concepts of
power, discourse, subjectivity and agency provide me with the tools necessary to
explore and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about O&G social investment.
These tools also allow me to consider the complex role of the social investment
experts included in my study.
In the following chapter, I explain how I applied the theoretical perspectives
discussed to the research process. Specifically, I outline my research design and
the methods adopted to the discourses that emerged in interviews with O&G social
investment experts and in O&G social investment guideline.
References
Ainsworth, S., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and identities. The Sage handbook of organizational
discourse (pp. 153–174). London: Sage.
Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397.
Andreotti, V., & Dowling, E. (2004). WSF, ethics and pedagogy. International Social Science
Journal, 56(182), 604–605.
Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, discourse everywhere: Subject “agency” in feminist discourse
methodology. Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 198–209.