54
5 Methodology
A qualitative approach is often adopted in projects concerned with gaining better
understandings of the world through “interacting with, emphasising … and interpreting the actions and perceptions of its actors” (Brockington & Sullivan, 2003,
p. 57). Thus the focus is on the ‘lived experiences’ of people (Creswell & Poth,
2017; Macdonald et al., 2002). Qualitative data analysis explores the different meanings people give to the events, processes and structures of their lives (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011; Krauss, 2005; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013). In my research, I
am also interested in how these understandings connected to the broader O&G social
investment context.
My exploration of participants’ understandings and experiences of social investment in the O&G sector was underpinned by a post-structuralist view that there is
no final ‘truth’ to be found (Foucault, 1970; Potter & Wetherell, 1994). Instead, my
research aimed to understand the relationships between discourses and institutions
(for more see Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004), such as
between social investment experts and companies, and host government and host
communities. My standpoint in this book, is that the discourses evident in the data
connect with broader corporate institutional practices, providing insights into how
the working lives of social investment experts are organised, regulated, and administered (Willig, 2013). In this book, I explore the discursive resources experts draw on
“to constitute themselves as subjects” (Macdonald et al., 2002, p. 143) and consider
experts’ meaning-making in relation to the discourses evident in guideline documents. I therefore designed a project where in-depth research interviews and document analysis were the main methods of data collection. A Foucauldian discourse
analysis (as outlined by Willig, 2001) informed how I read the interview transcripts
and the guideline documents. The following sections describe how I recruited my
participants, selected the documents and analysed the discourses that participants
drew on to talk about social investment in the O&G sector.
5.1.1 Consent and Recruitment
My first step was to obtain approval from the University’s Human Ethics Committee
to conduct this research. In order to gain approval, I submitted detailed information
regarding the research’s objectives and design, along with the anticipated interview
questions (see Appendix C and D), information sheet (see Appendix A and B), and the
consent form (see Appendix E) for participants. The consent form noted participants’
rights to withdraw from the research at any stage, and that anonymity was assured
to all participants and their companies. I return to the importance of anonymity in
more detail later.
Along with applying to the UO Human Ethics Committee, I also engaged in
consultation with the Ng¯ ai Tahu
1 Research Consultation Committee. This committee
1 Ngai Tahu refers the principal M¯ aori (indigenous people of New Zealand) tribe of the South Island
of New Zealand.
5 Methodology
A qualitative approach is often adopted in projects concerned with gaining better
understandings of the world through “interacting with, emphasising … and interpreting the actions and perceptions of its actors” (Brockington & Sullivan, 2003,
p. 57). Thus the focus is on the ‘lived experiences’ of people (Creswell & Poth,
2017; Macdonald et al., 2002). Qualitative data analysis explores the different meanings people give to the events, processes and structures of their lives (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011; Krauss, 2005; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013). In my research, I
am also interested in how these understandings connected to the broader O&G social
investment context.
My exploration of participants’ understandings and experiences of social investment in the O&G sector was underpinned by a post-structuralist view that there is
no final ‘truth’ to be found (Foucault, 1970; Potter & Wetherell, 1994). Instead, my
research aimed to understand the relationships between discourses and institutions
(for more see Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004), such as
between social investment experts and companies, and host government and host
communities. My standpoint in this book, is that the discourses evident in the data
connect with broader corporate institutional practices, providing insights into how
the working lives of social investment experts are organised, regulated, and administered (Willig, 2013). In this book, I explore the discursive resources experts draw on
“to constitute themselves as subjects” (Macdonald et al., 2002, p. 143) and consider
experts’ meaning-making in relation to the discourses evident in guideline documents. I therefore designed a project where in-depth research interviews and document analysis were the main methods of data collection. A Foucauldian discourse
analysis (as outlined by Willig, 2001) informed how I read the interview transcripts
and the guideline documents. The following sections describe how I recruited my
participants, selected the documents and analysed the discourses that participants
drew on to talk about social investment in the O&G sector.
5.1.1 Consent and Recruitment
My first step was to obtain approval from the University’s Human Ethics Committee
to conduct this research. In order to gain approval, I submitted detailed information
regarding the research’s objectives and design, along with the anticipated interview
questions (see Appendix C and D), information sheet (see Appendix A and B), and the
consent form (see Appendix E) for participants. The consent form noted participants’
rights to withdraw from the research at any stage, and that anonymity was assured
to all participants and their companies. I return to the importance of anonymity in
more detail later.
Along with applying to the UO Human Ethics Committee, I also engaged in
consultation with the Ng¯ ai Tahu
1 Research Consultation Committee. This committee
1 Ngai Tahu refers the principal M¯ aori (indigenous people of New Zealand) tribe of the South Island
of New Zealand.