5.1 Methodological Considerations
55
provides the framework for a mandated consultation process with M¯ aori in relation
to research. It manages the consultation process while acknowledging the needs and
aspirations of Ng¯ ai Tahu for M¯ aori development (Research Consultation with M¯ aori
webpage, nd).
5.1.2 Informed Consent and Anonymity
A key condition for obtaining research approval from the University’s Human Ethics
Committee is that research subjects are fully informed about the nature of the research
and agree to voluntarily participate. This is known as informed consent (Christians,
2000). Informed consent was sought via letter, email or LinkedIn InMail messages
accompanied by an information sheet (see Appendix A and B). The participants gave
their consent either by signing a consent form, providing written consent by email,
or recorded oral consent by Phone/Skype before the interview took place. Most of
the interviews (90%) were conducted either via telephone or Skype calls (a free of
charge software that facilitates audio and/or video conference calls throughout the
world) (Allan, 2009; Hanna, 2012).
Anonymity was a key condition of ethics approval, with several participants
worried about their anonymity being jeopardised in case details of countries and/or
their gender were revealed. This was a major consideration because of the very
specific O&G social investment scenarios in particular countries. For example, when
discussing the anonymity of countries, one participant recommended “you could
mention that it is a European country, an European Union country” (P1
2 social
investment expert).
Similarly, when discussing gender anonymity, a participant mentioned that “it
is going to be obvious the person who you are working with, because there are not
many women working for the O&G industry and doing this job” (P7 social investment
expert). In order to guarantee participants’ anonymity, throughout this book, I abstain
from mentioning participants’ gender and countries of origin in addition to the more
obvious protection of not naming participants’ companies and roles. Furthermore,
the pronouns used to refer to participants were combined: he/she as s/he, or his/her
(possessive form), as their. Finally, I use code names to ‘name’ all 20 participants:
P1, P2, P3, etc.
5.1.3 Ethical Dilemmas
Two ethical dilemmas shaped the research process, which were not an obvious part of
the University’s ethics procedure. The first entailed the relevance and ethics of using
the words “ethical and unethical” in reference to social investment. Although there
2 ‘P1’ refers to the codename that I assigned to this participant.
55
provides the framework for a mandated consultation process with M¯ aori in relation
to research. It manages the consultation process while acknowledging the needs and
aspirations of Ng¯ ai Tahu for M¯ aori development (Research Consultation with M¯ aori
webpage, nd).
5.1.2 Informed Consent and Anonymity
A key condition for obtaining research approval from the University’s Human Ethics
Committee is that research subjects are fully informed about the nature of the research
and agree to voluntarily participate. This is known as informed consent (Christians,
2000). Informed consent was sought via letter, email or LinkedIn InMail messages
accompanied by an information sheet (see Appendix A and B). The participants gave
their consent either by signing a consent form, providing written consent by email,
or recorded oral consent by Phone/Skype before the interview took place. Most of
the interviews (90%) were conducted either via telephone or Skype calls (a free of
charge software that facilitates audio and/or video conference calls throughout the
world) (Allan, 2009; Hanna, 2012).
Anonymity was a key condition of ethics approval, with several participants
worried about their anonymity being jeopardised in case details of countries and/or
their gender were revealed. This was a major consideration because of the very
specific O&G social investment scenarios in particular countries. For example, when
discussing the anonymity of countries, one participant recommended “you could
mention that it is a European country, an European Union country” (P1
2 social
investment expert).
Similarly, when discussing gender anonymity, a participant mentioned that “it
is going to be obvious the person who you are working with, because there are not
many women working for the O&G industry and doing this job” (P7 social investment
expert). In order to guarantee participants’ anonymity, throughout this book, I abstain
from mentioning participants’ gender and countries of origin in addition to the more
obvious protection of not naming participants’ companies and roles. Furthermore,
the pronouns used to refer to participants were combined: he/she as s/he, or his/her
(possessive form), as their. Finally, I use code names to ‘name’ all 20 participants:
P1, P2, P3, etc.
5.1.3 Ethical Dilemmas
Two ethical dilemmas shaped the research process, which were not an obvious part of
the University’s ethics procedure. The first entailed the relevance and ethics of using
the words “ethical and unethical” in reference to social investment. Although there
2 ‘P1’ refers to the codename that I assigned to this participant.