56
5 Methodology
is literature in the social investment field which labels specific forms of social investment as unethical, I opted to avoid such labels. My decision was based on the fact that
my participants were directly involved with O&G social investment. The research
experts, including myself, have, at times, adopted discursive practices (sometimes
unconsciously) that the literature would frame as unethical. I was therefore aware that
any attempt to frame certain types of social investment as unethical could potentially
harm the participants. In order to avoid falling into this trap, I invited participants’
perceptions of whether the social investment they were involved in was successful
and/or unsuccessful.
The second dilemma that I faced related to cultural and linguistic differences when
collecting and analysing data. For this research, government leaders from different
countries were invited to participate. The interview questions and invitation letters
were the same, but I translated them into different languages. Although languages
share some similarities, most are structured differently from each other (Whaley,
1996). Consequently, representatives of one country’s government complained that
some of the questions were rude due to their straightforwardness and colloquial
references when dealing with high-status members of the government. In order to
avoid further conflicts, I apologised and altered the interview questions and invitation
letter and then sent the letters to people of that country to check for suitability
and respectfulness of the letter. Once I had their approval, I again recruited and
interviewed participants from the government of that particular country.
5.2 The Research Design
The research involved four phases of data collection: Phase 1
3 was a pilot of the interview questions, Phase 2 focussed on O&G social investment experts/experts, Phase
3 focussed on social investment policymakers, while Phase 4 targeted government
officials from two different countries.
5.2.1 Population from Which Participants Are Drawn
In Phase 1, participants were drawn from my own professional network of people who
work with social investment in the O&G sector. In Phase 2, participants were O&G
companies’ social investment experts/experts within and outside my professional
network. In Phase 3, participants were experts who developed, provided consultation
and guidance and/or audited social investment for O&G companies.
Participants in Phase 2 were asked during the research interview to define the
guideline documents they used to inform their own social investment practices. For
instance, if participants in Phase 2 stated that their actions in social investment were
3 A summary of Phase 1 recommendations are provided as an appendix in the end of the book.
5 Methodology
is literature in the social investment field which labels specific forms of social investment as unethical, I opted to avoid such labels. My decision was based on the fact that
my participants were directly involved with O&G social investment. The research
experts, including myself, have, at times, adopted discursive practices (sometimes
unconsciously) that the literature would frame as unethical. I was therefore aware that
any attempt to frame certain types of social investment as unethical could potentially
harm the participants. In order to avoid falling into this trap, I invited participants’
perceptions of whether the social investment they were involved in was successful
and/or unsuccessful.
The second dilemma that I faced related to cultural and linguistic differences when
collecting and analysing data. For this research, government leaders from different
countries were invited to participate. The interview questions and invitation letters
were the same, but I translated them into different languages. Although languages
share some similarities, most are structured differently from each other (Whaley,
1996). Consequently, representatives of one country’s government complained that
some of the questions were rude due to their straightforwardness and colloquial
references when dealing with high-status members of the government. In order to
avoid further conflicts, I apologised and altered the interview questions and invitation
letter and then sent the letters to people of that country to check for suitability
and respectfulness of the letter. Once I had their approval, I again recruited and
interviewed participants from the government of that particular country.
5.2 The Research Design
The research involved four phases of data collection: Phase 1
3 was a pilot of the interview questions, Phase 2 focussed on O&G social investment experts/experts, Phase
3 focussed on social investment policymakers, while Phase 4 targeted government
officials from two different countries.
5.2.1 Population from Which Participants Are Drawn
In Phase 1, participants were drawn from my own professional network of people who
work with social investment in the O&G sector. In Phase 2, participants were O&G
companies’ social investment experts/experts within and outside my professional
network. In Phase 3, participants were experts who developed, provided consultation
and guidance and/or audited social investment for O&G companies.
Participants in Phase 2 were asked during the research interview to define the
guideline documents they used to inform their own social investment practices. For
instance, if participants in Phase 2 stated that their actions in social investment were
3 A summary of Phase 1 recommendations are provided as an appendix in the end of the book.