58
5 Methodology
In the LinkedIn recruitment message/InMail body message I (1) introduced
myself, (2) listed the research objectives, (3) explained that no harm would come to
anyone declining to participate, (4) guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity, and
(5) invited the participants to take part in an interview by Skype or telephone call.
Through this process, I aimed to establish an initial rapport with the participants by
sharing with them my professional background in the O&G industry.
When I positioned myself as an O&G ‘expert’ in the recruitment message, I
was aware of some of the advantages and disadvantages of being considered an
insider researcher (Fontana & Frey, 2000, p. 655). For instance, interviewers that are
considered insiders are more likely to understand the complexity and the nuances
of the language and phenomena under investigation (Zavella, 1993). At face value,
insiders may also have an easier time gaining access to a community similar to their
own. However, the disadvantage of being considered an insider by the participants
is that it may create ethical dilemmas on the basis of researchers’ institutional positioning and political sympathies (Zavella, 1993). This means that as a researcher, I
would have to constantly negotiate my status as a member of the community and
my assumptions about social investment. In addition, insider researchers often feel
constrained by being accountable to the community they are researching, carrying
the implicit responsibility to construct an analysis that sympathises with the group’s
interests (Zavella, 1993). To address this issue, I adopted practices of reflexivity.
For example, I kept field notes and shared research experiences and impressions
with other research colleagues, so as to critically analyse my position as an insider
researcher. I explore reflexivity in more detail below.
5.2.3 Period of Recruitment
The process of recruitment lasted from April 2015 to June 2016, although I
conducted one interview in January 2017. Within the recruitment period, 46 people
showed interest in this research, however only 20 actually participated. Some people
expressed their appreciation for having been invited to participate but declined their
contribution either because they felt they did not have enough experience in social
investment, or because they had been away from the field for too long. Other participants showed an interest in participating in initial LinkedIn message/InMail conversations, but would not set a date or share their Skype or telephone contact details.
With these participants, I sent up to three follow-up LinkedIn messages/InMails,
while the participants who did not reply at all simply received the initial recruitment
message and one follow-up email.
5 Methodology
In the LinkedIn recruitment message/InMail body message I (1) introduced
myself, (2) listed the research objectives, (3) explained that no harm would come to
anyone declining to participate, (4) guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity, and
(5) invited the participants to take part in an interview by Skype or telephone call.
Through this process, I aimed to establish an initial rapport with the participants by
sharing with them my professional background in the O&G industry.
When I positioned myself as an O&G ‘expert’ in the recruitment message, I
was aware of some of the advantages and disadvantages of being considered an
insider researcher (Fontana & Frey, 2000, p. 655). For instance, interviewers that are
considered insiders are more likely to understand the complexity and the nuances
of the language and phenomena under investigation (Zavella, 1993). At face value,
insiders may also have an easier time gaining access to a community similar to their
own. However, the disadvantage of being considered an insider by the participants
is that it may create ethical dilemmas on the basis of researchers’ institutional positioning and political sympathies (Zavella, 1993). This means that as a researcher, I
would have to constantly negotiate my status as a member of the community and
my assumptions about social investment. In addition, insider researchers often feel
constrained by being accountable to the community they are researching, carrying
the implicit responsibility to construct an analysis that sympathises with the group’s
interests (Zavella, 1993). To address this issue, I adopted practices of reflexivity.
For example, I kept field notes and shared research experiences and impressions
with other research colleagues, so as to critically analyse my position as an insider
researcher. I explore reflexivity in more detail below.
5.2.3 Period of Recruitment
The process of recruitment lasted from April 2015 to June 2016, although I
conducted one interview in January 2017. Within the recruitment period, 46 people
showed interest in this research, however only 20 actually participated. Some people
expressed their appreciation for having been invited to participate but declined their
contribution either because they felt they did not have enough experience in social
investment, or because they had been away from the field for too long. Other participants showed an interest in participating in initial LinkedIn message/InMail conversations, but would not set a date or share their Skype or telephone contact details.
With these participants, I sent up to three follow-up LinkedIn messages/InMails,
while the participants who did not reply at all simply received the initial recruitment
message and one follow-up email.