60
5 Methodology
Two participants took part in Phase 3 who had worked with at least one of the
guideline documents mentioned by Phase 2 participants, for a minimum of three
years. Phase 3 participants’ roles entailed developing and/or updating the guidelines
and providing advice to guidelines users.
Phase 4 involved O&G government officials from two different countries. Three
participants took part: two government representatives from one country whose O&G
legislation does not contemplate social investment as a condition for an operational
license, and one from a country that legislates for social investment as a condition for
a license to operate. All government representatives that were interviewed worked
in the field of energy and resources.
5.3 Conducting the Interviews
In order to understand how my participants made sense of social investment, I
conducted in-depth conversational interviews. These allow for a dynamic exchange
of ideas based on pre-structured, open-ended questions (Trainor & Graue, 2013). I
adopted digital technology (Skype) to collect data based on the following reasons:
(1) it reduced travel costs, (2) addressed time differences between countries, and
(3) increased flexibility for the interviewee and interviewer (Hanna, 2012; Hooley,
Wellens, & Marriott, 2012). The disadvantage of using digital technology for interviewing participants was the impersonal approach between the researcher and
participant, when compared to face-to-face forms of research interviewing.
Although I tried to establish rapport with the O&G people through the language I
used in emails, my tone of voice in Skype and telephone calls, and via interview questions (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006), the use of digital technologies might have
hindered further rapport with participants. According to Fontana and Frey (2000) a
good rapport is vital for recruitment as it entails trust and respect for the interviewee
and of the information shared (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Rapport is also
established when interviewees feel they are in a safe and comfortable environment
where they can share personal experiences (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). In
my research, a more personal approach to data collection could have, (1) increased
the number of research participants, and (2) made interviewees feel more comfortable
during interviews. Further, during the interview phase, one-on-one interaction with
the research participants could also have (3) provided access to further cues through
attention to the participants’ body language, and how this reinforced or contradicted
participants’ verbal language (Fairclough, 2001, 2013; Fairclough, Mulderrig, &
Wodak, 2011).
Participants were interviewed in different languages, including languages that
were not their first language. In order to guarantee anonymity, the languages participants used in the interviews are not identified. This decision has not affected the analysis of my findings because discourses were analysed based on discursive constructions (as elaborated in Sect. 5.3.3), rather than on the organisation of text, morphology
and syntax (Fairclough, 1992).
5 Methodology
Two participants took part in Phase 3 who had worked with at least one of the
guideline documents mentioned by Phase 2 participants, for a minimum of three
years. Phase 3 participants’ roles entailed developing and/or updating the guidelines
and providing advice to guidelines users.
Phase 4 involved O&G government officials from two different countries. Three
participants took part: two government representatives from one country whose O&G
legislation does not contemplate social investment as a condition for an operational
license, and one from a country that legislates for social investment as a condition for
a license to operate. All government representatives that were interviewed worked
in the field of energy and resources.
5.3 Conducting the Interviews
In order to understand how my participants made sense of social investment, I
conducted in-depth conversational interviews. These allow for a dynamic exchange
of ideas based on pre-structured, open-ended questions (Trainor & Graue, 2013). I
adopted digital technology (Skype) to collect data based on the following reasons:
(1) it reduced travel costs, (2) addressed time differences between countries, and
(3) increased flexibility for the interviewee and interviewer (Hanna, 2012; Hooley,
Wellens, & Marriott, 2012). The disadvantage of using digital technology for interviewing participants was the impersonal approach between the researcher and
participant, when compared to face-to-face forms of research interviewing.
Although I tried to establish rapport with the O&G people through the language I
used in emails, my tone of voice in Skype and telephone calls, and via interview questions (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006), the use of digital technologies might have
hindered further rapport with participants. According to Fontana and Frey (2000) a
good rapport is vital for recruitment as it entails trust and respect for the interviewee
and of the information shared (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Rapport is also
established when interviewees feel they are in a safe and comfortable environment
where they can share personal experiences (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). In
my research, a more personal approach to data collection could have, (1) increased
the number of research participants, and (2) made interviewees feel more comfortable
during interviews. Further, during the interview phase, one-on-one interaction with
the research participants could also have (3) provided access to further cues through
attention to the participants’ body language, and how this reinforced or contradicted
participants’ verbal language (Fairclough, 2001, 2013; Fairclough, Mulderrig, &
Wodak, 2011).
Participants were interviewed in different languages, including languages that
were not their first language. In order to guarantee anonymity, the languages participants used in the interviews are not identified. This decision has not affected the analysis of my findings because discourses were analysed based on discursive constructions (as elaborated in Sect. 5.3.3), rather than on the organisation of text, morphology
and syntax (Fairclough, 1992).