5.3 Conducting the Interviews
65
(2001) approach, which enabled me to analyse the multiple underlying discourses
embedded in social investment guidelines and social investment experts’ responses.
According to Willig (2001), Foucauldian discourse analysis pays particular attention
to the relationship between discourses and institutions. In this way, discourses are
not simply framed as ways of writing or speaking, but as institutional practices.
Institutional practices, in turn, organise, regulate and manage social life (Willig,
2001, 2013).
My analysis of the discourses in the interviews and guideline documents was
based on Willig’s (2001) six stages for analysing discourse. The first stage, entitled
‘discursive constructions’ entails the identification of the ways a discursive object is
constituted in the text. A discursive object is mainly constructed by “shared meaning,
rather than lexical comparability” (Willig, 2001, p. 115). Willig (2001) states that,
although a discursive object may not be lexically referred to in the text, it may still
be constructed within the text. For example, participant P9 never referred to social
investment as a form of bribery in their interview, however, the way s/he talked about
social investment, as in “… several projects sometimes use social investment like a
tool, ok? For compensation strategy or to give, or to influence leaders ok?” (P9)—still
constructed social investment as a bribery, revealing bribery as a discursive object.
Examples of discursive objects in my research included: (1) social investment in
the O&G sector, (2) discourses of social investment, and (3) experts’ recommendations for particular social investment practices. These discursive objects were related
to my research questions. My first research question (which discourses do O&G
social investment personnel draw on to talk about social investment?) linked to the
first discursive object: social investment in the O&G sector. My second research
question (how are the discourses adopted by the O&G participants being reproduced
in the social investment guideline documents?) linked to another discursive object:
discourses of social investment. My third and fourth research questions (what are the
experts’ recommendations for future O&G social investment, and which discourses
are evident in participants’ recommendations for future O&G social investment?)
linked to experts’ recommendations for particular social investment practices.
The second phase, entitled ‘discourses’, unpacks the different ways a discursive
object is constructed within wider discourses (Willig (2001). For instance, when
analysing the discursive object ‘social investment’ in Chapter 6, I analysed how
broader discourses of social investment shaped the different discursive constructions
of social investment.
The third phase, the ‘action orientation phase’, is when the analyst investigates
how different constructions of the object are deployed (Willig, 2001). One example
of the third phase can be seen in Chapter 7, when I further my analysis of the different
constructions of social investment that emerged in the guideline documents.
The fourth phase, the ‘positioning’ phase, analyses the subject positions that a
discursive object offers. I analyse the different subject positioning of social investment experts in all my finding chapters, Chapters 6–8. In these chapters, I consider
the multiple subject positions and power relations inherent in social investment
discourses and practices.
65
(2001) approach, which enabled me to analyse the multiple underlying discourses
embedded in social investment guidelines and social investment experts’ responses.
According to Willig (2001), Foucauldian discourse analysis pays particular attention
to the relationship between discourses and institutions. In this way, discourses are
not simply framed as ways of writing or speaking, but as institutional practices.
Institutional practices, in turn, organise, regulate and manage social life (Willig,
2001, 2013).
My analysis of the discourses in the interviews and guideline documents was
based on Willig’s (2001) six stages for analysing discourse. The first stage, entitled
‘discursive constructions’ entails the identification of the ways a discursive object is
constituted in the text. A discursive object is mainly constructed by “shared meaning,
rather than lexical comparability” (Willig, 2001, p. 115). Willig (2001) states that,
although a discursive object may not be lexically referred to in the text, it may still
be constructed within the text. For example, participant P9 never referred to social
investment as a form of bribery in their interview, however, the way s/he talked about
social investment, as in “… several projects sometimes use social investment like a
tool, ok? For compensation strategy or to give, or to influence leaders ok?” (P9)—still
constructed social investment as a bribery, revealing bribery as a discursive object.
Examples of discursive objects in my research included: (1) social investment in
the O&G sector, (2) discourses of social investment, and (3) experts’ recommendations for particular social investment practices. These discursive objects were related
to my research questions. My first research question (which discourses do O&G
social investment personnel draw on to talk about social investment?) linked to the
first discursive object: social investment in the O&G sector. My second research
question (how are the discourses adopted by the O&G participants being reproduced
in the social investment guideline documents?) linked to another discursive object:
discourses of social investment. My third and fourth research questions (what are the
experts’ recommendations for future O&G social investment, and which discourses
are evident in participants’ recommendations for future O&G social investment?)
linked to experts’ recommendations for particular social investment practices.
The second phase, entitled ‘discourses’, unpacks the different ways a discursive
object is constructed within wider discourses (Willig (2001). For instance, when
analysing the discursive object ‘social investment’ in Chapter 6, I analysed how
broader discourses of social investment shaped the different discursive constructions
of social investment.
The third phase, the ‘action orientation phase’, is when the analyst investigates
how different constructions of the object are deployed (Willig, 2001). One example
of the third phase can be seen in Chapter 7, when I further my analysis of the different
constructions of social investment that emerged in the guideline documents.
The fourth phase, the ‘positioning’ phase, analyses the subject positions that a
discursive object offers. I analyse the different subject positioning of social investment experts in all my finding chapters, Chapters 6–8. In these chapters, I consider
the multiple subject positions and power relations inherent in social investment
discourses and practices.