Issues related to data collection are the most significant methodological limitations of this study. Future studies of this subject should seek to interview as many stakeholders of the Yamal LNG case as possible. Of course, this was also my objective, but it must be acknowledged that for this level of research – a master’s thesis with limited time and resources, it was exceptionally challenging to reach the stakeholders. Relatively short timeframe, geographical distance, and language differences were elements that especially limited data collection. However, I was able to compensate deficiencies by including archival data and expert interviews. Overall, the amount of data, both by volume and the number of included stakeholders and experts, is larger than the average for a master’s thesis.
Even larger set of data could possibly have given more detailed results, but even now the data showed signs of saturation, as a significant share of the codes reappeared multiple times between different pieces of data. The only constraint in the data was that the Neoliberal economist frame had to be assembled using more expert interviews and background literature, since a large share of this study’s data that represents business actors consists of publicly available archival sources (e.g. reports and documents). These sources discuss energy security and energy transition only dispersedly and in
specific contexts, which requires more processing from the analyst – compared to research interviews, in which focused questions can be asked. In addition, archival data has usually gone through an editor’s review before publication, which affects the communication by often including less frames. On one hand, this reduces the volume of “raw data” for the researcher, but on the other, the official views of the examined organization are displayed more clearly. In the Neoliberal economist frame, this has possibly resulted in less detailed frame description. This is opposite to the Neorealist importer frame, whose heavy focus on geopolitics could in part be the result of having extensive EU documents in the data.
As I used Skype video call and email to conduct some of the research interviews, I consider that these interview methods did not significantly affect the results nor methodological practice. Compared to face-to-face interview, video call is more prone to technical problems – but in my case, I experienced equally devastating technical problems in a face-to-face interview situation when I recorded audio. Acknowledging that the interview questions had quite specialist topics, the fact that bodily and facial expressions are easier to ignore online than face-to-face had very little impact on the results in general.
Using email for couple of interviews was my last preference. However, I consider that it was anyway better to interview than not, since the participants would have otherwise rejected my request. Luckily, only one of the email interviews bore noticeably less data than an average transcribed live interview. Because email exchange spanned relatively long periods of time and the answers did not look like carefully crafted pieces of communication – which could be a considerable difference to live interview, I consider that the email interviews fit well with other interview data. My conclusion from the one shorter email interview is that the interviewee was not very interested in the research topic.
The neo-Gramscian approach would have benefited from including media data, as media is considered as a part of ideological reproduction in the civil society (Levy & Newell, 2002: 87). Initially, such was gathered from English language sources, but only extremely marginal amount of it covered relevant topics for the analysis. Thus, it seemed unmeaningful to include and was rejected.24 Having the possibility to collect and analyze data from Russian language media would
probably have increased the study’s validity, but however, it can be argued that the Russian mass- media largely reflects state interests (see Lipman, 2014: 180), which are already included.
Moreover, my inability to account Russian language data might be the study’s largest weakness, resulting in a limited coverage of the research field. Future research should overcome this issue. However, an effort was made to contact two local indigenous political activists from YNAO, who are affiliated with reindeer herding. In their case, I translated the interview questions to Russian with help from a native speaker of Russian.
After a number of efforts to contact them, I had to conclude that reaching nomadic indigenous peoples for research interviews can be notably challenging when specialist knowledge of energy policy is a practical requisite for participation. The indigenous activists rejected taking part – stating that the interview questions were “too complicated” to answer. This is particularly shame, since YNAO’s indigenous cultures possess valuable experience-based knowledge about ecological sustainability (see Forbes et al., 2009: 1; Kumpula et al., 2006: 28) that is an essential idea behind energy transition.
Some other interviewees could have felt the same, as they turned down certain themes, pleading to a lack of expertise. Developing the research questions required operationalization, which overall carries a risk for reliability, since the interviewees could have interpreted questions differently. Hence, the specialist subject and the unorthodox analytical framework, which connects energy security and energy transition, turned out as the main deficiency with the interview methodology, while it is a major contribution of the research design in general.
However, the semi-structured interview was particularly suitable data collection methodology for this study, since the research subject has been studied only very limitedly before and it bore multifaceted results like assumed (Hirsjärvi & Hurme, 2008: 35). The methodology also allowed interviewees some freedom for interpretation of the concepts with different understandings (see Bridge, 2010: 523; Sharples, 2013: 683), which brought up varying frames (Hirsjärvi & Hurme, 2008: 35). Starting the interview process from the expert interviews allowed me to develop structured and clearer understanding of the area under investigation (Bogner & Menz, 2009: 46–47) and identify stakeholders.
Critique given to the frame analysis method is often based on the subjectivity of interpretation regarding the identification of frames. According to Entman (1993: 51), “nowhere is there a general
statement of framing theory that shows exactly how frames become embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text.” Also, Kuypers (2009: 198) warns that “careless critics often find what
the rhetorical artifact.” To overcome these issues when identifying frames, I based my interpretations
on research literature and this study’s theoretical framework.
However, cultural differences might have posed a challenge in my analysis: Frames, that are deeply rooted in culture, can remain invisible for the researcher. Not being Russian, my comparably limited understanding of Russian culture may have caused misunderstandings. Nevertheless, only a share of the data, which overall includes number of different nationalities, represents Russian sources. Therefore, this same issue would have remained regardless of the researcher’s nationality.