Las cláusulas constitucionales del Estado social

With the study’s research question used as a framework, an interview guide was formulated that allowed for a series of in-depth yet free-flowing interviews with managers. These interviews were face-to-face and were conducted at the manager’s place of work. The interviews began with broad, open-ended questions that were uniquely tailored to each manager to find out about their business (Gioia, et al., 2012), which allowed for rapport to develop, before delving into more probing questions that addressed my area of interest. Such probing questions were directed towards the personal experiences of managers in so much a way that they were asked to describe their ‘feelings’ about sustainability decisions they had made. Probing and explanatory questions even allowed, to an extent, participants to share typically private strategic information regarding their management strategy and how they made decisions (Gioia, et al., 2012). I aimed at retaining a balance of interrogative questions with free-flowing dialogue in order to achieve the above. The majority of the interview questions were not constructed around existing terminology to allow for participants to undergo their own sensemaking process that is not influenced by the intrusion of pre-existing theory (Gioia, et al., 2012). Two research strategies were employed: intensive interviewing and semi-structured interviews. Intensive interviewing allowed for exploration of specific topics managers had dealt, while also allowing them to demonstrate their knowledge in relation to their business strategy (Charmaz, 2006). This tactic respected and acknowledged managers as knowledgeable agents in that they were aware of their decisions and were able to explain accordingly (Gioia, et al., 2012). Semi-structured interviewing was administered in order to build the container for generative dialogue in which managers were able to share their insights and personal stories in both a real-time and retrospective fashion (Gioia, et al., 2012). The semi-structured interviewing strategy gave me the flexibility to ask questions that were not originally on the guide (Bryman, 2011), while also giving me the agility to modify the interview questions based on the participants' responses (Gioia, et al., 2012). Gioia, et al. (2012) exclaim that traditional research approaches that adhere to strict interview guidelines limit researchers from surfacing novel insights during the interview procedure. These semi-structured interviews also permitted managers to share experiences that allowed them to stumble upon self-realisations regarding their management style and firm

strategy. Gioia et al. (2012) point to Morgan's (1983) argument that the interview process needs to be considered as a process of ‘research as engagement.’ It must be a rewarding experience for both the researcher and the participant. Both groups of managers were asked the same questions, however, the managers participating in the Eco-Innovation Pilot were also asked questions about their experience of the programme to provide another lens of inquiry to the study (See Appendix B for interview questions).

An instrumental interviewing approach incorporated by me throughout the interviewing process was Nilsson and Paddock' (2014) ‘inscaping’ practice. The aim of ‘inscaping’ is to surface the inner experiences of participants by asking experiential questions. Inner experiences can include emotions, ideas, intuitions, aspirations, needs and values. Two specific ‘inscaping’ strategies I employed was what Nilsson and Paddock call ‘expanding the question' and ‘turning strategy inward’. To ‘expand the question’, the authors note that typically when teams are planning or evaluating a project, questions of ‘what do we want to achieve’ and then ‘did we achieve our objectives’ questions are asked. While these questions are important, one may also ask ‘how do we want to experience this project?’ or ‘how did we experience this project?’ In ‘turning strategy inwards’, the authors note a common approach to strategy development is rooted in analysing the characteristics of an organisation in relation to its environment. A common tool to do so is the SWOT analysis in which leaders examine their internal strengths, weaknesses and external opportunities and threats. Nilsson and Paddock remark that one can ask more experiential SWOT questions that ask about an organisation's internal passions and struggles and external curiosities and fears. In the current study, I made use of these two ‘inscaping’ practices by asking those managers that took part in the Eco-Innovation Pilot Programme about their expectations of how they wanted to experience the programme and at the end asked them how they did experience the programme. All participants were also asked numerous questions about their personal passions, struggles, curiosities and fears relative to sustainability pressures and decision-making. These experiential questions enabled me to surface participants’ interior experiences and assist in address the research question that revolves around manager’s experiences of sustainability tensions.

I received consent before each interview and let all participants know that they would have anonymity with no company names or details to be shared. However, I did not promise confidentiality as this would limit all reporting on the interview process (Gioia, et al., 2012). All interviews were audio recorded under consent, and the interviewer did not take extensive field notes, which allowed the interview to feel more like a conversation between the participant and myself. Nevertheless, due to the series of back-to-back sessions, I did take field notes on the interview guide itself in order to facilitate the improvement of the following interviews. Eisenhardt (1989) refers to a similar style of field note taking as ‘push thinking’, in which the researcher notes down what they are learning and how the cases differ from one another.