This research adopts a small number of in-depth interviews to explore the reason why NGOs in the UK and China participate in GE or not. An advantage of small number
approaches is that they have better internal validity and measurement validity,272
which means the approaches allow more in-depth study into what we want to explore.273
However, it has problems with generalising, which means the findings cannot be over generalised among all groups in the UK and China. Second, this research can be considered as a ‘most-different design’, which refers to a method examining cases as different as possible to identify similar factors influencing these different cases.274
This research includes two different cases of the UK and China in order to identify variables that work in both countries through comparison. Meanwhile, it is a cross-organisational comparative design between involved and non-involved NGOs. However, this method has a limitation in that ‘it is more useful for ruling out necessary causes than determining causality’.275
There are also difficulties in conducting in-depth interviews in practice. The first aspect of difficulty lies in accessing participants. As the respondents need to speak for the organisations they represent, it is better to invite directors or staff members with high positions in these groups. Although most of the interviewed respondents were directors in their organisations, there was a difficulty in accessing chief directors in some large NGOs, such as Greenpeace. Another obstacle in approaching potential participants is that, 272 Internal validity, as opposed to external validity was introduced by Campbell in 1957. Internal validity aims to deal with the question of whether ‘a treatment had an effect in a given study’ while external validity addresses the issue of whether this effect could be generalised. (See Donald Campbell, ‘Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings’ (1957) 54 Psychological Bulletin 297; Charles Reichardt, ‘Internal Validity’ (2015) 12 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 450) Measurement validity relates to the concern whether operationalization ‘adequately reflect the concept the research seeks to measure’. (See Robert Adcock and David Collier, ‘Measurement Vadility: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research’ (2001) 95 American Political Science Review 529.) 273 Baker and Edwards (n 241). 274 Arend Lijphart, ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’ (1971) 65 The American Political Science Review 682. 275 Ibid.
especially in China, people turned down my request for an interview in the first place when they heard about the topic of GE, as they were reluctant to make comments if they had little knowledge on it. It takes time to persuade people to participate to talk about why they do not engage with GE and some still refused to be interviewed in the end. The second aspect of difficulty was conducting interviews in different national contexts. As mentioned earlier, this research involves a comparison between the UK and China. Due to the different situation concerning GE in the two countries, as well as the different languages required, it was difficult to arrange all the interviews in both countries in a relative short period of time to situate responses in different social contexts. In addition, translating the transcripts of interviews in China required considerable time, and also the accuracy of translation matters when understanding their responses.
Appendix of Chapter 3
Appendix 3.1: Question outline for the pilot
The purpose of this interview is to find out a little more about the perceptions and experiences of respondent relating to geoengineering and views on the NGO participation in it. To start off, what do you know about geoengineering? 1. How did you find out about geoengineering for the first time? 2. Have you ever done research on geoengineering? What kind of research have you done? 3. As a climate scientist, is your work now specifically focused on GE research? 4. So far, how would you rate your own knowledge of geoengineering? 5. What are the main uncertainties in our understanding of the feasibility and impacts of geoengineering? Do you think geoengineering will be implemented in the future? Why? What are your perceptions of geoengineering research and its governance? 6. How would you classify different stages of research on geoengineering? What are the criteria for these stages? 7. To the best of your knowledge, what stage of research on geoengineering are we at now?
8. What do you think are the most serious concerns involved in conducting geoengineering research?
9. Do you think self-governance is sufficient for the current research stage of governance? If so, why is that? If not, what further measures might be needed?
10. What kind of research governance do you think is needed at other stages of research?
How do you perceive NGO participation in geoengineering?
11. Do you know any NGOs who have shown interest in geoengineering? If you do, could you name a few? (Which NGOs? What’s the nature of these NGOs? How did they show interest in geoengineering?)
12. Have you ever been in collaboration with NGOs during the course of your working life? If so, could you describe the circumstances of the collaboration?
13. What are the benefits and obstacles of collaborating with NGOs?
14. Is there any difference of involvement in geoengineering between the scientific community and NGOs? 15. What do you think are the most serious concerns about the involvement of NGO in GE? Appendix 3.2: Question outline for formal interviews
The purpose of this interview aims to find out the perceptions and experiences of respondents relating geoengineering and the reasons why NGOs become involved or not in GE. To start off, what do you know about geoengineering? 1. How did you find out about geoengineering for the first time? 2. Have you ever obtained some knowledge about geoengineering? 3. As a staff member of an NGO, is your work now related to GE research? 4. So far, how would you rate your own knowledge of geoengineering?
5. What do you think are the main uncertainties in our understanding of the feasibility and impacts of geoengineering?
How do you perceive the role of NGOs in geoengineering?
6. Do you generally oppose or support GE research? Could you outline the main reason? 7. Has your institution (namely the ENGO you work for) expressed or published any comments or opinions in any method on GE? Could you tell me about it in detail? 8. If your institution has been engaged in GE, could you tell me the reason why you have paid attention to this area? If not, could you explain your potential reasons for staying clear of GE?
9. Have NGO tried to get involved in establishing a governance framework for GE research? (This could be a specific effort by your institution or other NGOs you know of.)
10. If so, what are the methods or opportunities for NGOs to be involved? What are the challenges and obstacles during the course? 11. How do you evaluate the effects of the involvement? What contributions do you think NGOs can make to governance of geoengineering? 12. How would you situate NGOs in the debate of geoengineering? Which NGOs have been the biggest players so far around the world? 13. Chinese NGOs: What is your opinion of the national geoengineering project ‘the Research on the Theory and Impacts of Geoengineering’ in China? Has any NGO tried to exerted influence on the project? Table 3.1: Scope of Chinese NGOs Typology Aims and scope
Greenpeace China
INGO Various topics in
environment areas.
CBCGDF
Government-supported
NGO
Green development and environmental litigation. HDIEO
Business-supported NGO Investigation on local
and regional
environmental problems; research on national and worldwide hot topics in environmental area.
TBEAS
Large grassroots NGO Local environmental
pollution problems, such as air pollution and water pollution in the north China.
IPE
Large grassroots NGO Environmental
information disclosure and public participation. Lvxing Taihang
Small grassroots NGO Local pollution problems
Table 3.2: Aims of UK NGOs NGO Aims and scope
FoE Campaign group on various topics in environment area, such as climate change, environmental justice.
WWF Aiming at ensuring the harmony
between human beings and nature. Greenpeace Campaign group with various focuses,
such as climate change, oceans and peace.
Blue & Green Tomorrow Focusing on sustainable living.
ETC Group Aiming at monitoring power, tracking technology, and strengthening diversity.
Biofuelwatch Providing information, advocacy and campaigning with regard to the climate, environment, human rights, and public health.
Practical Action Aiming at using sustainable technology to challenge poverty.
TearFund A Christian charity dealing with
reducing poverty.
ClientEarth Lawyers using environmental law to protect oceans, forests, other habitats and people.
Chapter 4 Interview Results
As mentioned in chapter 3, the main research method employed in this research is the qualitative in-depth interview method. It aims to answer the question of why NGOs participate or do not participate in GE in the UK and China. Based on this research question, samples of interviews were selected under the strategy of purposive sampling.276
Respondents were selected in a strategic way through two criteria: first, two countries – the UK and China – were chosen as case studies;277
second, a certain number of NGOs within each country were selected. Most of the NGO respondents are environmental NGOs (ENGOs), making them eligible and relevant to this study. As mentioned in chapter 3, an ENGO is a non-governmental organisation in the environmental field. This research seeks to identify two types of ENGOs in each country, NGOs involved in GE and those not involved in it. In the UK, six ENGOs that are involved in GE were selected as respondents: FoE, WWF, ETC Group, Biofuel Watch, Blue & Green Tomorrow, and Greenpeace. These six NGOs are the most active NGO players in GE discussion. As for the non-involved NGOs, TearFund, Practical Action, and ClientEarth were selected. This is because, although these groups have not engaged in GE, their focus includes climate change, which is covered within the scope of GE. It is meaningful to explore why they are not involved in GE since they do focus on the broader sector of climate change and might, potentially, be expected to have some interest in GE. In China, due to the fact that none of the ENGOs have been involved in GE, all the respondents were selected from
276 For literature on ‘purposive sampling’, see for example, Bryman (n 47).
non-involved groups. CBCGDF, HDIEO, TBEAS, IPE, Lvxing Taihang, and Greenpeace China were chosen as respondents for the interview. The reason why these groups were decided on as the respondents is that they cover a wide range of types of ENGO in China, namely government-supported NGOs, business-supported NGOs, large grassroots NGOs, small grassroots NGOs, and international NGOs respectively. This wide range of choice aims to reduce selection bias when sampling.
In this chapter, the results of qualitative interviews to the ENGOs mentioned above are presented. These results will be employed to analyse the research question of why NGOs are or are not involved in GE in the UK and China. This analysis will be developed more fully in chapters 6 and 7. This chapter comprises three sections: section 4.1 presents the empirical results of interviews in China; section 4.2 provides the data collected among UK NGOs; the final section addresses concluding remarks of results in the two countries and points out interesting responses to be discussed in chapters 6 and 7.