Qué prototipo de personaje preferirías representar?

I identified the following key criteria for the study sample:

1. I wanted to find out about the experience of people currently working in organisations with formal roles that involve influencing environmental decision- making in policy, strategy and/or practice17.

2. As I was interested in factors influencing enactment of pro-environmental values, participants would have to hold strong pro-environmental values and identity. 3. Participants with propensity and willingness to be mindful would be able to give me

richer accounts of their subjective experience including physical sensations,

emotions and thoughts. This is the ‘verbal acuity’ that Lertzman (2015) also used as a selection criterion for her study (see 3.3.1).

These criteria set the conditions of purposive homogenous sampling, in line with the IPA framework discussed in the previous section (see 3.3.1) (Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009). This means they have been selected on the basis that they grant access to a particular

perspective on the phenomena under study, namely the perspective of an individual oriented to pro-environmental values. The phenomenon under study is their experience of working to influence organisational practices.

4.1.2 Recruitment process

I used a variety of local, national and global marketing channels to recruit participants in order to reach a wide number of sustainability professionals:

• Professional bodies membership mailing lists e.g. NW Sustainable Business Network

• Sustainable business social networks e.g. LinkedIn groups

• Twitter and Facebook posts

• My website

• My personal and professional contacts

The recruitment text emphasized I was looking for individuals who cared about nature and were currently in roles with decision-making authority in their organisations with regard to environmental policy and strategy. It stated it was an inquiry into their experience of influencing their organisation with respect to environmental decision-making, with an interdisciplinary approach. Confidentiality and anonymity was emphasised. I did not specify that participants needed to work in any particular type of organisation e.g. industry sector, ownership model or size. I included basic information about participation and provided a link to my website (Appendix 1) for further information and to download the Participant

Information Sheet (Appendix 2). Interested individuals were invited to email me to arrange a time for an orientation conversation in person or by phone/skype. The purpose of this conversation was to discuss the research in more detail including the specifics of what their participation would involve in terms of minimum levels of commitment (2-hour interview, final debrief) and optional further involvement (diary, direct/indirect observation, access to relevant organisational documents).

In the recruitment materials and orientation conversation I deliberately did not give any information about the psychosocial factors, the particular theories underpinning the study, or my personal feelings about the topic. The reason for this was to lessen the chance of skewing the data (Lertzman 2015) by not loading prospective participants minds with expectations about me, and how I would be analysing their data - expectations that further down the line might also lead them to feel judged.

4.1.3 Selection process

Over the recruitment phase (Feb to April 2014) I received 15 enquiries. I discounted those who were not currently in relevant employment as per criterion 1. I sent the others a consent form (Appendix 3) and a link to an online survey (Appendix 4). The intention behind

using a survey was to gather responses from prospective participants to assess suitability against criteria 2 and 3 listed above: pro-environmental values and identity, and ability to give rich accounts of experience. This method echoes that used by Lertzman (2015) who also selected participants based on an online survey for similar reasons: gauging levels of

environmental concern and verbal acuity. The survey I designed included two scales. I was not so much interested in the aggregate scores as the responses to individual items, so I did not use the scales in a quantitative way but the survey had the pragmatic advantages of a quantitative approach in that it was quick and easy to complete (Easterby-Smith et al 2008). All the respondents expressed self-transcendence values and/or intrinsic goals in the open questions, and had sufficiently high scores on the connection with nature and mindfulness scales to warrant selection.

Fig 4.2 Survey used to select participants

Survey item Rationale for inclusion

Open question - reason for interest in taking

part in this study To ascertain whether they appear oriented to pro-environmental values (criterion 2) Reflective, emotional, insightful responses are indication that may provide rich data as a participant

Open question – reason for involvement in developing environmental policy and/or strategy in your organisation

15-item Mindful Awareness and Attention Scale

(Brown & Ryan 2003) Self-report of trait mindfulness reduces risk participant is not able to notice and relate their direct experience (criterion 3)

Do you practice mindfulness meditation? (5

choices) Find out experience of mindfulness meditation

14-item Connection with Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz 2004). Added 1 item from Environmental Identity Scale (Clayton & Opotow 2004) and 2 items from New Environmental Paradigm revised scale (Dunlap et al 2000)

Indicator of sense of self as part of nature, and pro-environmental beliefs (criterion 2)

At orientation I also gathered the following information

• Organisation name and industry sector

• Gender and age

• Length of time in post

Five candidates did not complete the initial survey leaving me with eight participants as case studies. Of these, six ended up completing the full study: three males and three females. Ages ranged from 32 to 48. All had been in post for more than three years, except one who had three months previously joined the organisation as chief executive. The others were managers at various levels in the organisational structure with formal responsibility for environmental policy and/or strategy and practice. I gathered the information listed above in case any of these factors would be relevant in their account.

The organisations the participants worked in were local government, social housing, credit union and health care industries in the UK and Canada. I did not intentionally set out to study individuals working in these sectors, but as they are public or third sector organisations in these particular countries. These profiles provide more homogeneity in the sample: both the UK and Canada can be characterised as industrialised growth societies that have dominant economic frames about nature (Goatly 2007; Dunlap 2008; Dryzek 1997; Lakoff 2010), and public and third sector organisations share the characteristic of not providing services with the purpose of creating profit for the owners. Combined with the selection criteria explained earlier, the sample can be regarded as homogenous in that they grant access to a particular perspective on the phenomena under study: the experience of an individual oriented to pro-environmental values working in a formal role to influence organisational practices in industrial growth societies where economic frames about nature predominate. Examples of non-homogeneity are: participants who do not hold formal roles with respect to sustainability, or who are not motivated by pro-environmental values to do their job, or who work in a society with a different dominant cultural worldview. In other disciplines and methodologies there may be different understandings of what constitutes a homogenous sample. The sample size of six is regarded as sufficient in IPA (Smith, Flowers &

Larkin 2009) and with qualitative, non-computer-aided, micro-discourse analysis studies, because of the close detail analysis of each case.

I summarise the organisational roles and context in the following table. Pseudonyms have been used to protect the participants’ anonymity, and other identifying information has also been removed.

Fig 4.3 Participant contextual information

Pseudonym Sector Job title and role in organisation

Rosemary Local

government UK (public sector)

Strategic Environment Manager

Producing regional environmental strategy and influencing decision-making about how natural ‘assets’ are devolved to local government, in a context of severe cuts in public funding. Seeking to protect these ‘assets’ from ‘irresponsible’ decision- making of senior managers

Jay Local

government UK (public sector)

Ranger

Conserving and restoring nationally important habitat in a context of major on-going organisational restucturing and job losses as a result of severe cuts in public funding. Seeking to ensure restructure does not adversely affect effective site management Ash Local government UK (public sector) Sustainability Manager

Delivering renewable energy programmes in the town and influencing decision-making about ‘greening’ the town. Seeking to reduce organisation’s direct and indirect carbon emissions and increase ‘green infrastructure’

Robin Social

housing UK (third sector)

Environmental Sustainability Officer

Delivering energy efficiency programmes with social housing residents and influencing decision-making about building design. Seeking to reduce organisation’s direct and indirect carbon emissions and development on greenbelt land and increase creation of wildlife habitats around their properties

Hazel Healthcare

Canada (public sector)

Energy Steward

Leading programmes to reduce waste and energy use in organisation. Seeking to reduce organisation’s impact through culture change

Heather Credit Union

UK

(third sector)

Chief Executive

Ultimately responsible for organisation’s activities, working with Board to produce an environmental policy. Seeking to reduce organisation’s direct impact and its indirect impact by financially supporting more environmental organisations

Reflections

Given the timescale I was working with to recruit participants, this method of using a wide range of different channels worked well in attracting interest and securing the number of participants needed for the study. The sample selected were relatively homogeneous as they worked in similar sectors (i.e. public and third sectors), had formal roles in their

organisations with regards to influencing environmental policy, strategy and/or practice, and expressed strong pro-environmental values. The sample matches Research Question 1, which together with the homogeneity demonstrates rigour in the research (see 3.3.3). With regards to national contexts, the UK and Canada are similar in that they are both industrial growth societies, as explained earlier. However, they differ in terms of national culture, laws, policies and so on, and this could be an argument for classing them as non-

homogenous. However, given the environmental philosophy informing my research about cultural worldviews and economic frames about nature, I think my argument that the UK and Canada have similar cultural worldviews justifies the inclusion of both countries in the sample.