In a practical sense, the process of researching companies, making telephone calls and setting up interviews was very labour intensive. I spent many hours trying to gain access to the appropriate individuals for the project. Alongside this process I was conscious of the potential limitations of the research and how I could address these issues. In sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 I will discuss issues of ethics and reliability. These considerations are similar to most other qualitative projects. In section 4.2.3 I will then discuss the issue of validity. I will argue that, in a constructivist project, validity must be considered in a particular way. How can we know that we have measured something correctly if the phenomenon we are measuring is (arguably) subject to interpretation? However, I would contend that some elements of validity can be applied to a constructivist project. These will be discussed in section 4.2.4. Finally, section 4.2.5 will consider the limitations of the project in terms of making
generalisations.
4.2.1 Ethics
On the subject of ethics, Kimmel (1988) states: ‘Since World War II, ethical issues in the social sciences have become a topic of growing concern as researchers try to ensure that their studies are directed toward worthwhile goals and that the welfare of their subjects and their research colleagues are protected’ (p.9). This project does not have significant ethical implications. It does not deal with a particularly ‘sensitive’ research topic, such as power and sexuality (Gailey and
94
Prohaska 2011), and it does not engage in risky or covert research methods (Labaree 2002). Nor does it involve ‘vulnerable’, ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘marginalised groups’
(Liamputtong 2007, p.1-2). As with any research project, however, there are still ethical issues to be considered.
The research was conducted with 44 ‘human subjects’ and the project was thus open to ethical scrutiny in relation to their protection and wellbeing.
Furthermore, as I was to discover, climate change is a more sensitive issue than may first be assumed. In terms of the participants themselves my two main ethical
considerations were informed consent and anonymity of the data. According to Plummer (2001) informed consent is ‘one of the most frequently named ethical criteria for research’ (p.223). The eight managers in the project were contacted by telephone and agreed to be involved on the basis of my explanation about the research aims. Similarly, the champions were provided with an overview of the project and the aims and objectives of the research. In case study D the manager arranged a focus group with his champions and acquired informed consent on my behalf. In the remaining three case studies, I emailed each champion individually and asked if they would be willing to talk to me for approximately an hour about their role and their own views on climate change. I was clear about the kind of information I was interested in and the purpose of the research. Thirty-six champions agreed to be involved in the project on the basis of the information that was provided. All of the champions were happy for me to provide feedback to their manager based on their own account of the project. Furthermore, all 44 participants consented to the use of recording equipment during the interview.
The second ethical issue was anonymity of the data. For the majority of participants, their consent to be involved was subject to my assurance that the data would be completely anonymous. This was particularly important for several of the managers when it came to granting me access to the business. Throughout the project I have removed any information which could reveal the identity of the individual participants or the businesses in which they were based. This includes any reference to projects or individuals with which they are associated. The only information I have included is the sectors of the eight companies and the gender of the participants.
Businesses are identified as case studies A-H. For purposes of referencing, managers are referred to as, for example, ‘A-manager’ or ‘B-manager’. Champions are referred to by a case study and a number: ‘A-1’ or ‘B-2’. Data was anonymised as soon as
95
each interview was completed. All recorded material, transcripts and personal details or business affiliations were securely stored and password protected.
The final ethical issue was the nature of climate change as a subject of discussion. When I began the project I was aware that climate change was an important issue. I was unaware that it could also be a sensitive issue. This became apparent in the first interview I conducted with a manager. He argued that you have to be careful what you say to people about climate change, ‘cos at the end of the day you’re potentially challenging people’s values’ (D-Manager). The status of climate change as a ‘taboo’ issue was something that had not emerged in the pilot study data.
However, over the duration of the interview period, it became increasingly apparent that climate change could be a very sensitive topic. This not only became an
interesting theme for the project, but it also had implications for the way I thought about my questions and the responses that I elicited from my participants. In particular, this issue was important in terms of the influence I had as a researcher.
Climate change was not only a political issue which could be studied in everyday interactions; it was often a very personal issue, reflecting norms and values that an individual held to be important. I was increasingly aware of the potential sensitivity of the issue and the importance of remaining as unbiased as possible when discussing the issue with my participants. The challenges that I encountered in this respect are discussed at length in section 4.2.4.
4.2.2 The Reliability of Qualitative Data
Reliability is ‘the capacity to produce consistent results’ (Bryman 2001, p.70).
If a project is reliable then a replica study, under the same conditions, would produce the same conclusions. This project is not as reliable as a scientific experiment; it is impossible to completely replicate the conditions under which the interviews were conducted and the frame of mind of the researcher and the participant on any given day. However, each interview was approached in exactly the same way and each participant was presented with the same set of questions and topics. The interviews were semi-structured and were, therefore, inevitably flexible. Some participants brought up later themes at the beginning of the interview and others talked at length on one topic. However, all interviews covered the broad range of themes that I intended to address and all participants were given the same information and
96
feedback. A far as qualitative data is concerned, I believe that the project is reliable and that the study could be replicated with very similar conclusions.
4.2.3 The Validity of Qualitative Data
Given the constructivist nature of the project, the issue of validity is
particularly problematic. Bell (1991) explains that validity ‘tells us whether an item measures or describes what it is supposed to measure or describe’ (p.51). However, a constructivist approach would argue that there is no authoritative account of any social phenomena and therefore we cannot ensure that we have accurately described anything.
Potter and Wetherell (2001) claim that in discourse analysis ‘we are not trying to recover events, beliefs and cognitive processes from participants’ discourse, or treat language as an indicator or signpost to some other state of affairs but looking at the analytically prior question of how discourses or accounts of things are
manufactured’ (p.200). A discursive approach adds a whole new dimension to the idea of ‘getting at the truth’ of an account. If discourses are constructed through language then, presumably, one champion’s version of events is not a neutral reflection of reality. Rather, it is constitutive. It constructs the reality of which it speaks (Carabine 2001). We must then question the very idea of ‘truth’. Can
discursive research ever be valid if there is not an independent reality to measure or describe? Furthermore, the interviews used to collect the data for the project could be criticised as a method which adds to this problem of ‘getting at the truth’.
Interviews have been criticised for giving a second hand account of
information: ‘The shortcomings we attribute to the interview exist when it is used as a source of information about events that have occurred elsewhere and are described to us by informants’ (Becker and Greer 1969, p.323). The project is therefore faced with two potential limitations. First, can we rely on interviews to give us an accurate account of the social world and second, if the social world is constructed, is there an accurate account to be obtained?
Becker and Greer (1969) argue that the only way to obtain valid and accurate data is participant observation:
97
Participant observation can thus provide us with a yardstick against which to measure the completeness of data gathered in other ways, a model which can serve to let us know what orders of information escape us when we use other methods (p.322).
The claim is that this research method is the only way to gain a complete account of any given social phenomenon. This begs the questions: Did I go far enough with my research? Was there more I could have done to address my research questions?
Ultimately, there is always more that could have been done. With limitless time and resources, the research could have been extended in a multitude of ways. However, it is important to note several points that support the value of my methodology and the research project more generally.
First, although the main project was based on interviews, during the course of the research I was able to engage in a very limited amount of participant observation.
The climate champion scheme is promoted by an organisation called Global Action Plan (GAP) and three out of the four case studies used GAP to help with
implementation of the scheme. At the beginning of the project I was keen to incorporate the training process into my research data and I attempted to set up interviews and observation with GAP itself. I was able to attend several GAP training events, but these were not directed towards the business sector and ultimately became superfluous to the research project. However, for the purposes of methodological reflection they did offer some insight into climate change communication from the perspective of a participant observer. I encountered many of the same themes at these events as I had during my interview process. Although very limited, this did add some weight to the data that was being generated by the interviews.
Second, the use of a focus group in case study D offered another perspective on the research data. Devine (2002) claims that focus groups provide ‘interaction between participants in a quasi-naturalistic setting – that is not too far removed from everyday conversation’ (p.199). The focus group champions spent much of the time talking amongst themselves, rather than directing their responses to me. This
provided a much more relaxed environment for discussion and a great deal of debate about the issue of climate change. It did, however, present many of the same themes as the interviews and the observation. This further supported the claim that the interviews were presenting an ‘accurate’ account of the champion role and their everyday interactions.
98
Interviews remain a very important research tool in qualitative analysis. In discourse analysis interviews have been ‘extensively used because they allow a relatively standard range of themes to be addressed with different participants’ (Potter 1996, p.129). Interviews allowed me to explore specific ideas and topics with the champions. They ensured stronger reliability than observation because I was able to replicate the interview setting in each case. Second, although participant observation would have allowed a first-hand perspective of the champion schemes, it would not have overcome the problem of ‘truth’ as a social construction. A discursive approach is constructivist no matter what kind of research methods we employ. Participant observation would have offered a first-hand account of how the champions
constructed climate change in their interactions with colleagues. Interviews offered a first-hand account of how the champions constructed climate change in their
interaction with me. Ultimately, both of these processes provided useful data about the communication of climate change. I was able to analyse the construction of climate change in everyday language. The problem of ‘truth’ as a construction is an essential part of a discursive approach.
4.2.4 Internal Validity
The validity that I discussed in the previous section is often referred to as
‘construct validity’ (Robson 1993, p.68). Are we using the right tools to generate the conclusions we are looking for? I have argued that this idea is problematic for a constructivist project. However, Robson (1993) also introduces the idea of ‘internal validity’. Rather than being concerned with a valid measure (the interview process and the questions I was asking), internal validity is concerned with causal
relationships and the claims researchers make about their work (Robson 1993, p.69).
Internal validity ensures that the claims that are made about the conclusions of a project are ‘true’ in the sense that they have not been affected by other factors
throughout the research process. Essentially, the researcher must consider factors that may have affected their research results, including their own influence as a
researcher. I would argue that this kind of validity is applicable to a constructivist project in much the same way as it would be in any other qualitative project.
There are a number of factors that could affect the internal validity of a project. In relation to my own project the main ‘threat to internal validity’ was my own influence as a researcher who was investigating the (potentially sensitive) topic
99
of climate change. Bernstein and Dyer (1979) argue that, ‘the presence of the interviewer is likely to inhibit responses of which the person thinks the interviewer will disapprove’ (p.63). My research interests indicated that my own attitude and behaviour was likely to be ‘climate-protecting’. The role of champions was specifically to promote climate friendly behaviour. There was inevitably a certain level of pressure for the champions to offer a response which they ‘perceive[d] to be desirable’ (Devine 2002, p.206).
Indeed, there were several instances when the champion clarified a statement or changed their mind about an answer. One champion was asked about the use of public transport and replied: ‘I’m happy to say, ok I’ll take er, I’ll take public transport to go to work or I’ll take my bike to work, but I don’* I refu* you know at the weekend I like going in the countryside’ (A-1, 858-860)25. The champion changed her mind twice about how she would frame her reply, indicating that she was looking for the most ‘desirable’ way to present her answer. Another champion was
embarrassed that there was ‘not a lot’ that she had done to promote environmental practices in the office (B-7, 82).
This issue of researcher influence was a potential problem for the project.
However, I aimed to maintain internal validity by addressing this issue in several ways. First, the issue of climate protecting behaviour as socially desirable was incorporated into the main part of the project. I acknowledged any hesitation or qualification in the accounts as an important part of the construction of climate change as an issue. Second, I was conscious of the way I framed my questions and the feedback I gave to the participants during an interview. I tried to avoid positive or negative reinforcement of their comments and I refrained from offering my own perspective on any of the questions or topics. In hindsight, the pilot study had been a very useful process through which to refine this ‘neutrality’ in the interview situation.
In addition, I think that the interview sample is an important consideration for the internal validity of the project. Although, admittedly, there was some qualification in the responses of certain champions, it is likely that most of the champions gave
‘desirable’ responses because they were climate-protecting anyway. The sample consisted of self-professed environmentalists who had volunteered to promote climate protecting behaviour in the workplace. The majority of them expressed
25 The use of an asterisk in the data indicates an unfinished word.
100
protecting values because those were the values they held. Furthermore, although they were generally climate-protecting, many of the champions admitted to some environmental ‘failings’ or more ‘self-interested’ reasons for becoming involved in the project. They were often embarrassed about these less ‘desirable’ traits, indicating that they thought I might disapprove of them, but they did talk about them. For example, the champion who was embarrassed still told me about her inability to implement climate-protecting practices at work. This does support the internal validity of the project. Although, researcher influence was an issue, it was addressed through the attempted neutrality of the interviews and the acknowledgment of the issue in the project itself. To a large extent, the participants appeared to be honest in their responses, despite my potential ‘disapproval’ of what they said.
The other factor that could affect the internal validity of the project is the institutional influence of the various businesses. It is feasible that the institutional setting of the participants might have affected the information that they were willing to disclose. However, I found that champions talked quite openly about obstacles that they faced, individuals who had caused them problems and, for some, the concern that the champion scheme was an exercise in public relations. This kind of
information does indicate a certain degree of honesty from the champions. They felt at ease discussing issues of which the business itself would perhaps not approve. The assurance of anonymity presumably played an important role in this kind of open discussion.
4.2.5 Making Generalisations
When I began the research project I was keen to generate conclusions that could be applied to other businesses and different environmental contexts. As explained, my original intention was to select a sample of businesses in different sectors so that my research conclusions could be more widely generalised. Given the access problems that I faced, the sample of participants did not cover a wide variety of business sectors. The case studies with champions covered three different sectors (consultancy, energy and finance). The extra manager interviews included the construction and retail sectors. The final sample included 24 women and 20 men.
They were variously located across the UK and represented many different job descriptions within the relevant companies.
101
As I have presented papers and chapters from the thesis, the potential for generalisations has been subject to some criticism. There are two main limitations in this respect. First, if the case studies are not a representative sample of different business sectors, how can the conclusions be generalised to the wider business context? Second, since the overall project focuses only on the business sector, how can we apply the conclusions to society more broadly?
In hindsight, these limitations were inevitable with the kind of project I wanted to undertake. Jaworski and Coupland (2006) claim that with qualitative data, it may be ‘necessary to scale back our ambitions in some ways... particularly in
In hindsight, these limitations were inevitable with the kind of project I wanted to undertake. Jaworski and Coupland (2006) claim that with qualitative data, it may be ‘necessary to scale back our ambitions in some ways... particularly in