TRES TEORÍAS SOBRE LAS QUE BASAR LAS MASCULINIDADES ÉTICAS

As Gillham (2000:59) argues, interviews are an indispensable part of case study research. Indeed, they offer insight from other agents' on the research topic and are necessary to abstract the causal mechanisms of which Sayer (2000:22) claims statistical methods alone can only offer formal rather than substantial association. In this research, interviews have been conducted, using both open and closed questioning techniques, starting with pre-set questions that provided structure to the interview and followed by open questions prompted by the responses of the individuals to earlier questions. I was also fortunate enough to be able to informally address a group of approximately forty NGO representatives in Caracas to learn from their experiences and I met representatives of a communal council, who explained how they were benefitting from oil monies. Interviews were conducted predominantly in Spanish, but also in English, when the interviewee felt more comfortable using this language. I have translated any interview material cited in chapter 7 into English.

I interviewed a total of 89 respondents, as shown in table 1:

31

For the closed, opinion-based questions, respondents were asked to indicate a numerical response, based on a Likert scale of 1-7, where 1 is completely disagree, 2 is strongly disagree, 3 is disagree, 4 is neither agree nor disagree, 5 is agree, 6 is strongly agree and 7 is completely agree. The quantifiability of these questions/responses enabled their easy comparison post-interview. Robson (2005:293) notes that “people often enjoy completing a scale of this kind”; this is important as respondents who want to participate are more likely to consider their responses. The decision to number the scale from 1-7, instead of for example 1-5, was taken to enable more nuanced responses and 4 sat as a middle point for answers with which respondents did not want to either agree or disagree. The pre-set questions

32

dealt with attitudes about the oil industry and its social action, which social issues MNOCs' focus upon and why, who most impacts the decision-making process surrounding MNOCs’ CSR and which agents are most involved in the execution of social action programmes. The open questions that followed: i) allowed in-depth answers where appropriate; ii) enabled me to pose/omit sensitive questions freely, in a way which a questionnaire would not; iii) enabled me to pose new questions that arose from previous questions asked; and iv) gave interviewees the opportunity to add anything they thought I may have overlooked. The open questions aimed to collect information that would help me to understand the potential underlying mechanisms that affect MNOCs' relations with other actors including the state, civil society and its components, other companies, MNOCs' overseas headquarters and international institutions regarding CSR. These questions were posed based on the interviewees’ responses to the closed questions and the role and work experience of the interviewee.

I was aware that I needed to gain information about an object that is independent of that which exists in the mind of those who, as subjects, experience it. Thus, I wanted to interview a wide-range of actors. In the end, I conducted 89 interviews. In selecting interviewees, I used purposive sampling. I began by listing each category of person that I wanted to meet, based on their relevance to the study. From this list, I tried to locate as many people directly corresponding to these criteria as possible, whilst trying to maintain a balance and ensure that a good number of each category were represented. To ensure balance amongst the different categories of interviewees, as interview requests were accepted, I kept a tally of the sectors to which interviewees belonged and subsequently focused my efforts towards obtaining interviews with relevant actors from other sectors.

Before conducting field research, I established contact with people in Brussels who work in NGOs, trade unions, MNOCs and the Colombian and Venezuelan embassies in order to refine my interview questions and to acquire the contact details of potential interviewees. This helped me to establish sets of accepted terms, meanings and norms for interaction. It also meant that on arrival in Colombia and Venezuela, I had already arranged

33

several interviews in both countries. In each country, I contacted MNOCs’

CSR representatives, NOC representatives, trade unionists, international and national NGO workers, church leaders involved in human rights work, academics, journalists, embassies from MNOCs home governments, politicians from opposition parties, government officials and oil consultants/specialists. Regarding the CSR representatives, I interviewed representatives from both newer and traditional MNOCs. The NOC employees that I interviewed in each country were working on, or had worked on, CSR. I also contacted the main oil company unions and the trade unions dealing with oil workers to gain a wider picture of the corporate responsibility.

NGOs too were able to provide me with this information. I selected NGOs based upon: i) their topic of focus; ii) their having worked with oil companies to determine or execute CSR; iii) their monitoring of oil companies; iv) their support/opposition to oil companies’ CSR; and v) their size. The NGOs selected were thus chosen to cover these categories in a balanced way. The categories chosen also broadened once I was in the field. For example, in Venezuela, given the importance of oil to its international relations, several Western embassies had staff working on oil policies. Whilst I was aware of their potential political biases, and of the potential influence a home government can have on MNOCs’ actions, these interviewees offered very interesting insights into oil operations.

As a rule, I interviewed all relevant people who accepted to meet me, and this allowed me, for example, to interview representatives of the vast majority of MNOCs and oil companies operating in the country at the time of my research. I also established contact with the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion (IESA) in Caracas, which allowed me access to their facilities during my stay in Venezuela. Moreover, I had help from a couple of friends in both countries who were well placed to facilitate initial interviews.

Venezuela, in particular, is a country where personal connections are important. In this vein, I was fortunate to have contact with a well-connected businessman, who facilitated introductions with the first CSR and NGO representatives that I met. This was useful in terms of establishing my legitimacy and credibility. The first CSR representatives that I met facilitated

34

meetings with at least one other CSR representative and an NGO partner.

Subsequent interviewees were contacted through cold calling or by subsequent recommendations from other interviewees of contacts working in the same or in other sectors. In each interview, I asked the interviewees whether they could identify anyone else with whom I should speak. For example, it was on the recommendations of one of the NGO interviewees that I contacted a politician with experience of working on MNOCs’ CSR. In Colombia, I was able to tap into an existing network of personal NGO contacts, which helped to facilitate meetings with people of interest.

However, most of the interviews were obtained by cold calling, preceded by an e-mail explaining the objectives of my research.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, interviewees did not wish to be recorded. Thus, I took notes during the interview process and typed her notes onto a computer immediately after each interview had taken place. In terms of confidentiality, I promised each interviewee that their name would not be linked to anything they said during interview without my expressly receiving their permission first. Some interviewees were happy for me to mention the name of their organisation, others were not. I also reminded each interviewee that they did not have to participate and that they could stop the interview at any time. Access to the data collected is strictly controlled and the names of those interviewed are stored separately from the data itself.

At interview, I tried not to share my personal opinions with those being interviewed. Equally, in constructing the interview questions, I avoided potentially leading questions. As Harvey (1990:12) argues, researcher-respondent relations are generally hierarchically structured with the researcher directing the information flow and exchange. However, interviewees have no obligation to present the objective truth (Berry, 2002:680). Not only may they lie, or suffer from memory loss/bias, but their reasoning may be framed by hidden (i.e. political/ideological) agendas. For example, several interviewees illustrated their arguments by recounting events at which they were not present. This raised issues of reliability and validity. Indeed, as I interviewed, for example, MNOCs' CSR representatives, I had the impression that some of them had used the time

35

between having accepted the interview and the interview itself to prepare a list of company success stories. For example, one CSR representative had arranged to show me a promotional video to better understand the company's social action before I was able to interview them. Most others were armed with promotional materials as some CSR representatives wore the double-hat of CSR and communication. Whilst these representatives were very amiable, knowledgeable and offered detailed answers, which made them appear more credible, it was apparent that they approached the interviews with something they wanted to say. From this perspective, the use of both closed and open questions was useful. I reminded interviewees that the numerical values they provided would be aggregated and were to reflect all MNOCs and that I had no intention of conducting a witch-hunt to vilify any particular company. This visibly relieved a few of the interviewees, even if I still had to remain critical of their subsequent statements. I also encouraged interviewees to differentiate between their own organisation and those around them and to critique their own case, by asking why people might hold specific views, different to their own, thereby distancing interviewees from their own somewhat pre-determined perspective without appearing to be sceptical of what they were saying as suggested by Berry (2002:680). In essence, however, the most helpful technique in this regard, was in selecting a wide-range of interviewees with (radically) different viewpoints to further my own critical analysis of the information. Following each interview, I tried to determine where I needed further clarification on certain points or where I was unsure of the validity of what had been said and made prompt notes to remind myself to ask other interviewees questions on the same or related points.