Researcher bias. Narrative approaches share the same shortcomings as other interpretive approaches to research and theory building. Most particularly, criticisms of narrative analysis that might be brought against this study relate to the inherent subjectivity which has been suppressed, and even denied, in positivist approaches to studying corporate philanthropy and other business and society areas of research interest (Crane, 1999).
Subjectivity and bias are not problems in that they are a recognised facet of this type of research. My interpretation of the interview talk produced by participants creates and distorts their constructions of experience and I cannot act as if I am presenting those experiences without bias or value imposition. This is because bias is a fundamental component of research; there is no unbiased access to people’s subjectivities (Lawler, 2002).
Related to this subjectivity is the positioning of myself as researcher vis-à-vis the participants (research subjects). The interpretation of interview material and narrative analysis recognises that I will inevitably impose my own
74 interpretation on the textual material. As a New Zealand male PhD candidate I am removed from the everyday practice of corporate philanthropy, yet through my associations with Philanthropy New Zealand, I have aligned myself with key individuals who have influenced and continue to influence corporate philanthropic practice in New Zealand. Indeed, my association would likely have an impact on the participants’ narrations.
‘Appropriateness’ of my interpretive account. My role as researcher requires me to question, rather than automatically sanction, and to maintain a critical and analytical stance, yet bias is inevitable. In the process of interpretation, a reconstruction occurs and that reconstruction reflects something of my own personality and experience. However, the process of theory building in this study addresses the accusation that my proposed theory might be too far
removed from my participants’ constructions in three ways: by cross-checking analysis of narrative-based themes with (1) other interview talk, (2) supervisors and (3) by going back to participants seeking feedback from one giving- manager and one receiving-manager who were originally interviewed. This iterative process allows for alternative interpretations of data to emerge and provides a level of inter-subjective confirmation of the claims (Turnbull, 2002).
Limitations of the focus on the corporate philanthropic relationship. This study
relies on managers’ narrations of their philanthropic relationship experiences. As such, it is predicated on the assumption that managers engage in relationships and that those relationships, as experienced, are rich enough and meaningful enough to facilitate narration. Asking managers about why they give or why they receive and how they go about those activities would have been likely to reveal considerably more empirical material about the intentions and methods behind philanthropy than my narrower focus. This study seeks, however, to address a shortcoming in the prevailing literature on corporate philanthropy rather than to present a corporate construction of corporate
75 philanthropy (an approach that prevails). Thus the specific and confined focus on the philanthropic relationship, including relationship partners, is justified despite the potential for the study to yield a less significant amount of empirical material.
Ethical challenges. Questions that arise regarding the ethicality of interviewing managers and reporting their perceptions on the gift relationships they inhabit were raised in the application to the appropriate Human Ethics Committee4. It
was agreed that participants would be ‘offered’ confidentiality in any reporting.
But since narrative has traditionally concerned itself with identity (Czarniawska, 2007), the problem of concealing identity was apparent. Although there was potential for this research to report sensitive perceptions and even disagreements between giving-managers and receiving-managers, all participants were made aware of this potential and no issues of this nature emerged in the study.
Consistent with the requirements of the Massey University Human Ethics Committee and at the point of recruitment, all participants in this project were offered certain rights. These were made clear in the information sheets (Appendix 2; Appendix 3) provided before the commencement of participation
and repeated verbally in the interviews. I sought each participant’s consent to
use the interview transcript. Participants were contacted via email and asked to look at the relevant transcript and to let me know what changes they wanted made.
Sample size. The sample size, although small, allows for a richer insight into
managers’ constructed human experiences. It is common for studies drawing
4 This project was reviewed and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee: Southern A, Application 07/76.
76 from interpretive, inductive and constructivist positions and using the qualitative interview method to report useful findings having interviewed ten participants (Cooke, 2008; Lewis, 2009). The emphasis for the collection of narratives, of course, was to be placed on the quality of the narrative material produced and not its quantity (Mano & Gabriel, 2006).
Conclusion
This chapter has presented an account of the research design that guided this study. Use of a narrative approach enables me to see how managers sequence the flow of experience to make meaning of the events and actions in their philanthropic lives. Studying managers’ narratives is an appropriate approach, useful for what the managers can reveal about corporate philanthropic relationships. The meanings that managers attach to their experiences are not accidental, they are deliberate, related and biased and therefore essential to the construction of knowledge and theory. This is a strong means of addressing the methodological shortcomings inherent in the present body of knowledge on corporate philanthropy. The ensuing chapter presents the analysis of interviews with giving-managers, and provides one side of the relationship – the side that is more frequently highlighted and almost always typically presented as the more dominant.
77