Engaging with Organisations for Institutional Ethnography: Key Lessons from Malawi’s Energy Sector

Written by: Dr Sangita Thebe Limbu, JustGESI Research Associate

From left to right: Dr Christabel Yollanda Kambala (Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences) and Tamara Mhango (Girls Empowerment Network), who led the JustGESI scoping study on gender, inclusion, and energy policies in Malawi.

At the December 2025 JustGESI Work Package 2 meeting, Dr Christabel Yollanda Kambala of the Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS) and Tamara Mhango of the Girls Empowerment Network (GENET) shared reflections from their scoping study on gender, inclusion, and energy policies in Malawi. Their presentation provided an insightful perspective on how researchers can effectively engage with organisations and select partners for Institutional Ethnography (IE). 

Institutional Ethnography is a feminist research approach grounded in people’s lived experiences. It examines how texts and language coordinate everyday practices of organisations and the lives of those who interact with them. This methodology was pioneered by the late sociologist Dorothy E. Smith in collaboration with her students and colleagues. It is one of the key methodological frameworks guiding the JustGESI research project, which aims to address the structural drivers of discrimination and inequalities in energy policies and practices.

Between April and May 2025, the Malawi team conducted preliminary research with a diverse set of energy-focused organisations, including government ministries, state agencies, public bodies, and a traditional local authority. Their objective was to map the policy landscape and understand how gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) considerations feature within these organisations and the broader energy policy context in Malawi. A central theme of their presentation was the practical learning that emerged from stakeholder engagement, summarised as follows:

Lessons from Working with Diverse Organisations

The team emphasised that institutional engagement is never one-size-fits-all. Each organisation requires a different approach and its own entry points. For example, some organisations responded well to emails and phone calls, others required formal letters of intent, and engagement with traditional leaders needed culturally grounded approaches that emphasised respect and relationship building.

Building rapport proved essential across all organisations. Identifying the right contact person and reaching out personally helped establish trust and clarify expectations. Even within organisations that had designated gender focal points, staff were not always authorised to share information without approval from senior leadership. This made it important to understand and adhere to organisational hierarchies and internal protocols.

The team also found considerable differences in openness and readiness among organisations. Factors such as whether an organisation was a ministry, a state agency, or a public body shaped both the ease and level of engagement and the type of access that could be negotiated.

Ethical practice underpinned every stage of the work. This included maintaining transparency about the research project with respondents and ensuring careful documentation of engagements, such as recording details of every visit and contact. The team also relied on existing relationships where appropriate to facilitate introductions.

Selecting Organisations for Institutional Ethnography

These lessons played an important role in shaping how organisations were selected for the next phase of the project, which involves conducting Institutional Ethnography within selected organisations. Readiness and willingness to collaborate were identified as key criteria for selection. The team also looked for organisations with a certain level of gender policy maturity and those that could offer access to policy documents, data, and staff. Importantly, they prioritised partners who were open to hosting researchers for extended periods, which is one of the key requirements of Institutional Ethnography work.

The team further shared insights into the design of their research tools and engagements. For example, questionnaires were developed in phases and adapted to suit different respondents. Engagement with local chiefs took place in person rather than online to support trust building. For data analysis, the Malawi team began with a set of predefined codes but remained open to new themes that surfaced during the process. Their approach enabled contradictions and variations across organisations to be identified, critically analysed, and more deeply understood.

To conclude, Dr Kambala and Ms Mhango noted that effective organisational engagement is both relational and iterative. It requires flexibility, cultural awareness, clear communication, relationship building, and a willingness to adapt methods to institutional realities. These lessons will guide the next stage of the JustGESI project as the team deepens its Institutional Ethnography work to understand structural drivers of discrimination within Malawi’s energy sector.