To analyse the interview data as well as the documentary evidence, a pluralistic approach including thematic and discourse analysis – the two main forms of discovering themes from qualitative data – was applied (Hesse-Biber and Johnson, 2015 ). Both thematic and discourse analysis include an initial familiarization and thematic coding of the data. The main difference between them is ‘not the initial process of analysis but the analytic concepts’ (Taylor, 2001, p 39). While discourse analysis searches for discursive patterns in themes representing a ‘certain style, a certain constant manner of statement’ (Foucault, 1972, p 33) constitutive of social phenomena, thematic analysis treats themes as an end in itself (Taylor, 2001). Employing a pluralistic approach enables an integrated exploration of language in use where discursive dependencies (discursive patterns which are constitutive of social phenomena) are put into relation to non-discursive (Foucault, 1991). By means of discourse, financial subjects are constructed, yet it is also a tool of resistance. Exploring subjects’ discourses therefore opens up the possibility of unpacking different dimensions of financial subjectivities. Thematic analysis then reveals ‘the places where it [discourse] implants itself and produces its real effects’ (Foucault, 2003, p 28) in terms of financial practices.

By means of a Foucauldian discourse analytic approach, it is shown how discourses surrounding asset norms come into being, ‘establishing what subsequently counts as being self-evident, universal, and necessary’ (Foucault, 1991, p 76), and how interviewees position themselves within these discourses. This includes an analysis of discursive formations which normalize a way of behaving and analysing metaphors which is also widely used in Foucauldian discourse analysis (Jacobs and Manzi, 1996; Talib and Fitzgerald, 2016) and has entered financialization studies (Soaita and Searle, 2016). Discursive formations and ‘metaphors enable one to grasp precisely the points at which discourses are transformed’ (Foucault, 1980, p 70) and a way of acting is normalized – for instance, when being used to mitigate contradictive forces and provide justification for practices. The thematic analysis then shows the effects of discourse, that is, the impact of asset norms on everyday life.