Ethical considerations – Paper 2

Ethical concerns are key in every step of research – from planning the project, to the dissemination of results. Especially in qualitative research, where details about individuals, groups and organisations are in focus, research projects as well as the researchers themselves influence the field they engage in, often in unintended or unexpected ways (Goodwin, Pope, Mort and Smith, 2003; Iphofen and Tolich, 2018). Although the qualitative case study (Paper 2) has not targeted the generation of sensitive data, specific measures have been taken to preserve the anonymity of the organisation and the participating employees, obtain the consent of research participants and ensure the safe management and storage of data.

As a visiting researcher in the case organisation (Paper 2), I have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which legally binds me to maintain the anonymity of the organisation, as well as the individual employees who have participated. The NDA also obliges me to keep information I have obtained from the corporate intranet confidential. However, partial disclosure is permitted if the information is “necessary for the purpose of the research” and pertains to

“guidelines, policies and processes concerning language”. I am also not to access or

75

treat information concerning commercial secrets, working procedures, technical information or the commercial or economic situation of the case company. In order to respect these terms and maintain the anonymity of the organisation and the individual participants, I do not disclose the name of the organisation, its sector, or other details which make its identification possible, nor do I reveal the names of participants. However, as permitted under the NDA, I report relevant information about the geographic locations, as well as organisational titles and language backgrounds of the interviewed individuals. This balancing act is not without ethical challenges, as I have constantly had to prioritise which data points concerning individual and company characteristics to disclose, while maintaining full anonymity. While an NDA may limit a researcher’s flexibility in treating and revealing crucial contextual data about the organisation, it has also been a key agreement which has legitimated and permitted my presence in the organisation.

In order to respect GDPR rules and regulations, digital data files, such as interview audio files, transcripts, word document notes, and corporate documents have been stored on a university server which requires two-factor authentication for access. Physical data, such as recording devices and notebooks with field notes have been locked where only the primary researcher has access.

For the semi-structured interviews, verbal consent during the interview was obtained after an explanation of the research project and data treatment and storage.

Further written information and a consent form was distributed to all participants to supplement the verbal consent. For the virtual meeting recordings, information sheets were also distributed to all participants to ensure full access to information concerning my research practices.

Primary ethical concerns which commonly arise following researcher involvement in the field are the blurred boundaries of what is data, how far does consent reach and whether the presence of the researcher introduces or exacerbates tensions concerning the research topic (Delamont and Atkinson, 2018). Particularly

76

during participant observation, I experienced that I constantly encountered potential sources for new insight, but questioned whether these sources were covered by my agreement with the organisation. Although the NDA is the overarching agreement between me and the organisation concerning my data management, it is not specific enough to outline the limits of my access to observations in the organisations. In these cases, I have taken notes, which, even without specific identifying information on an individual level, have provided contextual reference for the content of the interview data.

Furthermore, it was a challenge ensuring the distribution of information to all employees present in the offices and teams which I observed. During my stays in Denmark and Spain, even though I, myself and my organisational contact had informed everyone that I was collecting data for a project and that I would be taking notes concerning the dynamics of the offices, it still seemed, even until the end, that some were still misinformed about my role. Even though my notes do not go into detail on the individual level, they have to some degree, in paraphrasing, also documented the utterances or behaviour of some individuals who might have misunderstood my presence in their office. Obtaining informed consent from everyone for the participant observation part of the study would not have been feasible, nor allowed by the managers. I distributed the information sheet concerning my research and data management prior to all participants of the virtual meetings I recorded, but was not allowed to do this on an office level.

Finally, the risk of exerting a negative influence on the field became apparent when seeing indications that low English proficiency was associated with perceptions of low professional competence in the Germanic context, and that employees in the Spanish context showed awareness of lower English proficiency in their own context. I aimed at avoiding inducing or worsening tension between the different organisational entities based on perceptions of lower English proficiency.

Therefore, I underlined verbally in both contexts, that I was not interested in

77

studying English proficiency or evaluating the competence of employees or collective groups.