Data-Source Confidentiality

Management research is carried out in a context that can be ‘sensitive’, and the degree of sensitivity can vary. The researcher’s investigation may constitute a threat to the organizations being studied and their members. This potential threat can be internal, relating to the risk of actors’ attitudes or behavior being revealed, which can have consequences on the life of the organization. ‘The presence of a researcher is sometimes feared because it produces a possibility that deviant activities will be revealed’ (Lee, 1993: 6). The researcher may repre­sent a threat vis-a-vis the world outside the organization, as that which relates to the management of an organization can have an impact on the organization’s relationship with its environment. It is, therefore, imperative to underline that all management research is characterized by varying degrees of confidentiality. The degree of confidentiality will also vary depending on the personality of the actors the researcher is brought into contact with.

Confidentiality imposes three kinds of constraint on the researcher. First there is the question of protecting confidentiality during the course of the research. Confidentiality can also have implications on the validation of results by subject- sources. The final problem relates to publication of the research results.

1. Protecting Data Confidentiality

Researchers working on ‘sensitive’ topics must understand the risks their data sources may run. In this situation researchers are confronted with the need to protect the results of the inquiry – their notes and the transcriptions of their interviews. They need to ensure that the anonymity of the subjects being ques­tioned or observed, and the organizations being studied, is protected.

2. Using Data-sources to Validate Results

In the April 1992 edition of the Journal of Culture and Ethnography, Whyte was criticized for failing to follow the deontological principle of submitting the results of his analysis of Cornerville society to all those he met and observed. Whyte replied that, at the time he carried out his work, he had never heard of such a principle and that, most importantly, his analysis could have unfortunate consequences on relationships between the actors concerned and on the image they had cultivated of themselves (Whyte, 1993). This latter point seems to us to be essential. Although the principle of having subjects validate research results is justly recommended by numerous authors (Miles and Huberman, 1984b; Lincoln and Guba, 1985) in accordance with the research principle of refutation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), if actors are to be ‘required’ to read the researcher’s findings so as to provide an alternative formulation or interpretation (Stake, 1995), it is no less necessary to take account of the possible ‘sensitive’ character of the elements brought forward. One solution is to conceal certain results according to the specific position of the actors consulted. We agree with Whyte in considering it pointless to require all subjects questioned or observed to par­ticipate in validating the results of a research project. Both the results that are presented and the subjects they are presented to must be selected judiciously. It is clear that the familiarity the researcher will have acquired with the field (Miles and Huberman, 1984b), will be of great help in this procedure.

3. Publishing the Research

Publication of research results is the final issue to consider as far as the issue of managing data sources is concerned, whether the terrain is considered to be ‘sensitive’ or not. Maintaining the anonymity of data sources means other researchers are less able to verify the research results. However, cooperation of those in the field may be conditional on the use of pseudonyms. In this case, the researcher must take care that the link between the pseudonyms and the real actors is not too easy to establish. It may be useful to submit all publica­tion plans to these sources to obtain their agreement. Nevertheless, this method has the disadvantage of being heavy to manage; it also imposes restrictions on the researcher, as the sources may abuse their discretionary power. The researcher may be faced with the dilemma between respecting the moral contract established with the subject-sources and the need to publish the final work (Punch, 1986).

Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.