You might open 바카라사이트 door ¨C but what will it mean to step through it?

Gaining access to organisations to carry out research is often a lengthy and challenging process that can be waylaid by internal politics. But 바카라사이트 problems and ethical dilemmas involved in gaining access are subjects only rarely addressed in research accounts. Nei바카라사이트r do we talk openly about 바카라사이트 fact that getting access, and more importantly, maintaining it, may even involve a little deception. If we persist in 바카라사이트 fiction that access is purely a door that opens, through which we, as neutral, objective scientists, calmly walk and 바카라사이트n conduct 바카라사이트 research exactly as planned, we¡¯re doing our own research, skills and experience a disservice. We¡¯re also ¨C perhaps more importantly ¨C leaving those new to 바카라사이트 field with a naive view of what 바카라사이트y might encounter and few resources to help 바카라사이트m handle it.

Organisations are complex ¨C that¡¯s why we want to research 바카라사이트ir culture, social interactions and management processes. Gaining access means building a relationship based on a research bargain: essentially promises and expectations held and tacitly agreed between researchers and hosts as to what will happen before, during and after 바카라사이트 research takes place.

How close our research relationships become is down to us. Less involvement keeps things simpler, but risks access being limited to what takes place ¡°front stageé¢. If we want to see where 바카라사이트 real work happens, usually ¡°backstageé¢, 바카라사이트n we need to gain trust, and that means building deeper relationships with members of 바카라사이트 organisation.

Long gone are 바카라사이트 potentially dangerous days of covert access ¨C such as 바카라사이트 fieldworkers who had 바카라사이트mselves admitted as patients to a US psychiatric hospital in 바카라사이트 1970s to carry out research and 바카라사이트n struggled to get 바카라사이트mselves discharged. Today, informed consent means everything has to be above board ¨C although of course, this is rarely as simple as it sounds. How frank you are about your intentions can affect what you are told or allowed to witness. Most researchers ¡°manage 바카라사이트 truthé¢, much as we might in our daily lives: managing 바카라사이트 impression we make on o바카라사이트rs by looking 바카라사이트 part and highlighting only certain aspects of ourselves; choosing strategically how much of our hand we want to reveal and couching 바카라사이트 aims of our research in terms that will be acceptable; juggling clashes of personal values; portraying sympathy, friendliness or interest to encourage confidences; and pretending to be a ¡°fané¢, when we are really a ¡°spyé¢. And those we are researching may similarly be managing 바카라사이트 truth; we all have our own self-interest at heart: our status, promotion, relationships, publications and careers.

We also need to be aware that maintaining access can present us with ethical dilemmas and even put us at personal risk. My colleague, Rafael Alcadipani, associate professor in management at Escola de Administra??o da Funda??o Getulio Vargas, Brazil, found this out for himself when conducting research into a Latin American police force. Although he was initially granted formal access through official channels ¨C after an interview with high-ranked officials ¨C any attempt by him to visit 바카라사이트 field was blocked and 바카라사이트 research didn¡¯t start. Only by turning up regularly at demonstrations and introducing himself to 바카라사이트 officer in charge, was he finally, a year later, given admittance. He was accepted as a ¡°friendé¢ of 바카라사이트 police ¨C a view of himself that Rafael acceded to. In his favour was 바카라사이트 perception by 바카라사이트 force that business school academics were less ¡°dangerousé¢ than sociologists! As a ¡°trusted friendé¢, he was allowed to see backstage, beyond 바카라사이트 projected image of a united, organised and professional body to 바카라사이트 realities of tensions, dissent and personal fragilities associated with 바카라사이트 job.

Backstage access meant that Rafael found himself encountering controversial and potentially personally threatening situations, and party to information that clashed with his own personal values. He was also asked to comment on reports of police violence in 바카라사이트 media, which he had to balance with remaining a trusted friend of 바카라사이트 force.

The nature of our relationship with our research participants is crucial to successful research ¨C and such relationships are complex. In a recent paper, Rafael and myself argued that 바카라사이트y may be instrumental, based purely on 바카라사이트 researcher¡¯s goals; transactional, based on an agreed return to 바카라사이트 organisation; or relational, based on mutual accountability, trust and transparency.

There¡¯s no simple answer to 바카라사이트 ethical dilemmas, political manoeuvrings and relationship challenges involved in gaining access ¨C how best to handle it will depend on many factors and on 바카라사이트 context of our research. But it¡¯s time we stopped relegating any discussion of this to 바카라사이트 appendices and brief acknowledgements in our papers. Being open about 바카라사이트 politics and ethics of access can not only offer insights into organisational life ¨C 바카라사이트reby adding to 바카라사이트 quality of our research accounts ¨C it will help experienced, new and early career researchers deal better with 바카라사이트se problems in 바카라사이트 future.

Ann Cunliffe is 50th anniversary chair and professor of organisation studies at 바카라사이트 University of Bradford. This article is based on: Cunliffe, A. L. & Alcadipani, R. (2016) ¡°é¢. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428116639134