Abstract
Recruiting third sector organizations (TSOs) to a qualitative longitudinal (QL) study turned out to be in some cases a time-consuming and challenging process, and in others a little too easy. The governance structures of the organizations approached were not always simple to navigate with some organizations in a state of flux. Stakeholders’ different understandings of the meaning of research created tensions around anonymity. Establishing meaningful consent was not a straightforward process: who has the authority to grant “organizational” consent? This chapter explores the process of gaining consent and access, and maintaining relationships with research participants in “Real Times”; a study of TSOs and activities over three years. By third sector we refer to a range of non-governmental organizations and activities, including voluntary organizations, community groups, and social enterprises. Whilst the study is concerned with UK-focused organizations the issues raised can be seen to have direct relevance to the NGO sector and NGO scholarship more generally. Drawing on researchers’ field notes on the recruitment process, and interviews with the research team a year into the project conducted by one member of the team, we unpack some of the practical and ethical challenges of undertaking QL research in organizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alcock, P. (2010) “A Strategic Unity: Defining the Third Sector in the UK,” Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1): 5–24.
Alcock, P., Harrow, J., Mcmillan, R. (1999) Making funding work: Funding regimes and local voluntary organisations York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Alcock, P. and Kendall, J. (2011) “Constituting the Third Sector: Processes of Decontestation and Contention under the UK Labour Governments in England,” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3): 450–469.
Arvidson, M. (2008) “Contradictions and Confusion in Development Work: Exploring the Realities of Bangladeshi NGOs,” Journal of South Asian Development, 3(1): 109–134.
Billis, D. (2010) “From Welfare Bureaucracies to Welfare Hybrids,” in Billis, D. (ed.) Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Broyles, L. M., Rodriguez, K. L., Price, P. A., Bayliss, N. K., Sevick, M. A., Broyles, L. M., and Rodriguez, K. L. (2011) “Overcoming Barriers to the Recruitment of Nurses as Participants in Health Care Research,” Qualitative Health Research, 21: 1705–1718.
Bryman A. (1989) Research Methods and Organization Studies (London: Routledge).
Burgess R. G. (1984) In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research (London: Routledge).
Carmel, S. (2011) “Social Access in the Workplace: Are Ethnographer’s Gossips?,” Work, Employment and Society, 25(3): 551–560.
Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., and Charles, V. (2006) “Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed Consent,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2): 83–95.
Di Maggio, P. and Anheir, H. (1990) “The Sociology of Nonprofit Organisations and Sectors,” Annual Review of Sociology, 16: 137–159.
Di Maggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited, Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.
Fechter, A. M. (2012) “The Personal and the Professional: Aid Workers’ Relationships and Values in the Development Process,” Third World Quarterly, 33(8): 1387–1404.
Franklin, P., Rowland, E., Fox, R., and Nicolson, P. (2012) “Research Ethics in Accessing Hospital Staff and Securing Informed Consent,” Qualitative health research, 22: 1727–1738.
Grey, C. (2009) A Very Short Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Organizations (London: Sage Publications).
Harocopos, A. and Dennis, D. (2003) “Maintaining Contact with Drug Users over an 18-month Period,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3): 261–265.
Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G., and Wiles, R. (2007) “Informed Consent, Gatekeepers and Go-betweens: Negotiating Consent in Child- and Youth-orientated Institutions,” British Educational Research Journal, 3(33): 403–417.
Hilhorst, D. (2000) Records and reputations: Everyday politics of a Phillipine development NGO (Wagening: Wagening University).
Land, C. and Taylor, S. (2010) “Surf’s Up: Work, Life, Balance and Brand in a New Age Capitalist Organisation,” Sociology, 44(3): 395–413.
Lewis, D. (2006) “Issues and Priorities in Non-governmental Organisational Research,” Journal of Health Management, 8: 181.
Lewis, D. and Mosse, D. (2006) “Encountering Order and Disjuncture: Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on the Organization of Development,” Oxford Development Studies, 34(1): 1–13.
Mawn, B., Siqueira, E., Koren, A., Slatin, C., Melillo, K. D., Pearce, C., and Hoff, L. A. (2010) “Health Disparities Among Health Care Workers,” Qualitative health research, 20(1): 68–80.
McLeod, J. and Thomson, R. (2009) Researching Social Change (London: Sage).
Mosse, D. (2011a) “Introduction: The Anthropology of Expertise and Professionals in International Development,” in Mosse, D. (ed.) Adventures in Aidland. The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development (New York: Berghahn Books).
Mosse, D. (2011b) “Policies and Ethics: Ethnographies of expert knowledge and professional identities,” in Shore, C., Wright, S., and Pero, D. (eds) Policy Worlds: Anthropology and Analysis of Contemporary Power (New York: Berghahn Books).
Sanghera, G. S. and Thapar-Björkert, S. (2008) “Methodological dilemmas: Gatekeepers and positionality in Bradford,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(3): 543–562.
Scott, D., Alock, P., Russell, L., and Macmillan, R. (2000) Moving Pictures: Realities of Voluntary Action (Bristol: Policy Press).
Suddaby, R. (2010) “Challenges for Institutional Theory,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 14.
Thomson, R. and Holland, J. (2003) “Hindsight, Foresight and Insight: The Challenges of Longitudinal Qualitative Research,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3): 233–244.
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Charles, V., and Heath, S. (2007) “Informed Consent and the Research Process: Following Rules or Striking Balances?,” Sociological Research Online, 12(2).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Rebecca Taylor, Malin Arvidson, Rob Macmillan, Andri Soteri-Proctor, and Simon Teasdale
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taylor, R., Arvidson, M., Macmillan, R., Soteri-Proctor, A., Teasdale, S. (2014). What’s in it for us? Consent, Access, and the Meaning of Research in a Qualitative Longitudinal Study. In: Camfield, L. (eds) Methodological Challenges and New Approaches to Research in International Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293626_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293626_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45127-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29362-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)