Week 9: Research ethics
Students’ Learning Outcomes
• aware of issues associated with gaining traditional and Internet-mediated access;
• able to evaluate a range of strategies to help you to gain access to organizations and
individual participants;
• aware of the importance of research ethics and the need to act ethically.
Task - Forum
• Discuss research ethics and the principal ethical issues
• Address ethical issues
Introduction
Many students want to start their research as soon as they have identified a topic area, forgetting that
access and ethics are critical aspects for the success of any research project. Such considerations are
equally important whether you are using secondary data or Internet-mediated methods. Over the past
decade, concerns about the ethics of research practice have grown substantially. Consequently, you need
to think carefully about how you will gain access to undertake your research and about possible ethical
concerns that could arise throughout the conduct of your research project. Without paying careful
attention to how you are going to gain access to the data you require and acting ethically, what seem like
good ideas for research may flounder and prove impractical or problematic once you attempt to undertake
them.
In this week, we start by considering types and levels of traditional access and the issues associated with
these. In this section, we also explore issues of feasibility and sufficiency in relation to gaining access
and the impact of these on the nature and content of your research question and objectives. We also
examine Internet-mediated access and the issues associated with this. We discuss a number of established
strategies to help you gain access to organizations. We provide an overview of research ethics and outlines
why it is essential to act ethically. Finally, we anticipate the scope for ethical issues to occur during the
various stages of your research project and in relation to the use of particular techniques.
Issues associated with gaining traditional access
Your ability to obtain secondary data will depend on gaining access to an appropriate source, or sources
where there is a choice. The appropriateness of a source will, of course, depend on your research question,
related objectives, and research design. In this discussion, we refer to levels and types of access. It is
useful to define each at this point. The first type is traditional access, which involves visiting data archives
UU-MBA-711-ZM -
Page 1
(such as record offices or organizational archives, where data are not available online). The second type
is Internet-mediated access, which involves the use of different computing technologies (e.g., the Web,
email, instant messaging, webcams), to gain virtual access to conduct archival research, discussions, or
to gather secondary data. A variant of this is intranet-mediated access, where you seek to gain virtual
access as an employee or worker in an organization using its intranet. Even where you attempt to gain
Internet- or intranet-mediated access, it is likely that you will still need to use an element or some elements
of traditional access. We, therefore, define a further type, hybrid access, which combines traditional and
Internet-mediated approaches.
Levels of access vary depending on the nature and depth of the access that you achieve. We discuss three
levels of access: physical, continuing, and cognitive. Even where you seek to use the Internet or an
intranet to gain virtual access, you may first need to achieve physical access and, subsequently, to
negotiate your access continuingly. You will certainly need to achieve cognitive access where your
research involves human participants. As a result, the discussion in this section is likely to be relevant to
you irrespective of the type of access that you intend to use. The first level of access is physical access or
entry (Gummesson, 2000). The Internet has undoubtedly made accessing some secondary data easier.
However, for much secondary data gaining physical access can be difficult. First, organizations, groups,
or individuals may not be prepared to engage in additional, voluntary activities because of the time and
resources required. Many organizations receive frequent student requests for access and cooperation and
would find it impossible to agree to all or even some of these. Second, the request for access and
cooperation may fail to interest the gatekeeper or broker who receives it, and who makes the final decision
whether or not to allow the researcher to undertake the research. This may be for a number of reasons,
related to:
• a lack of perceived value in relation to the work of the organization, group or the individual;
• the nature of the topic because of its potential sensitivity, or because of concerns about the
confidentiality of the information that would be required;
• perceptions about your credibility and doubts about your competence.
Third, the organization or group may find itself in a difficult situation owing to external events unrelated
to any perceptions about the nature of the request or the person making it, so that they have no choice but
to refuse access. There may be other reasons for refusing access, known to the organization, group, or
individuals concerned. Even when someone is prepared to offer access, this may be overruled at a higher
level in the organization. This may result in a ‘false start’ and an associated feeling of disappointment
(Johnson 1975). Where you are unable to gain this type of access, you will need to find another
organization or group or to modify your research question and objectives. However, even when you can
negotiate entry, there are other levels of access that you will need to consider and plan for if your research
strategy is to be realized. Many writers see access as a continuing process and not just an initial or single
event (Gummesson 2000; Marshall and Rossman 2011; Okumus et al. 2007). This may take two forms.
First, access may be an iterative and incremental process, so that you gain entry to carry out the initial
part of your research and then seek further access in order to conduct another part. Second, those from
whom you wish to collect data may be a different set of people to those who agreed to your request for
access. Physical access to an organization will be granted formally through its management. Because of
this, it will also be necessary for you to gain the acceptance and trust of, as well as consent from, intended
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 2
participants within the organization or group in order to gain actual access to the data that they are able
to provide. This type of access is referred to as cognitive access. Where you achieve this, you will have
gained access to the data that you need your intended participants to share with you in order to be able to
address your research question and objectives. Simply obtaining physical access to an organization is
likely to be inadequate unless you are also able to negotiate yourself into a position where you can collect
data that reveal the reality of what is occurring in relation to your research question and objectives.
The nature of the access you manage to negotiate may impact upon your ability to select a suitable sample
of secondary data, affecting your attempt to produce reliable and valid data to fulfill your objectives and
answer your research question in an unbiased way. The difficulty of obtaining access has been recognized
many times in the literature (e.g., Buchanan et al. 2013; Johnson 1975). Negotiating access is likely to be
important to gain personal entry to an organization (or, in the case of Internet-mediated research, virtual
access) and develop cognitive access to allow you to collect the necessary data. In this context, there are
two general concepts that you may consider, which will help you to evaluate the nature of the access that
you will require. These concepts are feasibility and sufficiency. Feasibility is concerned with whether it
is practicable to negotiate access for your proposed research project. A research proposal may be grand
and elegant, but if it is not possible to gain access to data, then it will be necessary to revise what is being
proposed. Once you have a proposal that you believe will be feasible in general terms, the next point to
consider is whether you will be able to gain sufficient access to fulfill all of your research objectives.
Sufficiency is, therefore, concerned with the extent to which the access you negotiate will enable your
proposed research project to be achieved. You do not want to have to say, ‘I could achieve objectives a,
band c but not x, y and z!’ Or, perhaps more likely, ‘I can achieve objectives a, b, y and z, but now I think
about this carefully, I’m going to find it difficult to collect much data for c and x!’ You, therefore, need
to consider fully the nature of the access that you will require and whether you will able to gain sufficient
access in practice to fulfill all of your objectives, to answer your research question. These issues of
feasibility and sufficiency will be related in practice, but it is useful to consider them separately as you
formulate your research proposal. Your clarity of thought, which should result from having considered
the nature and extent of the access that you require, may also help persuade organizations or groups to
grant entry since they are more likely to be convinced about your credibility and competence.
The issues of feasibility and sufficiency will determine the construction or refinement of your research
question and objectives, and may sometimes lead to a clash with the hallmarks of good research (e.g.,
Marshall and Rossman 2011; Sekaran and Bougie 2013). The ways in which these issues may clash with
the hallmarks of good research and also affect the practice of research has been recognized by Buchanan
et al. (2013, p. 53–4):
Fieldwork is permeated with the conflict between what is theoretically desirable on the one hand
and what is practically possible on the other. It is desirable to ensure representativeness in the
sample, uniformity of interview procedures, adequate data collection across the range of topics
to be explored, and so on. But the members of organisations block access to information, constrain
the time allowed for interviews, lose your questionnaires, go on holiday, and join other
organisations in the middle of your unfinished study. In the conflict between the desirable and the
possible, the possible always wins.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 3
This quotation highlights how, even when you consider feasibility and sufficiency carefully, you may
still meet problems in practice. However, it should not be read as a justification for not considering these
issues carefully. By considering these issues, you will be more able to anticipate and overcome problems
that occur in practice. The extent to which a careful consideration of feasibility will affect the approach
that you adopt is made clear by Johnson (1975). He recognizes that the reality of undertaking a research
project may be to consider where you are likely to be able to gain access and to develop a topic to fit the
nature of that access.
Issues associated with Internet-mediated access
The Internet enables access to research data in a variety of ways, although its use also raises a number of
data quality and ethical issues. Online communities have generated vast amounts of qualitative material,
some of which has been accessed by researchers. As these communities organize around an interest or a
particular product, service, place or lifestyle, bulletin boards can be used to post messages and create a
discussion over time among members. Email lists also allow groups to converse around a subject or
subjects of mutual interest. Linked web pages provide online community resources organized by interest,
such as for consumer-to-consumer discussion. Blogs (web logs) and limited character blogs or tweets are
also popular. As a form of online journal or diary, where an individual provides for public consumption
a narrative about his or her everyday life, or some aspect of it, blogs provide commentary on events at a
group, organizational or societal level. For example, numerous bloggers comment on political events,
often from the perspective of their political beliefs. Others comment on their shopping experiences and
offer consumer advice, or on their employment (Schoneboom 2011). Many blogs are organized through
content management systems, and can also be accessed through specialized blog search engines as well
as Internet search engines (Hookway 2008; Kozinets 2006).
These Internet-mediated methods are subject to the same issues that affect traditional methods to gain
research access. In some circumstances, issues associated with access may even be exacerbated using
Internet-based methods. While the Internet, and more specifically the use of email, social networking or
a webcam, may facilitate communication between you and your participants, it will first be necessary to
determine the most suitable way to negotiate access and conduct your research. This will, of course,
depend on the nature of your research question and research objectives. Where your research is designed
to be conducted through an organization, it may be more appropriate to negotiate traditional access to
collect data. This is because you will need to obtain the permission of a broker or gatekeeper to gain
access to organizational members. Where you wish to negotiate access, continuingly, your chance of
success is likely to be enhanced where you meet with participants and organizational managers to develop
rapport, demonstrate your competence, and establish trust. Finally, where you are using more intrusive
forms of data collection, a personal approach may provide you with richer research data. This indicates
circumstances where traditional access will continue to be the most effective way to conduct research.
Where you subsequently consider using Internet-mediated techniques, there may be circumstances where
it would still be advantageous to negotiate initial access on a personal basis. This will remain the case
where you require access to an organization and need to obtain the permission of a broker or gatekeeper
to gain access to secondary data. Where you can negotiate this, you may then be able to get the
organization to allow you to advertise your research by email. This highlights how access to organizations
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 4
and data may involve a hybrid access strategy, where access combines traditional and Internet-mediated
approaches to achieve this.
Research ethics and why you should act ethically
Defining research ethics
Ethical concerns will emerge as you design and plan your research, seek access to organizations and to
individuals, collect, analyze, manage, and report your data. In the context of research, ethics refer to the
standards of behavior that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who become the subject of
your work or are affected by it. Standards of behaviour will be guided by a number of influences. Broader
social norms of behavior will influence the appropriateness or acceptability of a researcher's conduct. A
social norm indicates the type of behavior that a person ought to adopt in a particular situation; however,
the norms of behavior that prevail will, in reality, allow for a range of ethical positions.
The philosophical foundations of research ethics also illustrate that a researcher’s conduct may be open
to competing and conflicting ethical positions (Berry 2004; Thomas 1996). Two dominant and conflicting
philosophical positions have been identified: deontological and teleological. A deontological view is
based on the following rules to guide researchers’ conduct. According to this view, acting outside the
rules can never be justified. Where the rules are inadequate or contested, it would be necessary to
reappraise and if required, amend them. In contrast, the teleological view argues that deciding whether
an act of conduct is justified or not should be determined by its consequences, not by a set of
predetermined rules. This would involve deciding whether the benefits of undertaking an act outweigh
the negative consequences of this action. However, it is unlikely that a simple comparison between the
benefits to one group and costs to another would provide you with a clear answer to such an ethical
dilemma.
Attempts to overcome ethical dilemmas arising from different social norms and conflicting philosophical
approaches have resulted in the widespread development of codes of ethics. These generally contain a
list of principles outlining the nature of ethical research and a statement of ethical standards to accompany
these principles that are intended to guide your research conduct. Codes of ethics explicitly or implicitly
recognize that ethical dilemmas exist and that it will often be necessary to exercise some choice about
conduct.
General categories of ethical issues and the formulation of principles to recognize and overcome or
minimize these
General categories of ethical issues are recognised in codes of ethics. These are ethical issues that occur
across many approaches to research. Rather than write highly detailed and prescriptive regulations to
anticipate and deal with these for each research approach, codes of ethics instead contain a set of
principles that allow researchers to apply these principles to the context of their own research and to that
of others. We now consider a number of principles that have been developed to recognize ethical issues
that occur across many different approaches to research. These are outlined in Table 6.1.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 5
Table 6.1 Ethical principles and the ethical rationale for and development of each principle (Saunders,
2016, p. 243)
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 6
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 7
Notes and Sources: Table 6.1 seeks to synthesise key points from many different approaches to writing ethical principles. It
should not be interpreted as providing completely comprehensive guidance. You are advised to consult the code of ethics
defined as being appropriate for your research project. References to legislation in Table 6.1 and elsewhere provide only
general indications and should not be interpreted as providing legal advice, or the existence of such types of law in all countries.
Codes of ethics are intended to avoid poor practice, malpractice, and harm (non-maleficence) as well as
to promote ethical practice and private or public good (beneficence). To avoid harm, or at the very least
to minimize it, it is necessary to evaluate risk. Evaluating risk involves thinking about the likelihood of
harm occurring and the extent or severity of the harm that would be caused. As we indicated in Table 6.1,
harm may take a number of forms and lead to a range of consequences. Estimating risk is not
straightforward, and it may be affected by a number of contextual or cultural factors. However, it is
important to anticipate risk in each research situation to attempt to avoid the likelihood of causing harm.
Box 6.1 suggests a number of questions that you may ask to seek to assess risk, although others may
suggest themselves related to the research context within which you are operating. Research may result
in benefits for the researcher, research participants, the group or organization being researched, or for the
community or society within which it occurs. It is important and ethical to be realistic about the benefits
you claim for your research project and to honor any promises made about sharing findings, such as
promising to send a summary report to an organization that provides access to host your research.
Adopting ethical behavior means more than just using a code of ethics as a way to get your research
proposal approved. Acting ethically means thinking about each aspect and each stage of your research
from an ethical perspective. Where you do this, you will have internalized the values of acting ethically,
and this should help you to anticipate concerns at each stage of your research.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 8
Box 6.1 Checklist
Assessing risk in research
✔ Is your proposed research likely to harm the well- being of those participating?
✔ Will others be harmed by the process or outcomes of your proposed research?
✔ How may this harm occur and what characteristics may make this more likely?
✔ How likely it is that harm might result?
✔ How severe would be any resulting harm?
✔ Which features or what aspects of your research may cause harm?
✔ How intrusive is your proposed research method or methods?
✔ How sensitive are your proposed questions, observations, searches or requests for data?
✔ Can you justify your choice of research method or methods and tactics; in particular, can you explain why alternatives
that involve fewer potential risks cannot be used?
✔ Where anticipated risk cannot be reduced and ethical review is favourable, how will the implementation of your
research seek to avoid the occurrence of risk in practice, or at the very least to seek to minimise it?
✔ How will you commence a data collection activity to allow potential concerns to be raised first? How will you make
yourself aware of themes that may be sensitive for particular participants?
✔ How will you reinforce the voluntary nature of participation to allow participants not to answer a particular question,
set of questions, or to decline any request for data?
✔ Other potential risks are likely to be evident within the context of your particular research project. What might these
be and how will you manage them?
General ethical issues associated with Internet-mediated research
While the Internet may help to facilitate access to some categories of participants and certain types of
data, its use raises a number of issues and even dilemmas about the applicability of the ethical principles
referred to in Table 6.1 to Internet-mediated research. The ethical issues and dilemmas raised by the use
of blogs, bulletin boards, chat rooms, discussion groups, email lists, social networking, and web pages
include the following points:
Scope for deception. Researchers joining online communities to collect data rather than participate and
seeking consent (known as ‘passive analysis’ or ‘lurking’) may be seen as committing a form of
deception. Declaring your real intention after a period of ‘lurking’ is seen by many moderators of online
groups as unethical and may increase the chance of you, as a researcher, being asked to leave (Madge
2010).
Lacking respect and causing harm. ‘Harvesting’ data from online communities without the knowledge
and permission of those who create it may also be seen as disrespectful and opposed to the principle of
gaining trust (e.g., Bakardjieva and Feenberg 2000; Berry 2004). Deception and the development of
mistrust may cause damage to online communities and their members (Eysenbach and Till 2001).
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 9
Respecting privacy. While it may be technically possible to access online communities because they
operate in a publicly accessible virtual space, it may be argued that content on these websites should be
treated as private conversations, albeit ‘publicly private’ ones (e.g., Bakardjieva and Feenberg 2000;
Waskul and Douglass 1996). Nature of participation and scope to withdraw. ‘Harvesting’ data may be
seen as violating the principle of the voluntary nature of participation. Lack of consent while using
accessible material also negates the right to limit the nature of data used or to withdraw.
Informed consent. Is it ethical to waive the need to obtain consent because the material is seen as being
in the public domain and because it may be difficult to achieve this (e.g., Eysenbach and Till 2001;
Hookway 2008)? Informed consent in a virtual setting may be obtained by contacting an online
community’s moderator or administrator; or by specifically asking participants in the case of a web
questionnaire or online interview, for example. Informed consent for online research may include agreed
limits about the scope of participation. It may also include procedures to allow concerns to be raised or
for withdrawal to take place. Such procedures will be important in Internet-mediated research because
the issue of distance and lack of face-to-face contact makes it difficult to anticipate participants’ concerns
and attitudes (British Psychological Society 2013). Signed consent may be facilitated by issuing a consent
form by email or online using electronic checkboxes.
Confidentiality of data and anonymity of participants. Even though members of an online community
may produce discussions that are publicly accessible and which create a permanent record, they may do
this in the belief that no one will be ‘harvesting’ or analyzing this material, or using it subsequently.
Bakardjieva and Feenberg (2000) found that members of an online community expected to be asked for
consent before access was achieved in practice; and that access was then only granted for subsequently
generated online discussions, not to archived discussions that took place before community members
knew they were to be the subject of research. This approach enables members of online communities to
control data that is available to researchers. Bakardjieva and Feenberg (2000) provide an example of how
members of an online community went further to exercise control and to protect the confidentiality of
their discussions and their anonymity. The researchers were not permitted to save these online discussions
or to use quotations from them. Instead, they were allowed to read these discussions and then ask members
questions about what they had read. The researchers were allowed to use these answers and to take
suitably anonymized quotations from them for their research. This effectively separated the private nature
of members’ online discussions from public access to research data, enabling members of the online
community to control their participation and to ensure the confidentiality of their discussions as well as
maintaining their anonymity.
Analysis of data and reporting of findings. Issues of confidentiality, anonymity, privacy, and copyright
are raised when Internet data are analyzed and reported. Where data are ‘harvested’ the researcher is
confronted with the dilemma of whether to use these data openly or anonymously. Since ‘harvesting’
occurs without obtaining consent, at least initially, should the researcher use pseudonyms and other
changes to disguise the identities of those who created the material? Where the researcher wishes to quote
from this material, there is the possibility that others could use Internet search engines to identify the
author of a quotation (Eysenbach and Till 2001). This raises issues about the confidentiality of the data
and researchers should avoid using quotations that would be traceable without first obtaining consent,
particularly where harm may result (British Psychological Society 2013). These issues are compounded
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 10
by copyright. Blogs are protected by copyright laws, and those who create them have exclusive rights in
relation to their reproduction (Hookway 2008). Web pages and content on social network sites are also
protected by copyright laws (British Psychological Society, 2013). Those who author or create web
materials may wish their work to be properly attributed; conversely, they may wish to protect its use, or
for any permitted use to be anonymized (Eysenbach and Till 2001). Seeking informed consent should
help to overcome the dilemmas associated with using materials from the Internet as data.
Management of data. Data protection legislation has (or is likely to have, depending on the country)
implications for Internet-mediated research, including in the UK the need for notification and consent if
personal data are to be processed. Researchers using the Internet need to comply with current data
protection legislation as well as with any other legal requirements. A further set of issues concerns the
potential insecurity of data transmission and storage. Insecurity may also occur because others have
access to a website and are able to alter data or to copy and direct it elsewhere. As researchers do not
control websites or networks, risks associated with data transmission and storage need to be recognized,
and participants told about these in relation to confidentiality, anonymity and possible ‘data hacking’ or
misuse as part of seeking informed consent (e.g., British Psychological Society 2013; Madge 2010).
Safety of the researcher. The researcher may help to ensure her or his safety when conducting Internet-
mediated research by using a university email address, not a personal one. Researchers also need to be
diligent when setting up access rights to their own personal information on social network sites to protect
their privacy.
This review has highlighted some of the issues and dilemmas associated with the use of Internet-mediated
research, although several more exist in practice. In addition, many more details associated with these
issues need to be considered before using this approach to research. Table 6.2 refers to sets of guidelines
for Internet-mediated research. Internet-mediated research is still in a formative stage, and it is noticeable
how opinions and guidance about its use vary across sources. There is scope for a greater consensus about
its ethical use, but achieving this may not be an easy matter. You will, therefore, need to refer very
carefully to your university’s guidelines about Internet-mediated research (or those that they recommend
you to use), where you consider the possibility of using this approach. A further aspect of Internet use
concerns netiquette, which refers to user standards to encourage courtesy. The principal focus of
netiquette is the use of email and messaging. The ease of creating these may lead to issues that impair
your attempt to use Internet-mediated research. Emails and messages may be poorly worded, and they
may appear unfriendly or unclear so that they fail to interest those whom you approach. Emails and
messages need to be worded appropriately for their intended audience and to be structured, relevant, and
succinct. The ease of sending emails and messages may lead to ‘spamming’ potential and actual
participants. ‘Spamming’ involves sending large numbers of unwanted mail and should be avoided.
Another netiquette custom involves respecting the intentions of other users so that private messages
should not subsequently be made public.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 11
Table 6.2 Internet addresses for ethical guidelines for the conduct of online research (Saunders, 2019, p.
248)
References
Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2000). Involving the virtual subject. Ethics and Information
Technology, 2(4), 233-240.
Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: an exploratory content
analysis. British journal of management, 18(1), 63-77.
Berry, D. (2004) ‘Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation: An open source approach’, Internet
Research, 14(4), 323–32.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55,
803-832.
British Psychological Society (2009) Code of Ethics and Conduct. Leicester: British Psychological
Society.
British Psychological Society (2013) Ethics Guidelines for Inter-mediated Research. British
Psychological Society.
British Sociological Association (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice.
Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. Unwin Hyman.
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., & McCalman, J. (2013). Getting in, getting on, getting out, and getting back (pp.
63-77). Routledge.
Dale, A., Arber, S., & Procter, M. (1988). Doing secondary research.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 12
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet
communities. Bmj, 323(7321), 1103-1105.
Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. Sage.
Healey, M. J. (1991). Obtaining information from businesses. Economic Activity and Land Use: The
Changing Information Base for Local Regional Studies, 193-250.
Health Research Authority (2013) Defining Research. Health Research Authority.
Hookway, N. (2008). Entering the blogosphere': some strategies for using blogs in social
research. Qualitative research, 8(1), 91-113.
Johnson, J. M. (1975). Doing field research. Free Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2006). Click to connect: netnography and tribal advertising. Journal of advertising
research, 46(3), 279-288.
Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2010). Impressing for success: A gendered analysis of a key social capital
accumulation strategy. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(5), 521-546.
Madge, C. (2010) Online research ethics.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.
McAreavey, R., & Muir, J. (2011). Research ethics committees: Values and power in higher
education. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 391-405.
Okumus, F., Altinay, L., & Roper, A. (2007). Gaining access for research: Reflections from
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 7-26.
Palmer, D. A. (2013). The new perspective on organizational wrongdoing. California Management
Review, 56(1), 5-23.
Plankey-Videla, N. (2012). Informed consent as process: Problematizing informed consent in
organizational ethnographies. Qualitative Sociology, 35(1), 1-21.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson
Education.
Schoneboom, A. (2011). Workblogging in a Facebook age. Work, Employment and Society, 25(1), 132-
140.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 13
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. john wiley &
sons.
Stieger, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2006). Using instant messaging for Internet-based
interviews. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 552-559.
Thomas, J. (1996). Introduction: A debate about the ethics of fair practices for collecting social science
data in cyberspace. The information society, 12(2), 107-118.
Waskul, D. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of
on-line research. The Information Society, 12(2), 129-140.
Wass, V. J., & Wells, P. E. (Eds.). (1994). Principles and practice in business and management
research. Dartmouth.
UU-MBA-711-ZM - Dissertation Page 14