Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies

: This paper concerns ethical considerations when conducting research about the policies, procedures, practices, and culture of organizations and institutions rather than research with the humans owning, operating, employed at, volunteering for, benefiting from, or impacted by the organization. Ethical conventions for research with humans are well developed but less so for research about organizations. A pressing concern in the nascent literature is weighing protecting the public interest versus the organization’s interests when sensitive, controversial, or damning information about the latter emerges from the research. Given the absence of formally codified procedural ethics, organizational researchers are encouraged to constantly reexamine, debate, and address related ethical concerns. In that spirit, an inaugural compendium of ethical concerns and recommended strategies gleaned from the literature reviewed is shared, and a discussion of omissions from said literature is tendered to scaffold future conversations around this ethical aspect of organizational research.

that nearly all (87%) their N=19 Delphi study participants ("methodologists, research funders, journal editors, interested policymakers and practitioners") (Rodgers et al. 2016, 9) agreed that it is essential for researchers to account for ethical considerations when conducting and reporting research about organizations.Yet barely half (53%) of the N=58 studies they analyzed reported ethical considerations.Perhaps researchers did not realize it was protocol to account for ethical concerns in the method section of their research report (see Greenwood 2016).Perhaps researchers themselves simply did not know what was involved because they had no guidelines to follow.
A half century of observation lends support to this premise.To illustrate, nearly 50 years ago, Mirvis and Seashore (1979) lamented that "up to this point, there have been no systematic efforts to formulate ethical guidelines specific to organizational research" (Mirvis & Seashore 1979, 778).Twenty-five years later, Morse (2005) wrote an editorial about ethical issues when conducting research about institutions asserting that related concerns were yet unresolved.Forward 10 more years, and Jones (2014) continued to lament the lack of guidelines for conducting research about organizations, which has led to researchers "'wandering in the dark', 'making it up as I go along' and 'learning the hard way'" (Jones 2014, Preface).Jeanes (2017) asserted that procedural ethics were lacking when it comes to conducting research about institutions.Procedural ethics refers to the process (procedures) involved in researchers complying with their university's ethics review process (e.g., purpose of project, data management practices, and harm mitigation) (Baker et al. 2016).In my case, these procedures were not available to me or the doctoral Candidate.Very recently, Kristensen (2023) commented that "research ethics related to organizations has been neglected.[We need procedures that] allow for the explicit inclusion of organizations in ethical considerations and practice" (Kristensen 2023, 242).Bell and Wray-Bliss (2009) urged higher education institutions and funding agencies to establish more formalized ethical governance structures pursuant to conducting research about organizations.

I.1. Established Conventions for Research Involving Humans
In 2023, these ethical concerns remain a pressing matter relative to the well-established ethical conventions for research involving humans.Per the latter, researchers must deal with confidentiality; privacy; fair and just treatment and inclusion; conflicts of interest; informed consent; human protection (e.g., physical safety, dignity, and autonomy); legalities; intellectual property; and responsible reporting and publications (Braddock 2018;Shamoo & Resnik 2015).These aspects of research typically raise ethical concerns (Jones 2014).
To illustrate these conventions, in the United States (US), "most research involving human participants that is funded by federal government agencies is subject to the Sue L. T. McGregor Common Rule" (Millum 2012, 657)

II. Conceptualizing Research About Institutions and Organizations
As a caveat, although others may disagree with the lexical approach used herein, the terms organization and institution were used interchangeably because both refer to a group of people associated for a common, specific purpose (e.g., an educational institution, a civil society organization [CSO], a non-profit organization [NPO], a company or forprofit organization [FPO], a government agency, a union, or a professional society).They are a collective entity that, despite comprising humans, is distinguishable from individual humans (Greenwood 2016;Jones 2014;Scott 2008).
Jones (2014) defined an organization as "a relatively enduring group of people with some degree of coordination around a common principle that has a more or less identifiable boundary" (Jones 2014, 12).Institutions are often construed as formal organizations (Scott 2008).The slippery slope of organizations existing because they are populated by humans is acknowledged herein.But for argument's sake, the focus of this paper is on ethical concerns when conducting research about the organization rather than about or with humans within the organization."Organizations are a distinct type of research participant [that] differ from individual participants" (Kristensen 2023, 242).
Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies I maintain that the literature on this ethical aspect of scholarship is nascent, weak, and unorganized, which is problematic for those interested in researching organizational or institutional policies, practices, procedures, and cultures.This paper explores the ethics of research about these four features rather than the ethics of research with the humans owning, operating, employed at, volunteering for, benefiting from, or impacted by the institution.Said research would also not involve working with selected or recruited human participants within the organization (Farquhar 2012;Mirvis & Seashore 1979).
Rather, the research and attendant methods would be about the organization, although individuals may be interviewed as a data source or act in the informant role, wherein human ethics protocol would come into play for them (e.g., informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality).
Opinions about this ethical aspect of organizational research are consistent in eschewing the protection of organizations.To illustrate, ESRC (2005) recommended that "research designs should consider the potential harm to respondents' organizations (...) as a result of the [research]" (ibid., 25).For clarification, this did not pertain to comments made or conclusions drawn by a researcher about the organization.Instead, it concerned how comments made by humans in the study could affect their organization, which is an aspect of personal risk accommodated in informed consent (i.e., ethics of research with humans).Borgatti and Molina (2005) also commented on safeguarding respondents and participants when conducting research in an organization (especially in the face of managerial retaliatory action), but they made no mention of safeguarding or protecting the organization itself.Similarly, OHRP (2019) noted that research about educational institutions must not adversely impact student learning or faculty member assessment but eschewed mention of protecting the institution itself.Shamoo and Resnik (2015) gave a detailed accounting of what is involved in protecting human subjects and animals when conducing research (15 principles) but not organizations or institutions.
One important clarification is that "gaining access to an organization through the cooperation of a human does not constitute research involving humans" (Wendy Burgess, SRCR representative, personal communication, March 16, 2021).Rowley (2004) also recognized that although access to an organization or institution depends on humans' permission, said access does not constitute research involving humans, meaning there are no ethical concerns on that front.That said, ethics cannot be ignored when conducting research about organizations (Bell & Bryman 2007).Researchers must still be transparent to everyone involved about (a) the intent of the research and (b) what and how quantitative results and qualitative findings will be used and disseminated (Greenwood 2016;Rowley 2004).

II.1. Critical Inquiries and Sensitive Findings
Of further note is that "extra sensitivity may be required" (Rowley 2004, 210) to address any ethical tension between (a) respecting organizational and institutional confidentiality and its reputation and (b) publishing data about the organization to benefit the wider community (i.e., the public interest) (to be discussed).Canada's Tri-Council (2019) called this research a critical inquiry, which involves an "analysis that critiques or challenges the policies and practices of institutions" (ibid., 38).A "critical assessment may be legitimately critical and/or opposed to [the organization's interest or welfare, but] there may be a compelling public interest in this research" (Tri-Council 2019, 37).
Researchers do not require the organization's permission even if it does not endorse the research (Tri-Council 2019).
When reporting sensitive results and findings from critical inquiries, researchers must weigh the (a) risk to the organization or institution (i.e., the object of the research and unit of analysis) with (b) any potential benefit to society and people affected by the organization's behaviour (Tri-Council 2019).ESRC (2015) similarly maintained that although "research results may have a negative impact on (...) organisations (...) researchers should also consider (...) long-term gains to future beneficiaries" (ERSC 2015, 28).Political sensitivities may be revealed that are contrary to national or local policy, but responsibly revealing and critiquing institutional practices can serve the larger good (i.e., the public interest) and those who benefit from the institution's products and services (Collinson 2021;ESRC 2005ESRC , 2015)).

II.2. Reflexivity and Positionality
Jeanes (2017) recognized the lack of clarity in ethical codes and ethical procedures when it comes to addressing the ethical tension between protecting the organization versus the public interest.As a default strategy, she suggested that this tension is "by necessity informed by one's own ethics" (Jeanes 2017, 184) through a process of reflexivity.This is "commonly viewed as the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation of a researcher's positionality" (Berger 2015, 220).Positionality includes a researcher's "beliefs, preferences and biases as well as any political, theoretical, and ideological stances along with their emotional responses and personal experiences with the problem" (McGregor 2020, 82)."Where controversy is possible it is always wise for there to be a proper reflection on the issues and possible consequences" (Collinson 2021, para. 23).
Because their positionality influences and potentially biases the research enterprise, ethically, researchers must explicitly recognize and actively acknowledge reflexivity and positionality in the research design (especially when gaining consent) and subsequent data analysis, interpretation, and report writing (e.g., discussion points, conclusions, and recommendations) (Berger 2015;Martin 2002;Sin 2005).When conducting research Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies about organizations and institutions, reflexivity "should be central to the [researcher's] ethical position, particularly if it is to be relied upon instead of procedural ethics" (Jeanes 2017, 188), which she judged lacking compared to ethical conventions for research with humans.

III. Proxy Insights Gleaned from Ethical Concerns about Case Studies
The lack of solid ethical procedural guidelines when designing, conducting, and reporting research about organizations is problematic because said research "often raises ethical issues and may sometimes test the limits of formal ethics guidelines" (Langley & Royer 2006, 90).As a starting point and sort of proxy, I propose drawing lessons from the ethics of research involving case studies, which are frequently used when studying about organizations and institutions (Rowley 2004).Case studies entail the in-depth study of a phenomenon in its natural setting and culminate in an overview of a particular situation (Gall et al. 2015).
The literature sampled as proxy, and discussed forthwith, was found by (a) using specific search terms and phrases in the Google search bar and Google Scholar (i.e., combinations of ethical concerns, guidelines, and conventions in conducting research about organizations and institutions); (b) searching the Cited by and Related Articles functions for sources identified in Google Scholar; and (c) mining the reference list in documents secured.This process was continued until saturation was achieved.
I will begin with the two most oft-cited, renowned case study scholars -Robert Yin, and Robert Stake (Rodgers et al. 2016).Yin (2018) spoke only in general terms on this topic choosing instead to advise scholars to familiarize themselves with ethical standards promoted by their discipline.Benčin et al. (2015) cautioned that heeding this advice may be difficult because of "the differences between disciplines in relation to the same ethical issue or principle" (Benčin et al. 2015, 18).Yin (2018) also opined that "a good case study researcher (...) will strive for the highest ethical standards" but limited his comments to a researcher's "responsibility to scholarship" (Chapter 3) rather than their responsibility to units of analysis such as organizations.Stake (2003) advised that "researchers must follow rules for the protection of human subjects (yet should protest those rules when they serve only to protect the institution from litigation) (...) Breach of ethics is seldom a simple matter [thus requiring] their code of ethics [to be] strict" (Stake 2003, 154-155).Stake recognized that, due to ethical obligations, researchers must "minimize misrepresentation and misunderstanding" (Stake 1995, 109).But he did not elaborate on what attendant procedural ethics might look like when studying organizations.He further asserted that "the value of the best research is not likely to outweigh injury to a person exposed" (Stake 2003, 154), but he did not elaborate on organizational exposure.
To accommodate being taken unaware by emergent ethical concerns, Stake (2003) Sue L. T. McGregor recommended that researchers undertake ongoing and summative review of their ethical protocol as needed.This should involve their conscience, other members of the research community, and stakeholders.Indeed, some have argued that solutions to ethical concerns in research about organizations should reflect "the ad hoc consent of all parties" (Mirvis & Seashore 1979, 766; see also Collinson 2021).But with ad hoc meaning fashioned from whatever is immediately available, an ad hoc approach feels inadequate and disrespectful of the ethical responsibility scholars hold when researching about institutions and organizations.Fortunately, a few scholars have begun to engage with the ethical aspects of organizational research.Their thoughts are now recounted and will be analyzed to help generate an inaugural compendium of ethical concerns and strategies for research about organizations.
To begin, in her paper, Morse (2005) had a section titled "Protecting the Institution" (Morse 2005, 436).She said the anonymity of a unit of analysis (e.g., an organization) could be addressed by signing a consent agreement but cautioned that the trade off for protection was waiving the right to vet the final report, as resultant changes arising from an organization's scrutiny could compromise validity."Researchers must be free to write up their data without fear of censorship" (Morse 2005, 436).The research design is problematic when it "prevents the researcher from 'whistle-blowing'" (Stake 2003, 155; see also Collinson 2021).Runeson and Höst (2009) opined that giving participants feedback about the study "is critical for ... the validity of the research" (Runeson & Höst 2009, 143) (e.g., present the analysis, which they do not necessarily have to accept).
Another protection strategy is for researchers who are not conducting a critical inquiry to clarify they are not intentionally seeking to expose the organization's weaknesses, policy violations, legal infractions, or procedural inadequacies.However, if these are unintentionally revealed through data collection or analysis, said researchers must weigh withholding this information to protect the organization with revealing it to protect the public interest (Collinson 2021;ESRC 2015;Morse 2005;Tri-Council 2019).
A breach of ethics tends to occur when "two contradictory standards apply, such as withholding full disclosure [to the public] (...) to protect a good but vulnerable agency" (Stake 2003, 155).
As an aside, factors to consider when weighing revealing the truth or withholding information could include (a) whether the entity (e.g., organization) wants to know the truth; (b) discerning which aspects of the issue to reveal and those to withhold; (c) whether one's tact and sensitivity are sufficient to mitigate harm experienced upon learning the truth; (d) whether a third party has requested that the truth be withheld or revealed; and (e) whether circumstances truly justify one's ethical decision -harm would certainly ensue if one made that decision (Braddock 2018).From another perspective, is withholding inflammatory information really a binary decision -disclose or not?Should researchers give organizations and institutions a chance to redress an infraction before (even if) publishing study results?
Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies On another front, Runeson and Höst (2009) argued that when conducting organizational case studies, "explicit measures must be taken to prevent problems [related to ethical infractions]" (Runeson & Höst 2009, 142).To that end, they identified six "key ethical factors: informed consent, university review board approval, confidentiality, handling sensitive results, inducements, feedback" (ibid., 142).In most instances, a representative within the organization would explicitly consent (agree) to the institution being the unit of analysis (Runeson & Höst 2009) (although this is not necessary -Tri Council 2019), while appreciating that human permission to access the organization does not constitute research with humans (Rowley 2004).
In more detail, to ensure that organizational consent is informed, Runeson and Höst (2009) advised researchers to draft and have a representative(s) sign a consent agreement (i.e., a form or a contract).This agreement should contain domiciles and signatures for all concerned parties and address the study's purpose, how it will be conducted, any known risks and benefits, and confidentiality issues when results or findings are published.The agreement should also confirm whether the results or findings are for this study only or also for future research.Moreover, academic practices pertaining to disseminating and publishing results or findings should be explained to offset nonacademics' unfamiliarity with this aspect of research.They may erroneously assume that the findings are proprietary and express displeasure when made aware of a damning publication about their organization (e.g., journal article, or book chapter).
To wit, Runeson and Höst (2009) said researchers should address up front whether the institution or organization's identity will be revealed or hidden, which is important because some findings and analytical insights may be sensitive to the organizations' reputation (e.g., practice deficiencies, flawed policies, and breaches of law).They further advised that any attempts to convince or induce the organization to be the focus of the research must not compromise the researcher's integrity or study validity.The Tri-Council (2019) additionally recommended rigorous handling of data while in transit and storage to both safeguard it and honour any confidentiality assurances.

Yin (2018) specifically commented on the ethical risks inherent in researchers'
familiarity with an organization under study, which could cause them to privilege supportive and ignore contrary evidence thereby impacting validity.To mitigate the possibility of low tolerance for contrary findings, he recommended running preliminary

III.1. Compendium of Ethical Concerns for Research About Organizations and Institutions
Undeniably, ethics is a linchpin of responsible research about organizations and institutions.But coverage of what this might look like was underdeveloped in the literature reviewed for this paper (appreciating that other sources may exist despite meeting the saturation criterion).In an editorial about ethical concerns in research about institutions, Morse (2005) commented that "these special issues need to be constantly re-examined, debated, and addressed" (Morse 2005, 435).UKRI affirmed the "need for self-critical, imaginative and responsible ethical reflection" (UKRI 2021, para.3) about ethical issues that arise during research but are not covered by general procedural guidelines.
The development of Table 1 contributes to Morse's (2005) imperative of grappling with what constitutes ethical concerns when conducting research about organizations and institutions compared to humans, which is so very well defined (see Shamoo & Resnik 2015).It summarizes a collection of nascent ideas that became evident from scrutinizing the opinions of a cadre of cited authors who touched on these ethical concerns (namely ESRC 2015;Morse 2005;Runeson & Höst, 2009;Tri-Council 2019;Yin 2018).This compendium did not previously exist in the literature; it is a new finding reported in this paper.

Informed Consent
• Mixed thoughts in the literature on necessity of revealing deliberate intent to be critical of an organization or institution; ethically speaking, the latter do not have to approve a critical inquiry about them • Ideally, per above, obtain signed and informed consent to conduct a study about an organization or institution, but researchers can ethically proceed without this consent (i.e., permission from the organization or institution to be the unit of analysis is not required)

Confidentiality
• Explain scope of confidentiality (revealing organization's identity is allowable unlike with humans); clarify whether organization or institution's identity will be revealed

Handling of Findings and Results
• Confirm ahead of time with the organization or institution whether findings/ results are for this one study or also for further analysis • Offset the misperception that results and/or findings are proprietary, private, and in house by explaining to the organization or institution a researchers' academic obligation to disseminate results/findings from a study

Compendium of Ethical Concerns and Strategies for Research about Organizations and Institutions
The information in Table 1 can be used to inform research design and methodological decisions and address ethical concerns in research about organizations and institutions.To reiterate, when dealing with ethical concerns, researchers assess the rightness, wrongness, goodness, or badness of a research design issue and then make decisions.All items in Table 1 have some level of ethical relevance in research about organizations and institutions and pertain to before, during, and after the research process.However, they are presently organized according to similar aspects of research with humans that may be handled or prioritized differently and ethical aspects unique to research about organizations.

IV. Discussion
Two general discussion points emerged: (a) the telling absence of several ethical concerns pursuant to conducting research about the policies, procedures, practices, and cultures of organizations and institutions; and (b) the conundrum of protecting organizational interest versus the public interest.

IV.1. Ethical Concerns Absent in Literature Reviewed
The first discussion point pivots around several ethical issues that were not addressed in the literature reviewed.The ensuing ideas emerged from both (a) my intuitive reactions when researching the topic and analyzing the literature herein and (b) informal communication with professional peers who are interested in this topic.

a) Unit of Analysis
What constitutes the unit of analysis was absent in the literature reviewed.The discussion herein was predicated on research about institutions and organizations with the terms used interchangeably -with justification (Scott 2008).But the literature reviewed did not engage with clear distinctions among different forms of collective entities Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies (i.e., units of analysis): companies, institutions, associations, unions, agencies, networks, organizations, or meta-organizations (an organization of organizations).For example, gaining informed consent from these various units of analysis is unlikely to be standardized, suggesting there may be a range of ethical concerns warranting different strategies to mitigate or minimize organizational harm.Also, seeking permission from a company or government agency may not be the same as from an informal network or from a meta-organization with no central secretariate.On a related front, Warren (2009) discussed the "ethics (...) of confidentiality and commercial sensitivity" (Warren 2009, 578) when studying about an organization.She urged researchers to preserve anonymity if consent to reveal identities has not been obtained.On that matter, however, she queried "'whose permission do we ask?' [in the face of] the multilayered nature of organizations" (ibid.).

b) Boundaries of Analysis
How blurred is the line between (a) research about a collective entity and (b) research concerning inter-organizational relations, intra-organizational dynamics, or interpersonal dynamics within the entity as this information is used to collect data about the unit of analysis (i.e., its practices, procedures, policies, or culture)?What is ethically involved in more clearly defining the boundaries of analysis (i.e., study delimitations under the researcher's control) when conducting research about institutions?How necessary is it that the research design reflects a combination of ethical principles for research with humans and research about organizations?Do we need a hybrid ethical standard for research about collective entities comprising humans?These issues were absent in the literature reviewed.

c) Purpose of Research
The literature reviewed did not address whether the purpose of the research affects ethical concerns.Would these concerns differ if the purpose was to study an instance instead of a general phenomenon (e.g., a local branch versus an international office)?What about studying the innate workings (culture) of an organization versus how its external brand and reputation influence people?This ethical aspect of research about organizations and institutions was missing in the literature reviewed.

d) Distinguishing Humans from Institutions
A fourth issue arose from the notion that obtaining a human's permission to gain access to a collective entity does not constitute research with humans (Wendy Burgess, SRCR representative, personal communication, March 16, 2021;Rowley 2004).But is the distinction really this clear cut?How can anyone but a human act on the ideas and strategies profiled in Table 1 especially informed consent?Does the human giving Sue L. T. McGregor permission for institutional access not deserve protection from harm, even though he or she is not being interviewed about or informing on the institution, which is covered by research with humans?On another front, what would ethically be involved in gaining access through a central secretariat or an entity without legal status -even with legal status?These and related issues were absent in the literature reviewed except the advice that a representative (human) from the organization should give consent, but this consent is not necessary to conduct the study (Runeson & Höst 2009;Tri-Council 2019;Warren 2009).

e) Prioritizing and Operationalizing Ethical Considerations
Nowhere was there discussion of (a) which ethical element in Table 1 is most important when conducting research about organizations and institutions nor (b) how each ethical issue should be operationalized for organizations relative to existing ethical protocol for conducting research involving humans.Should operationalization concerns when studying organizations be the same as for humans or different?After all, an organization is a collective entity that is unique from individuals (Greenwood 2016;Scott 2008).Should this distinction not merit different operationalization procedures for access, informed consent, confidentiality, conflict of interest and so on when studying about an organization?These issues were absent from the literature reviewed with an inaugural attempt herein in Table 1.

IV. 2. Protecting Organizational Interest versus Public Interest
A compelling takeaway was that research about organizations and institutions has a unique, distinguishing ethical concern for weighing the former's interest against the public interest rather than that of individual humans.This ethical quandary is significant because institutional and organizational research efforts "often deal with matters of public interest" (Stake 2003, 154), which refers to the common well-being or general welfare of the public or general populace (Nadel 1971).In this case, that means members of the public affected by an organization or institution's policies, practices, procedures, or culture.
To elaborate, "the public interest is about issues which [matter to] and affect everyone even if many of them are not aware of it or even if they don't appear to care" (Collinson 2021, para. 5).For example, it is in the public's interest (i.e., advantage, benefit, or welfare) that roads and bridges (transportation) are available and safe, hospitals and care institutions are available and safe, libraries and schools are available, sanitation concerns are addressed, national and personal debt loads are under control, vulnerable citizens are protected, and public safety and policing are in place (Nadel 1971).Revelations about these aspects of the public interest revealed through research should be of interest to the public.

Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of Strategies
In truth, however, what interests the public is not always the same as what is in their best interest and general welfare (Collinson 2021).Sometimes it is in the public's best interest that researchers bring an important subject to their attention, but this must be done ethically.Deciding whether to expose organizational and institutional practices "is a difficult and delicate judgement, and each case must be judged carefully" (Collinson 2021, para. 21)."Researchers must consider the ethical principles of beneficence and justice vis-à-vis nonmalfeasance (i.e., avoiding harm) (...) when considering the ethical aspects of their research" (Gregg et al. 2022(Gregg et al. , 1414).Ho's (2013) suggestion appears to speak to this ethical concern: researchers should address the public interest impartially.Ethically, impartiality embraces the principle that decisions should not "benefit one person over another for improper reasons" (Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2019, Section 5.2).If researchers are impartial, they are not partial to anyone; that is, they do not let their bias favour one side over another.To the best of their ability, they ensure justice is served (i.e., someone is treated fairly, someone is meted the exposure they deserve, or both) (Collinson 2021).In that process, Ho felt that the welfare of the public comes before the welfare of individuals and, as the literature reviewed would suggest, the welfare of organizations.Indeed, sometimes, it may be in the public's best interest that damning, sensitive, or controversial information about an organization, revealed through research, is exposed to public scrutiny (ESRC 2015;Morse 2005;Tri-Council 2019).

Conclusion
This paper tended to raise more questions than it answered, which is acceptable because perspective sharing shapes future dialogue (Berterö 2016).The crux of the matter in the literature reviewed seemed to be (a) how important is it that the reputation and welfare of an organization and institution are protected and (b) what would (should, could) addressing that ethical concern look like in research design protocol and a university's procedural ethics?Foremost, weighing the protection of the organization's interest versus the public interest appeared as a dominant and unique theme in the nascent literature about the ethical concerns of research about organizations and institutions.
I remain convinced that researchers would benefit from formalized ethical procedural guidelines for noncritical and critical inquiries about institutions and organizations.To that end, a compendium was shared of proposed ethical concerns and strategies (ethical conventions) gleaned from the literature reviewed (see Table 1) and a discussion of omissions from said literature was tendered to scaffold and augment future debate and discourse around this ethical aspect of organizational research.
Advancements to the ethical dimensions of research design strategies will ultimately improve research about organizations and institutions and, by association, theory, curriculum, policy, and practice.No longer would researchers be wandering in the Sue L. T. McGregor . The Common Rule (the short name for the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects) is the baseline standard of ethics employed at most US academic institutions regardless of the funding source (Office of Human Research Protections [OHRP], 2019).The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2015) is a likeminded entity in the United Kingdom (UK) administering its Framework for Research Ethics (FRE).ESRC is the main funding body for UK social science research.The Council clarified that "new situations constantly emerge in the social science arena which require creative approaches to ethics issues.This framework offers general guidance [only and] cannot replace the need for self-critical, imaginative and responsible ethical reflection about issues which may arise in the course of research" (United Kingdom Research and Innovation [UKRI] 2021, para.3).In the European Union (EU), ethics for research involving humans is not centralized.Instead, each EU Member State (N=27) uses its own governance of research with humans (Shaw & Townend 2021).Canada's Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) administers and interprets the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Human Research (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [herein the Tri-Council] 2019).The Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association (CIRPA) (2012) has a code of ethical conduct for people who identify as institutional researchers (IR) who conduct research for institutions, but it is not for ethical procedures when conducting research about institutions.
findings past critical colleagues (peers) who can offer alternative interpretations and explanations.Heeding their insights might reduce confirmation bias (i.e., finding what one wants to find) and contribute to ethical rigour and validity.Yin (2018) further recommended that when studying about organizations and institutions, researchers should ethically (a) ensure accuracy (error-free portrayal of the organization or institution), (b) strive for credibility (organization or institution deems data are true), (c) avoid deception (do not deliberately mislead or create a wrong impression) and (d) refrain from falsifying information.Sue L. T. McGregor or anonymized and why (results can affect their reputation, integrity, and welfare) Ethical Considerations in Research about Organizations: Compendium of StrategiesRecruitmentEnsure that inducements for the organization or institution to be the unit of analysis do not compromise study validity or researchers' integrityGaining Access• Avoid deception (do not deliberately mislead) when gaining access to the organization or institution and when writing the research reportData Security• Clarify with the organization or institution how information and data will be secured in transit and during and after analysis Managing Bias • Employ reflexivity to make researcher's positionality transparent (acknowledge self-biases) • Vet data and analysis with critical peers to avoid confirmation bias (finding what you wanted to find) Validity (Measure What Was Intended) • Ensure the accuracy (correct in detail) of organizational or institutional data profiled in the research • Refrain from falsifying information about the organization or institution (do not alter to mislead) • Strive for credible data (judged accurate by someone at the organization or institution; their assessment may trigger protection pursuant to research with humans) • Per above, there were mixed thoughts in the literature on member checking and requiring the organization's agreement with researchers' analysis and conclusions and its impact on validity Ethical Aspects of Research Unique to Research about Organizations: Balancing and Protecting Interests • Handle sensitive, damning, or controversial results/findings by weighing protecting the public interest versus the organization or institution's interest (unit of analysis) • Per above, respect the ethical principle of impartiality (do not benefit one thing over another for improper reasons: do not let personal bias favour one side over another) Sue L. T. McGregor