Are we ethical?

Approaches to ethics in management and organization research

Abstract

We are currently witnessing two concurrent trajectories in the field of research ethics, namely

the increasingly explicit and formalised requirements of research governance and the ongoing

debate around the implicit nature of ethics, which cannot be assured by these methods, and

related for some the role that reflexivity can play in research ethics. This paper seeks to

address two questions. Firstly, given the focus of these discussions is often theoretical rather

than on practice, how do our colleagues engage with research ethics and what is their ethical

position? Secondly, given reflexivity is typically focused on knowledge construction, to what

extent does it influence (if at all) their ethics throughout the research process? Interviews

were undertaken with senior colleagues who have established modes of research practice and

ethical approaches. Drawing on understandings of reflexivity and ethics, this paper explores

an ethical subjectivity that was typically reflective and sometimes reflexive, and was usually

related to personal rather than procedural ethics. It demonstrates contrasting ethical concerns

of society, participant, and researcher community, and how some researchers saw their

ethical obligation as focused on producing meaningful research at the expense of more

traditional concerns for the research participant.

Keywords: Critical Management Studies, ethical subjectivity, procedural ethics, reflexivity,

research ethics.

1
 Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organization research

Much of the literature on research ethics focuses on the principles of ethical research and the

means by which this can be accomplished. Those who point to the limitations of formal

ethics stress the importance of individual and situational ethics, especially when facing

ethical dilemmas in the moment that require an immediate and personal response and

cannot be codified. Alongside these debates, there has been a growing interest in the notion

of reflexivity as a means to improve the trustworthiness (Finlay, 2002) and, some argue, the

validity of research (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004; see also Pillow, 2003), and recognize the

partial nature of knowledge produced. Curiously, despite reflexivity having become claimed

by some as the marker of the good researcher (Alvesson, et al., 2008) it is not often drawn

into discussions of research ethics or is usually limited to knowledge construction rather than

the researchers construction of ethical judgment in the field. Indeed a review of the literature

suggests that its employment in research practice may be limited apart from some notable

exceptions (e.g. Cunliffe, 2002a, Finlay, 2005). Furthermore, the literature rarely goes

beyond abstract debate to look at our ethical practice or community. The paper therefore

seeks to answer the questions, what do we understand by the term research ethics? How do

we practice research ethics and what informs it (to what extent is it influenced by formal

ethics, personal ethics, the academic community for examples)? And, to what extent are we

reflexive in our ethics? To achieve this, the paper examines accounts of research practice in

order to understand the nature of ethical practice and how researchers constitute themselves

as ethical subjects.

Rather than relying on the authors personal experiences, as much of the literature addressing

ethics does, this paper draws on in-depth interviews with established and successful

academics within the field of organisation and management studies who have undertaken

empirical research. Importantly, interviewees were allowed to interpret what counted as

2
research ethics, and to frame their responses according to their own position on the subject

matter (c.f. Crow et al., 2006; Wiles et al., 2006).

The paper is structured as follows: it summarises the literature exploring research ethics (in

management research particularly), drawing on literature critiquing and defending the formal

ethical governing mechanisms and how they relate to personal ethics, then it addresses

reflection and reflexivity and their relationship to research ethics. The empirical section of

the paper reveals how management researchers frame notions of research ethics, and the

dilemmas they encounter and negotiate in their relationships with organizations, research

participants, their colleagues and institutions. The paper reveals insights into the role of

formal ethics, personal ethics and reflexivity, hitherto under-examined in scholarship on

research ethics. The discussion explores the different approaches to ethics, reflexivity and the

challenges faced by the community in addressing these concerns.

What do we say about research ethics?

Discussions of research ethics typically orientate around practices such as seeking informed

consent, the avoidance of harm, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, the avoidance of

deception, and the contrast between dutifully following process and procedure and the reality

of ethics, which often calls upon different ethical perspectives. Much of the literature focuses

on the problems associated with increasing formalization and bureaucratization via codes and

committees (ethics or mission creep (Haggerty, 2004; Hammersley and Traianou, 2014;

Carr, 2015)). Concerns include the implied universality of ethical judgment through the use

of generic benchmarks to assess the ethical standards (Cannella and Lincoln, 2007), their

sectional and thus exclusionary nature (Brewis and Wray-Bliss, 2008), the ways in which

ethical committees limit academic freedom (Carr, 2015; Graffigna, et al., 2009; Lewis, 2008),

and are perceived as focused on institutional liability (Guillemin et al., 2012; Hunter, 2008;

Koro-Ljungberg, et al., 2007; Munro, 2008).

3
Criticisms are often blamed on review boards having evolved from a medical framework

which are considered to lack understanding of ethical problems in social research (Perlman,

2006). It is also argued that boards are disproportionately comprised of quantitative

researchers who do not fully grasp the nature of qualitative research (Goode, 1999; Johnson,

2014; Schrag, 2011), lack appropriate training (Boden, et al., 2009; Schrag, 2011) and a

critical reflexivity in their approach (Cannella, 2004). Indeed, qualitative submissions to

review boards, particularly ethnographic research (Boden, et al., 2009), are more liable to be

rejected for failing to provide sufficient detail in terms of the intended process of data

collection and protection (Bell and Thorpe, 2013; Hedgecoe, 2008; Schrag, 2011). Broadly,

this body of work concludes that ethical committees are potentially irrelevant and/or

dangerous to researchers and research quality (Hammersley, 2006; Schrag, 2011) because

they rely on an inflexible Kantian ethics that requires us to follow rationalised universal rules

that fail to grasp the nuances of research encounters.

The consequence of these prescriptions are reflected in the nature, quality and innovation of

research (Wiles, et al., 2006), the framing of its design, the type of questions that can be

asked, who is included/excluded, and what methods of research are deemed valid (Cannella

and Lincoln, 2007; Graffigna, et al., 2009; Ramcharan and Cutcliffe, 2001; Schrag, 2011).

The outcomes may also be political, such as which individuals or groups are deemed as

vulnerable (Boden, et al., 2009; Schrag, 2011) and where committees may be over-

protective (Guillemin et al., 2012), which may have the effect of silencing certain voices

(Ferdinand et al., 2007) and masking these exclusions (Brewis and Wray-Bliss, 2008). The

framing of what constitutes ethics is thus a regulative effect of the discourse of ethics

governing research practice (Halse and Honey, 2007; Koro-Ljungberg, et al., 2007). It also

implies agreement on what constitutes ethical behaviour, where in fact there is often still

much debate, for example, in whether, when and to what extent deception may be permissible

4
(see Christians, 2000). In essence, these arguments challenge the value of normative ethics

that prescribe universal ethical behaviours.

Some writers suggest that boards are in fact well-equipped to judge qualitative projects

(Hedgecoe, 2008) comprised as they are of our colleagues (Guta, Nixon and Wilson, 2013),

and that the formal process provides a framework for researchers (Perlman, 2006) which is

grounded in the realities of research (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). The governing structures

may educate and sensitize researchers to the potential implications and consequences of their

research (Bell and Thorpe, 2013; Crow, et al., 2006; Wester, 2007). Evidence suggests for

example, that ethics is somewhat taken for granted or neglected by researchers, including

both those particularly in the case of more established researchers who have little formal

training (Bell and Bryman, 2007), and early career researchers who have received formal

training (Robertson, 2014), and that our reasons for resisting oppressive review procedures

may be less noble (Guta et al., 2013: 8). Furthermore, not all committees are deemed to be

as draconian as some of the critics imply, and often the process is characterised by discussion

(Robertson, 2014).

The extent to which codes actually direct research is also questioned (Marzano, 2007), since

they are also accused of being ambiguous and indeterminate (Goodwin et al., 2003; Wiles et

al., 2006) and treated as a tick-box exercise disconnected from the realities of everyday

ethics (Bell and Thorpe, 2013; Halse and Honey, 2007; Rossman and Rallis, 2010). Such

prescriptions can create the false impression of ethical research by absolving the researcher of

further responsibilities (Boden, et al., 2009; Hardy, et al., 2001) such as the longer term

effects on participants (Gatrell, 2009; Haynes, 2006), encouraging unreflective applications

of rules (Cannella and Lincoln, 2007; Rossman and Rallis, 2010) where researchers unlearn

the fundamental processes of everyday listening and observing in favour of selective

approaches which avoid forbidden territory (Coupal, 2005) and can damage rapport (Crow,

et al., 2006).
5
Formal processes are argued to be abstracted from the actual doing (Calvey, 2008: 905) and

can operate at the expense of personal and situational ethics in which judgement in the

moment is required, and may be contrary to or beyond guidance, particularly in cases where

the topics of research or the nature of the researched-researcher relationship are sensitive,

such as interviewing friends about sexual relationships (Brewis, 2014), discussing

motherhood and work-life balance (Haynes, 2006) and exploring death (Young and Lee,

1996) where harm may be unavoidablei. These are skills that may not be directly teachable

but crafted over a lifetime, being inherently ambiguous and indeterminate, requiring

flexibility and accommodation (de Laine, 2000). Indeed whilst much of the debate around

ethics centres on the formal-versus-practice dimensions, there is a growing interest in

exploring the interpersonal experiences and everyday practice of ethics.

The literature reflects a shift in interest away from a Kantian (or what Ferdinand et al. (2007)

might term traditionalist) approach, which relies upon a universal code that remains

abstract, depersonalised and is considered to mask sectional interests as duty and suppress

our faculties for reflection (Brewis and Wray-Bliss, 2008). In its place is an emphasis on the

situational and critical realities of ethics that operate outside of pre-defined codes, and require

freedom to act. This is underpinned by a Foucaultian stance on ethics in which we exercise

freedom in how we respond to the demands placed upon us and how we become ethical

subjects. For others these relate to an interpersonal ethics (Cunliffe and Karunanayake,

2013): an ethics-of-care (Gilligan, 1982) in which the safeguarding required is a fluid, co-

constructed notion (Gatrell, 2009) that reflects the embodied and emotional experience of

research (Sergi and Hallin, 2011). The radical position of the latter relies upon self-

reflexivity (Ferdinand et al., 2007), and the former requires as a minimum processes of

reflection. Interestingly, alternative notions of ethics such as virtue ethics (the embodiment

of desirable or moral characteristics (see MacIntyre, 2007)) and consequentialist ethics

(where intended consequences of actions are considered as the basis for judging ethics) are

6
not explicit in this literature, even though they are sometimes implied in practice-based

situational ethics (judging how best to behave based on perceived consequences) and in terms

of the moral being to which we aspire.

Reflection, reflexivity and ethics

Habitual self-reflection is, for Foucault, the means through which we create the ethical

subject. Foucault argues there are four aspects to this: the ethical substance to be worked on

(e.g. feelings, intentions), the mode of subjectivation (how we are incited to recognise

moral obligations), the means by which we change ourselves to become ethical subjects, and

the kind of being to which we aspire (Foucault, 2000: 265). Ethical subjectivity sets out how

we define our ethical positions and how we constitute ourselves as ethical subjects

(McMurray, et al., 2010), which draws on but is not limited by the discourse of formal ethics.

The specific techniques or technologies used to achieve this vary, but self-examination and

reflection are key (Foucault, 2000). Reflection is an important aspect of the research process,

such as considering how oneself, ones dispositions, position in the scholarly community and

approach to a field of study impacts scholarship (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), and

provides the basis for ethical action that may resist codified ethics.

Going beyond reflection, there is the so-called reflexive turn (Willmott, 1998), which has

been claimed as an expectation (Hassard, 1993; Mahon, 2003), or seen as good

(presentational) manners (Lee and Hassard, 1999: 397) particularly within Critical

Management Studies (Fournier and Grey, 2000). It is primarily, though not exclusively, seen

as a concern for qualitative researchers (Macbeth, 2001; Ryan and Golden, 2006, see

Alvesson, 2003; Alvesson and Skldberg, 2000). Reflexivity requires us to situate ourselves

within discourse of knowledge/power (Caldwell, 2007; Hardy and Clegg, 1997) and to avoid

certain discourse or methods becoming ossified (ODoherty, 2007). Reflexivity as far as the

literature informs us is typically employed to understand the process of research ex post

7
(Rhodes, 2009; Rhodes and Brown, 2005; Weick, 2002) and focuses on inquiry into

knowledge production (Hardy, et al., 2001; Holland, 1999; Tsoukas and Knuden, 2003),

ethics and reflexivity of critical writing (Wray-Bliss, 2002), and textual practice (Alvesson et

al., 2008). Whilst ethical in its ambitions, reflexivity is less frequently drawn into discussions

of research ethicsii and the role it might play, and yet it is arguably crucial if we are to

partially engage with, go beyond, or eschew formal guidelines, as the literature suggests

many of us wish or claim to do. Indeed the use of reflexivity itself warrants attention as it has

been accused of being corrupted a ritualistic, procedural aspect of the critical

methodological toolkit which authors hide behind (Grey and Sinclair, 2006: 447; see also

Letiche, 2009; Mahadevan, 2011) to legitimate their research (Alvesson et al., 2008), a

similar critique to that of procedural ethics.

There are, as Mahon (2003) notes, a number of species of reflexivity such that we should

speak not of reflexivity but of reflexivities (see: Ashmore (1989), Lynch (2000) and Woolgar

(1988)). Reflexivity goes beyond reflection in that it asks us to question our taken-for-granted

assumptions, and that which we already know (Cunliffe, 2009). It is therefore more

fundamentally disruptive (Pssil et al., 2015). Hibbert et al. (2010) distinguish between

types or degrees of reflexivity on the basis of whether reflections are open (o) or closed (c) to

others, and whether the recursion is passive (p) or active (a): repetition (cp), extension (ca),

disruption (oa) and participation (op). The closed reflections result in the repetition of

accepted practices that create the conditions of verification (see also Pels, 2000, and Archers

(2003) communicative reflexivity), or involve some extension to ones understandings

based on self-questioning, akin to Archers (2003) autonomous reflexivity. In contrast, open

reflections are guided by others, and either resemble Archers (2003) disruptive, critical

fractured reflexivities, or her meta-reflexivity in which participation leads to co-

construction of knowledge (see also Davies, 1999). Claims to be reflexive can therefore

invoke very different meanings.

8
Different epistemological and ontological assumptions lead us to different approaches to

reflexivity (Tomkins and Eatough, 2010), which make different knowledge claims (Johnson

and Duberley, 2003; Pillow, 2003), some of which seek to enhance objectivity, whilst others

seek to undermine it (Lynch, 2000). Bourdieu (1988, 2000, 2004) calls for a collective

reflexivity on three levels: 1) self-reflexivity, 2) structural reflexivity, reflecting the

institutional context and ones position in it, and 3) the scholarly gaze, or theoreticist bias,

which, it is argued, will provide rigour to the research process by neutralizing the bias

(Golsorkhi, 2009: 786). Cunliffe (2003: 990), however, argues for a radical reflexivity with a

more critical and ethical basis (see also Pollner, 1991), which seeks to be critical in its

understanding of organizational practices (studying the constructions of realities of other

people) and the research process itself (including the researchers constructions) exposing

doubts and dilemmas as well as other possibilities, and questioning the authority of our

accounts (Cunliffe, 2004; 2009; Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013). This in turn unsettles

claims of neutrality in the de/construction of research data (see also: Brewis and Wray-Bliss,

2008; Cals and Smircich, 1999; Hardy, et al., 2001; Tomkins and Eatough, 2010), and

recognises the limits to our self-knowledge (Linstead, 1994; Johnson and Duberley, 2003;

Pillow, 2003).

Reflexivity has often been treated only as a theoretical rather than an embodied (Wray-Bliss,

2002, 2003; Turner and Norwood, 2013) or emotional concern (Burkitt, 2012; Koning and

Ooi, 2013; Sergi and Hallin, 2011); an intellectual critique rather than a practice (Cunliffe,

2002b). Even studies that emphasise the relationality of reflexive practice tend to focus on the

account and its theorisation (Cunliffe, 2011; Hibbert et al., 2014). But as Mauthner and

Doucet (2003) argue, the division between reflexive theory and practice is a false divide of

which one consequence is a lack of engagement and few accounts of its adoption in practice

(Bell and Thorpe, 2013) beyond autoethnographic accounts (Alpaslan et al., 2006; Ellis and
9
Bochner, 2000; Haynes, 2011; Humphreys, 2005) or reflections separated from the research

itself (Thomas et al., 2009). Exceptions can be found in the work of Cunliffe (2002a), Finlay

(2005), Riach (2009), and Riach and Wilson (2014). Similarly, Burns et al. (2014) challenge

the positions of researcher and researched by taking a reflexive approach to knowledge

production (see also Wray-Bliss, 2003). Yet despite the call for a disciplined reflexivity in

knowledge production (Weick, 1999) its take-up has been limited and no such equivalence is

found in ethical guidelinesiii. Its practicality (Abraham, 2008; Maton, 2003) as well as the

emotional cost for the researcher (Sampson et al., 2008) is little explored with reflexivity still

remaining a potential tool for ethical research practice (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004: 262;

see also Hahn, 2006).

Ultimately many of these arguments remain abstracted from practice. It is claimed that

formal ethics are increasingly sidelined in the name of an ethical subjectivity that lays claim

to an acute perception of and responsiveness towards the other and is a fundamentally

situated ethics, which cannot be prescribed in advance. For critical researchers there is also

the implied claim of reflexivity, following Fournier and Grey (2000). What is not so well

understood is how this is put into practice: what ethics means to researchers, how it is

negotiated and practiced, and how it is informed. To explore this, the study examined the

reflections of experienced, well-published academics in the field of management and

organization studies to understand more about their own sense of ethics.

Fieldwork

To explore these issues, I draw on the research experiences of those with a recognised track

record in research and an established career. The reason for this focus was five-fold. Firstly,

successful and established researchers would have more experience of ethics in research by

dint of time and number of projects in which they had been involved. Secondly, their relative

success suggests that their research and practice is to some degree accepted by the

10
community as scholarly practice (through refereeing processes, for example recognising

that this doesnt necessarily mean ethical practice). Thirdly, and perhaps more critically, we

might have particular interest in the practices of the top publishers, and what kind of ethical

practice(s) they adopt to achieve their success particularly since they may be role models for

others and thus central to the reproduction of research practice. Fourthly, it enables us to

examine the embedded practices or habitus of researchers that has developed over time.

Fifthly, it allows for the fact that reflexivity in research may take time to develop. The

sample, therefore, is specifically focused on those who have established ways of working and

who in many cases, as critical researchers, by implication make claims to be both ethical and

reflexive in their research and in some cases also explicitly write about ethics and/or

reflexivity, rather than aiming to speak for the community as a whole.

A review of high-ranked journals in the field of management and organization studies was

used to identify those with extensive publication records (specifically the top ten most

published in each of the journals), which provided the sample group. The search was done

using Web of Science or Scopus and was based on the Association of Business Schools

journal rankings (including 3-4 rated journals). The date limiter was from 1992 onwards (the

earliest limiter available). In selecting the participants, a precise ranking of the top

publishers (for example the top 15) was avoided as this would enable someone to

determine the identity of the interviewees. Further factors considered were: length of career

and seniority (a minimum of fifteen years as an academic was required as a proxy for

experience), geographical location (ensuring the sample included representation from Europe,

America and Australasia), and gender (desiring a mix, even though the sample was biased

towards men) alongside the practical considerations of access (reflecting a preference for

face-to-face interviews, and thus influenced by factors such as attendance at conferences), in

selecting the subsample. The focus was on researchers who used, primarily or exclusively,

qualitative methods in their work (recognizing that multiple paradigms are represented under

11
the qualitative inquiry umbrella Malone (2003)) and who therefore were more likely to

articulate nuanced understandings of the complexities of ethics in research practice (Halse

and Honey, 2007). However many used mixed methods, or had experience in quantitative

methods. All researchers were aware of ethical guidelines and there was little difference in

attitude towards guidelines between those who had been formally trained at the start and

those who had been exposed to procedural ethics during their careers.

In total 16 interviews (6 women, 10 men) were conducted, mainly face-to-face (3 interviews

were conducted via video conferencing software), drawing on the experiences of researchers

from the United Kingdomiv (8), the rest of Europe (4), the United States (3), and Australia

(1). The bias in the data collection reflects the prevalence of highly-ranked qualitative journal

articles being written by this community and means the analysis is focused on countries with

(typically) more developed formal review processes (with the US the most regulated,

followed by Australia and then the UK). However the European perspective is also reflected

in the experiences of two of the US and two of the UK-based respondents who had

experience of European institutions. All the interviews were transcribed. The interviews

were conducted over a period of 12 months, partly as a result of practical constraints and a

preference, where possible, to conduct interviews face-to-face.

There were no refusals to a request for an interview, which were around one hour in duration.

The sample included a number of academics with current or previous journal editing roles as

well as substantial experience in supervising postgraduate research students. Their experience

of the research process thus extended beyond their own research projects, and, consistent

with the projects objectives, included a broad range of ethical concerns. Unlike Wiles et al.

(2006) there was no sense that the respondents were seeking to provide procedurally

acceptable or politically correct responses. Indeed, some researchers professed not to be

ethical and many were apparently comfortable relaying practices that could be considered

questionable by those advocating a procedural approach. This was perhaps a consequence of

12
their seniority and established place in the field allowing confident assertion of, as Brewis

and Wray-Bliss (2008) suggest, an ethico-political stance evoked by a developed

ambivalence towards formal ethics, a challenge to norms which some may have felt was

expected of them (see also Platt, 1981 for a similar experience)v.

Semi-structured interviews were utilised which sought responses to three broad areas of

concern, namely: the researchers understanding of research ethics (for example: what do you

understand by the term research ethics?); their approach to research ethics and experience

of ethical dilemmas (for example: can you give me some examples of challenges or dilemmas

you have faced? If so, can you talk me through what happened and why?); and reflections on

formal mechanisms for ethical guidance (for example: what mechanisms are in place to guide

your research? To what extent do they guide your research?). These questions may have

produced a cultivated reflexivity (Bryman and Cassells, 2006) through the explication of

their research practice.

Preliminary analysis of the interviews was undertaken throughout the year, affording the

opportunity to consider refinements to the interview process (see: Strauss and Corbin, 1990)

and supporting a process of purposive sampling (Mason, 2002). As the interviewing process

progressed, similar themes were identified across the individual accounts (Guest, et al., 2006;

Morse, 1994). When it became apparent that no new categories or substantively new

properties with established categories were being identified, no further interviews were

arranged as I felt that a point of saturationvi had been reached. Interviews were utilised

because the focus was on the interviewees reflections on practice, drawing on their entire

career. Furthermore there were ethical, practical and validity-based concerns with

observational or diary methods (for example, the impact on their research subjects when

observing practice, the likelihood of diary-completion, and the observer-effect on research

practice).

13
Analysis of the interviews initially involved a process of reading, and re-reading of the

transcripts to inductively draw out themes within and then between transcripts. Themes were

iteratively discussed and refined in conversation with a colleaguevii. The semi-structured

nature of the interviews meant that categories resulted from a mixture of inductive and

deductive methods, the latter limited to the broad areas drawn from the literature review

(Fereday and Muir-Cochran, 2006) around procedural and personal ethics, and reflexivity.

Key themes identified were taken from each transcript and compared. The consistency of the

themes led me to conclude the findings were robust. The quotations representing the various

themes were collated and each transcript re-read to ensure that the process had not resulted in

disembodied accounts that no longer reflected the voices of the participants (Ribbens and

Edwards, 1998).

The sample is not claimed to be representative of the population of organization/management

researchers worldwide, or sub-communities such as the broadly European EGOS community,

and the study was not designed to compare responses from researchers located in different

countries, or make generalized claims about communities. Yet it was interesting to note that

despite the diversity of national and institutional settings, many of the approaches to ethics

were remarkably similar. Regrettably, some of the richness of the narratives is sacrificed in

order to protect the identity of researchers whose work and related stories may be familiar to

colleagues in the community (see Wiles, et al., 2006). The inclusion of the selected quotes

has been agreed with the appropriate participants.

Interviewees are identified in the text by: sex, interview number and country of their primary

employer (e.g., M/Int4/UK). The data is discussed in two sections, broadly following the

debates in the research ethics literature, namely the engagement with procedural ethics and

personal ethics.

14
Engagement with procedural ethics

In this section I explore their engagement with procedural ethics, including a critical stance

towards formal ethics, views that they are irrelevant to research ethics, limiting to research,

and compromised in practice, before concluding with the recognition of the guidance they

provide.

A critical stance

Echoing critiques in the extant literature around formal ethics (e.g., Boden, et al., 2009;

Graffigna, et al., 2009; Wiles et al., 2006), interviewees were predominantly critical of the

effectiveness of formal ethical procedures. One interviewee outlined a radical position

(Ferdinand et al., 2007): Ethics is ethos; ethos is not about rules, not even perhaps about

principles, but about ways of being You cant legislate human judgement (M/Int6/UK)

reflecting the idea that the self becomes ethical in exercising freedom (Foucault, 2000).

Irrelevant

Ethics committees, which were believed to have increasingly high transaction costs

(M/Int4/UK), were seen as a hindrance or a nuisance, or ignored altogether as irrelevant with

only lip service (F/Int1/Europe) being paid to them. Responses reflected the different

institutional and national distinctions, with the US, followed closely by Australia,

experiencing more extensive regulation, though it was considered to have proliferated

elsewhere. These formal aspects were viewed as something to get out of the way

(M/Int4/UK) and typically resulted in no change in behaviour (M/Int13/UK). As one

respondent noted, the attitude was to satisfy [them] and not lie (F/Int14/US). The

interviewees consistently argued that the formal procedures within universities were

motivated by the prevention of litigation and fear of being sued (F/Int10/US) (see also

15
Furedi, 2002) a focus on consequences rather than duty that diluted genuine concern

(M/Int16/UK) for research participants, although only US-based respondents consistently

provided evidence for this likelihood, reflecting the institutional environment and experience

of ethical committees.

Some researchers had developed strategies to circumvent formal processes such as delegating

the completion of ethics paperwork to junior researchers or avoiding the process altogether.

Interestingly, many of the procedural critics seemed to have little experience of or direct

engagement with formal processes, hinting at a reflex response, which reflects ambivalence

towards formal ethics (Brewis and Wray-Bliss, 2008).

Limiting

The respondents discussed how the processes of ethical governance, perceived (perhaps

assumed) as dominated by the intellectual hegemony of biomedicine (M/Int4/UK), could

prevent research associated with certain epistemological traditions (e.g. ethnography),

methods (e.g. covert observation), or research topics (e.g. death and dying) from being

undertaken, although little evidence was given of their own experiences in this regard.

Interviewees gave examples of how sensitive research topics had been re-shaped, hidden, or

carried out surreptitiously for the purpose of getting through institutional review

(F/Int10/US) in a context where increasingly many felt research was expected to be primarily

concerned with enhancing corporate effectiveness (Syed, et al., 2009). This stressed the

importance of the consequences of being able to undertake the research. The following

quotation illustrates how the conduct of potentially enlightening forms of research may be

foreclosed, limiting researchers to predictable research (M/Int15/Europe):

People like Huw Beynon, you know Working for Ford: nobody knew who he was

Has it done harm? No, not really. I think it has been a very classic, good case study

that would have breached the ethical codes of that time, but it has helped us
16
 immensely to understand the lot of the ordinary worker. So in all it is controversial

but then if we in academia dont do controversial, whats the point? (M/Int6/UK).

Compromised

Often cited as problematic was the requirement to ask participants to sign informed consent

forms. One participant described how she turned it into a plaything, making people laugh

at consent forms even as they sign it (F/Int14/US). Whilst acknowledging the importance of

participants being aware of what they were doing and why they were doing it

(M/Int16/UK), they differed in their assumptions and approaches to this. One researcher for

example, argued that if the respondent had agreed to the interview how can it not be full

consent theyve agreed to it, what the hell, why would I have some form filled in?

(M/Int3/UK) clearly rejecting its formalisation. In contrast, another interviewee critiqued the

false impression of voluntariness, pointing out that some of them can tell you to go to hell,

but many of them cannot or may not, or prefer not to (F/Int1/Europe) suggesting more

reflexively - personal ethics may be more sensitive to the position of respondents than formal

procedures (see Fine et al., 2000). Others also considered formalised consent as just words

on paper (F/Int7/Europe), with possible downsides such as placing boundaries or strictures

on what theyre actually going to tell me (M/Int16/UK) and worrying about potential

breaches rather than trying to get at the authenticity of the experience (M/Int6/UK) which

suggests that the Kantian maxim of not treating people solely as a means to an end could be

ignored for so-called authentic data.

As the following quote demonstrates, many respondents pointed out that informed consent

was often subverted by the lack of complete openness of the researcher regarding their own

views (recognising the politicised nature of research), or their undisclosed intentions for

doing the research:

17
 [I]ts kind of an ethical compromise because youre not revealing your own ethics. I

dont believe that workers are lazy and greedy, so I should really challenge that

[managerial assumption], but you cant afford to do that. Otherwise you wont get

access (M/Int3/UK).

Predominantly, concerns focused on the dangers of the impression of governability when in

reality no such governability exists (M/Int4/UK) and the false sense of security that was

assumed to arise from having ticked the box of ethical approval (M/Int8/UK). The failure to

touch ... the operationalisation of research (M/Int8/UK) appeared to justify the

disengagement with formal ethics. One respondent questioned the lack of evidence for the

efficacy of regulation, arguing there was a need for some justification of what all the

infrastructure is saving us from (M/Int11/Australia). Another pointed to the lack of

policing of many of the codes (M/Int13/UK), which curiously suggests their failure may

result from not being sufficiently monitored.

Guidance

However, while all respondents to some extent criticised ethical governance mechanisms,

responses were not uniformly negative. Some researchers pointed to their role in providing

guidance, a reminder to avoid taking things for granted (F/Int12/US), a way of achieving

legitimacy in our society (F/Int1/Europe) and for some, a tacit security or backup from the

institution (M/Int16/UK). Few, especially of those working outside of the US, recognized

the impact codes may have had in shaping their personal ethics, although one respondent

described many practices (such as keeping data in secure locations and destroying it after the

project) that are recommended.

Respondents were typically unsupportive of the idea of a bespoke code for management and

organisation studies researchers as it meant the replication of the problems found with any

codes. However, the process of writing was seen by many as potentially beneficial in creating
18
an ethical sensibility (F/Int7/Europe). Only one respondent referred to issues of collegial

relationships being covered by codes that incorporated your obligation as a researcher the

ways in which youre supposed to uphold certain ways of dealing with one another

professionally (F/Int12/US). However overall most respondents saw little value in

procedural ethics (indifferent attitudes towards training were also expressed), and relied upon

the ethics within.

Personal ethics

In this section I explore how they account for their personal ethics, including their ethical

stance and sense of responsibility, the importance of giving voice, protecting participants,

sensitivity to self and others, and community-level ethical concerns.

Ethical stance

Despite their disengagement with formal ethics, respondents were not neglectful in their

approach towards ethical practice and were articulate in explaining their ethics. Indeed, while

one respondent expressed the view that he was not only atypical but unethical (M/Int5/UK)

reflexivity was evidenced in negotiating the challenges of capturing complex, emergent

social experiences (Chia, 1996; Cunliffe, 2003). Personal ethics led to different approaches to

their research, such as their tendency to either place an emphasis on the value/outcome of

their research (indicating a consequentialist stance) and/or an orientation towards and

responsibility for research participants (suggesting a duty-based, or ethics-of-care), reflecting

on the question: to whom do we owe responsibility? (Ferdinand et al., 2007). For example,

one participant referred to his approach as ethically satisficing whilst focusing on

conducting interesting research (M/Int15/Europe) demonstrating an openness towards

flexible interpretations of, or challenges to, ethical protocol, which at best would suggest a

closed form of reflexivity. For others, care for respondents was the primary concern,

focusing on the relationship and a sense of empathy (M/Int6/UK), an appreciation for

19
the other persons views (M/Int6/UK), integrity (M/Int11/Australia), honouring ... the

voices they bring to the project (F/Int14/US), the obligation to protect informants and not

expose or hurt them in any way (F/Int10/US), and to challenge motivations, especially about

whether the engagement is to get insights into the human condition or to further your own

interests (M/Int6/UK), which hints at methodological reflexivity (Johnson and Duberley,

2003). Indeed, many of the principles that guided fieldwork, such as confidentiality,

anonymity, informed consent, avoiding risk and harm to participants, and for some,

reciprocity, reflect those found in codes but were claimed to be driven by their personal

ethics, often informed by gossip (F/Int1/Europe) or conversations that led to the common

code [that] circulates in the community and becomes a code (F/Int7/Europe), highlighting

the roles others play in shaping our reflexive stance (Burkitt, 2012) and ethical subjectivity.

These concerns were complicated when cooperative relationships with organisations were

crucial to accessing research participants, or where compromises between the needs of the

organisation and individual research participants were required a tension over which there

is a lack of clarity in codes (Bell and Bryman, 2007) and thus is by necessity informed by

ones own ethics. In respect of whether to anonymize organizations, one respondent claimed

I dont think we should be protecting organisations (F/Int1/Europe) and another argued that

in some cases the companies deserve the stick (M/Int15/Europe). However, others were of

the view that organizations were entitled to anonymity, or more instrumentally this was a

necessary strategy to ensure continued access. There were also moments where the ethical

guidelines were seen to be expendable and should be transcended if the circumstances

warranted it (see: Ferdinand et al., 2007), such as when 2,000 peoples jobs are going to

disappear and they are not being told (M/Int8/UK). Such a consequentialist approach

transcends guidelines and requires reflexive consideration of possible impact but can also be

ideologically motivated and reflexively repetitious (Hibbert et al., 2010).

20
Ethics was often implicitly or explicitly linked with power (and, for Critical Management

researchers, a commitment to identifying subordination in organizations (Fournier and Grey,

2000)), concern for which was almost entirely associated with a personal ethics. One

interviewee spoke of research being a way of giving voice to the people who have less

power because you actually speak for them and in an anonymized way (M/Int11/Australia)

(see also Kvale (2006) and Essers (2009)). But there was also a fear that the process of

research replicated these power relations whereby giving advice in a workplace contributed

to the control of employees and hence, the reproduction of the inequalities within work

(M/Int2/UK) (see also Wray-Bliss, 2003), indicating that potential consequences were often

uppermost in researchers minds. Respondents were particularly sensitive to the needs of, and

effect on, respondents at the lower end of the hierarchy, and some viewed senior managers as

being less in need of protection than junior employees. These concerns are suggestive of a

closed reflexivity which may be based on self-questioning, though may equally be influenced

by conforming to accepted practices in the community (Hibbert et al., 2010). Furthermore,

many noted that they tended not to go back to their research site, and thus didnt see the

impact of the research process and outputs (see also Wray-Bliss, 2002).

Giving voice

Respondents spoke at length about the dilemmas associated with gathering and reporting data

from organizations, which entailed avoiding disembodied accounts of people (M/Int2/UK)

and setting people up to give the responses your heart wishes they would give (F/Int10/US),

balancing the desire to be convincing and compelling (M/Int16/UK) and honouring the

voices of participants, whilst retaining control of how the story is told; a negotiation that

exceeds the scope of ethical guidance and that often reflected an ethics-of-care. One

respondent described the challenge of negotiating the authorial voice (Bell and Thorpe, 2013;

Cunliffe, 2004; Kara, 2013) in the context of one of her studies:

21
 The project could be read as reproducing a certain kind of privilege, and voice ... the

idea is ... to dismantle that voice a little bit what does it mean to do justice and

honour to what they say and not take it at face value? (F/Int14/US).

The desire for authentic data and perceived importance of the study had led one interviewee

to undertake covert interviews by securing a tape-recorder under a clipboard, in order to

avoid a spooked thing where they tell me the company line (M/Int5/UK) which can be

interpreted as motivated by the ethical responsibility to expose whilst perhaps underplaying

the extent to which data is constructed rather than collected.

Ethical concerns were also raised by the mania for dissemination (M/Int8/UK) by funding

bodies:

[W]hat are we going to do, disseminate information which shows that supermarkets

are just giant bullies and that the managing directors of companies hate them with a

passion? ... There are ethical issues around power and transparency that the people

who insist on your disseminating have not even thought about (M/Int8/UK).

Protection

The interviewees expressed almost unequivocal support for anonymizing the identity of

research participants, which whilst reflecting procedural ethics was predicated on a concern

for the consequences. One expressed the view that good researchers ... depend on a

perception of integrity and that normally means you dont blab (M/Int8/UK). Other

interviewees argued that protecting individuals was paramount because its peoples jobs

that are on the line their careers and future security (M/Int2/UK). The following

interviewee identified a strong commitment towards the protection of participants but went

on to express the view that we might be over-sensitive to this concern:

22
 We are sometimes so arrogant in ethical discussions about our power and influence ...

I can sit here and stew over that. And then realise ... maybe 20 people will ever read it

and its over (F/Int14/US).

One interviewee took this further noting that in some circumstances it may be appropriate to

identify research participants; that some actually wished to share their experiences openly

(M/Int6/UK), which suggests the possibility of an open reflexivity in which participants were

involved in ethical decisions (Hibbert et al., 2010). In contrast another respondent viewed the

desire to be named with suspicion, whilst another took the decision to observe anonymity

irrespective of whether research participants were happy to be named. Journal reviewers were

also implicated in the pressures placed on authors to reveal more information about their

research site, which could, in turn, risk identification of the organisation (see also: Lincoln

and Canella, 2009)viii.

Sensitivity

Sensitivity towards participants was a key area of concern and demonstrated the limitations

of codes, even leading to contrasting versions of good practice motivated by personal ethics.

The consequences of seeing oneself on paper where, as one interviewee noted people look

like idiots, further noting: you dont hurt them, their dignity (F/Int1/Europe) also persuaded

some that returning transcripts to participants should be avoided, reflexively challenging

good practice in favour of considering the consequences. Another interviewee noted a

reflexively disruptive (Hibbert et al., 2010) formative experience early in his career regarding

the impact of reporting data in which his feedback on a leaders style devastated the subject

(M/Int13/UK) (see also Haynes, 2006; Gatrell, 2009).

Demonstrating a responsibility to participants also required judgments as to what data to

exclude from written outputs. This was described by one interviewee as the need to

recognize that ethics was perhaps of most concern when participants were not present,
23
physically, in the project (F/Int14/US). Sensitivity was also raised as a concern for the

researcher: the need to ensure there was no personal harm and to balance care-for-self (Koro-

Ljungberg, et al., 2007) with care-for-others, particularly as research participants were not

considered entirely powerless and often had their own agenda requiring a reflexivity which

goes beyond considering ones own impact on the field.

Community-level concerns

Interestingly, the critical community was identified as often lacking the very reflexivity it

claims, damaging relationships with organisations and dishonouring voices in favour of

promoting a particular (political) perspective; a comment made by several scholars who

would be identified, and self-identified, with this community (see also Wray-Bliss, 2002,

2003). The tendency for some scholars to treat organisations as stupid and the researcher as

all-knowing (F/Int7/Europe) was seen as problematic, along with circumstances where

researchers did not demonstrate any interest in the results:

A bit of a bugbear of mine is what I call the scorched earth policy of some

researchers ... You find this particularly with leftist researchers who are so anti-

capitalist that they regard the companies they get answers from as kind of dispensable

... where do you get that in an ethics form? What are you going to do, have a box

saying am I going to be a complete bastard? (M/Int8/UK).

I feel also often like, I dont know your participants but I am pissed on their behalf ...

because even as an outsider reading this project ... there [are] 9 times more things ...

going on in that single quote than youre allowing, but youve picked up on your

Lacanian insight and now youre going to dust off the rest and move on. ... I think as a

qualitative researcher one of your ethical obligations is ... a genuine curiosity and

openness (F/Int14/US).

24
Hence the use of different research perspectives led not only to different questions,

approaches (such as doing research with or on the researched see Pillow, 2003) and

analyses, but also different orientations to ethical questions (Ferdinand et al., 2007). This

suggests Pels notion of the silent sovereignty of politicized theory (2000: 14) that he

argues leads to a vicious reflexivity in which reflexivity is grounded in (and limited to)

ones own analytical framework that can explain and thus liberate the previously unknowing

subject. Rather than being non-exploitative, such research fails to reflexively address its

mode of production and the interests it serves (Pillow, 2003), reflects personal feelings

towards participants (Haynes, 2006), and violates the Kantian maxim of never treating people

merely as a means to achieving ones aims (of research) (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004).

Criticisms were also levelled at researchers who apparently lacked reflexivity and who were

narcissists (Gabriel, 2009) or had a careerist focus (Alvesson, 2013; Wray-Bliss, 2002):

What are we actually doing are we doing interesting linguistic work where I can

boost my career or confirming our own research community ... rather than

develop[ing] knowledge which has some broader sociological or political meaning?

(M/Int15/Europe).

Challenges in the practice of research ethics extended to concerns associated with fellow

researchers. Indeed, interviewees believed matters arising within research teams, such as

protocols, power relationships, emotional management and interpersonal dynamics (Rogers-

Dillon, 2005), were critical when considering the scope and nature of ethics and the

environment into which researchers are socialised (Bell and Thorpe, 2013). One interviewee

felt there were far more ethical dilemmas between people doing research than there are

between researchers and the researched subjects (M/Int3/UK) and another felt there was

more awareness of ethical problems concerning the relationship with the field than the

internal relationships (F/Int1/Europe), going on to highlight favouritism of ones own

25
students and certain colleagues and putting down people you dislike as being seen as

natural as everybody does it.

Interviewees stressed their ethical approach to working with PhD students, indicating that

they either put their students name first on joint publications, or in two cases, didnt publish

with them on principle (a somewhat procedural stance), indicating a sense of responsibility

you have to younger colleagues (F/Int7/Europe) and echoing the idea of a structural

reflexivity. A number of respondents cited cases from their early career where supervisors or

project leads had published their work without acknowledgment or treated them as little

slaves (M/Int5/UK), insisting on having their name attached to work to which they hadnt

contributed (see Wester, 2007). As one interviewee stated: Ultimately, who supervises you is

critical (M/Int6/UK). More worryingly, when these concerns were raised they were often

dismissed or those raising the concerns were intimidated (F/Int7/Europe) into dropping

their accusations.

Interestingly, these reflections on the community that emerged, unsolicited, in the interviews

suggest an inward gaze in which our ethical concerns lie as much with our experiences of the

academic community as the field of research. The community-level concerns reflect

relationally reflexive practice (Hibbert et al., 2014) that acknowledges it's not just what we

do, but also what others do to us that is at stake. But its focus is on the self in the context of

the academic community rather than those outside (participants, site of study and so on).

Reflections on reflections

The findings contribute to understandings of what constitutes research ethics, how the ethical

subjectivity of management and organization scholars is constructed, how ethics is enacted

and what role reflexivity may play. It argues that while interpersonal ethics and reflexivity is

evident, claims for a reflexive turn in ethical subjectivity would be overstated.

26
The different approaches discussed suggest an ethical subjectivity that is at least reflective

and sometimes reflexive but that some of these positions are no longer questioned, acting in

much the same way as procedural ethics (see also Wray-Bliss, 2003) which suggests

reflexivity may only play a limited role in these cases. This is perhaps influenced by the fact

that they have become established in the field, and have not been challenged or unsettled in

their approaches, embedding their conceptual assumptions (Letiche, 2009: 293). Indeed if

one has built a successful career based on particular practices there will be less motivation or

understanding for a need to change. This highlights the significance of studying those who

are established in their career and the distance between training (formal, through

supervisory guidance, or learning on the job) and establishing a mode of practice which

becomes taken-for-granted. The effect of these embedded assumptions that inform their

ethical subjectivity can be seen in the distinction between a procedural and interpersonal

ethics, differing emphasis on the research outcome or research participant, and the frequent

emphasis on ethics within the community. Broadly the ethical subjectivities can be seen to

distance themselves from a duty-based ethics in favour of consequentialism and an ethics-of-

care.

The literature suggests a distinction between a dutiful or Kantian-informed ethics and an

interpersonal ethics and this was reflected in the data as interviewees were keen to distance

themselves from formal ethics, despite engaging with many of their principles (see also:

Brewis and Wray-Bliss, 2008). Given they were all familiar with ethical guidelines it seems

probable (though only partially demonstrated here) that these played a significant role in

creating the ethical subject and informing their interpersonal ethics, even though interviewees

were keen to construct themselves as acting on personal ethics. The choice of research

subject, the framing of the question(s), and theoretical bias werent explicitly discussed as

ethical concerns for the participants themselves (even if they were found in colleagues

work). Furthermore, reflections on the self and the immediate structural context (Bourdieu,

27
2000) were also limited, unless reflecting on the ethics within the community. This suggests

some limits to the extent of reflexive consideration, but those with heightened sensitivities to

participants articulated an ethics-of-care that demonstrated a higher degree of reflexivity. The

emphasis on an interpersonal ethics suggests that reflexivity should be central to their ethical

position, particularly if it is to be relied upon instead of procedural ethics.

The way in which protocols were considered, and when, illustrates different reflexive

strategies whereby researchers place variable weight on the importance of the research, and

the need to explore interesting, important and meaningful issues and get to the reality of the

situation first and foremost, in contrast to a more dutiful, Kantian form of ethics in adhering

to ethical principles, or an ethics-of-care, and giving voice to participants on their own terms,

or at least making those needs paramount. This led to variation in approaches, some of which

would be considered unethical, such as lying to gain access and covert recording, and yet

were framed as justified by a higher ethical purpose a form of moral ideal. Those who

routinely placed society ahead of participant sought ethical justification in the research

outcome or consequences of the research.

However a consequentialist approach cannot be entirely sustained here as it presumes

consideration of the relative harms and benefits from this course of action, which is

challenging and may not always be undertaken. There is a risk that a utilitarian rule that

considers the principle of more good than harm could be presumed, perhaps on the basis that

society exceeds the participant(s) or organisation(s). This ethical subjectivity is constituted by

emphasising the consequences of research, but how one recognises moral obligations and

reaches these conclusions is crucial particularly in the context of academia where research

may have limited societal impact and given the limited evidence of researchers returning to

their site of study to witness the impact of their research. Here the mode of subjectivation by

which ethics is recognised could become heavily influenced by critical narratives of

emancipatory intent that could be corrupted by failing to engage with these critical ambitions
28
reflexively, with significant effects on the moral framing of some critical research.

Furthermore, participatory and collaborative approaches were not evident in this study

indicating a distancing that would reduce moral intensity, suggesting a need for open forms

of reflexivity (though also recognising that such participatory approaches may not always be

possible in critical research).

The consistent emergence of community-level ethical concerns was also notable (see also

Jeanes et al., 2014). Whilst a rule-based approach was largely rejected for research ethics, it

often appeared to be favoured in the context of the community, where some operated by

principles that they felt lead to moral practice, recognising a duty to their junior colleagues,

and claimed to work on being ethical senior colleagues. Indeed it was in the context of their

own community that they were in broad agreement in presenting an ethical ideal. One could

suggest that consequences of behaviour here have the most resonance, visibility and

repercussions leading to greater moral intensity as well as self-interest, although it was clear

that many had genuine concerns.

The development of reflexivity as a means to engage with ethics requires an examination of

our learned ways of thinking, feeling and acting in shaping ethical custom and practice

(Bourdieu, 2004) by taking a collective approach (see: Hardy, et al., 2001; Knight, et al.,

2004; Mauthner and Doucet, 2003) to explore the naturalisation of reflexive predispositions

within the academic communities (Golsorkhi et al., 2009) and provide the opportunity for

discussion, critique and development not only of what reflexivity entails as a practice, but

also its use in practice. This may, for example, challenge the tendency for closed rather than

open, disruptive or participative approaches to ethics in the field, and question the critically-

informed focus on consequences over duty. This study demonstrates an emphasis on closed

forms which do not go outside of the academic community and thus may do more to confirm

than challenge preconceptions, retain the position of the authoritative researcher, and create

virtues out of practices that place the end result ahead of the participants involved to achieve
29
it. On a more procedural level, community-level reflexivity would also enable a more

rigorous and theoretically-grounded account of the ethical process (Guillemin and Gillam,

2004). Crucially, this also needs to go beyond the community and engage with participants in

the field to ensure we dont remain unaccountable to our subjects (Wray-Bliss, 2003) and end

up repeating certain (un)reflexive practices; taking a reflexive approach to consequentialism,

for example. Without this, the reflexive turn appears to be more rhetorical than evidential,

and certainly more challenging to engage with in practice than has previously been suggested

(Guillemin and Gillam, 2004).

There are a number of challenges facing this process, such as re-shaping habitual forms of

practice particularly those sustained by certain critical narratives, the risks of reducing

diversity in reflexivities and challenging interpersonal ethics through a procedural approach

to embedding reflexivity in ethics, and finding effective ways to reach beyond the

community. The aim, therefore, should not be to prescribe how this is approached, but to

open up the discussion which forces us to reflexively question our taken-for-granted

assumptions and approaches to ethics.

The study has a number of limitations that warrants further research. Those who have tackled

more ethically problematic research, such as covert research, were not targeted though these

challenges were reflected in the accounts given. The fact that such research is not frequently

seen in top journals may be an interesting point of future study (the data presented suggests

that research is typically avoided that is, at best, ethically ambiguous when evaluated against

ethical guidelines (Cannella and Lincoln, 2007)). Furthermore the study focuses on senior

researchers, many of whom have not experienced the more extensive ethical training required

for some early career researchers (ECRs), though most have worked under comparable

career-based pressures.

30
A follow-up study with ECRs, or mid-career academics might render interesting, and

possibly contrasting, perspectives. Alternatively it may reveal the extent to which the

correct ethico-political stance relative to the community is adopted, such that formal

training is experienced through this critical lens. This idea links to the importance of the role

of the community in shaping reflexive practice. Further explorations of the role of the

community in shaping ethical-reflexive practice may also be considered, and site-specific

studies would enable more engagement with the national and institutional context (see Hayes

and Wynward, 2002) such as whether training includes reflexivity.

Reflexive practice may also usefully be explored over a longer time period, reflecting not

only career development, and the role of the community, but also the effects of experiences in

shaping the researcher (Mahadevan, 2011), emotion work (Dickson-Swift et al., 2009),

shifting relations of power, and reflexive awareness that is (co)created over time. Reflexivity

isnt something that one can just read up on and enact and it may result in a change in the

researcher, not just the research (Hibbert et al., 2010). Capturing reflexivity and its

relationship with ethics in a longitudinal study could reveal more about the processes and its

potentially disruptive effects.

Future research could further explore how management scholars and those in other

disciplines explicitly engage with ethics as a way of better understanding (ethical) reflexivity

in tangible rather than abstract ways such as a sustained exploration of how reflexivity could

be utilised in real-time (Riach, 2009; Weick, 2002). Further, practical considerations could

address the problems in accounting for the claims of reflexivity in the constraints of standard

journal word limits (Finlay, 2002) and the demands of publishing (Kara, 2013; Koning and

Ooi, 2013) whereby giving account of reflexivity is forcibly left out or limited by our

collective habit of favouring dispassionate research (Adler and Hansen, 2012).

Conclusion

31
This paper has explored the ethics of research practices of well-established organizational

and management researchers. It has identified that they are typically ambivalent to or resist

formal notions of ethics in favour of an interpersonal ethics and consideration of

consequences. In exploring their accounts, reflexivity was found to be partial and often

closed in nature, suggesting that reflexivity will not lead to modified theoretical positions

(c.f. Guillemin and Gillam, 2004) but may sustain the ethical stances adopted, which is

problematic where interpersonal ethics is relied upon. While in the main the practices

articulated would be considered ethical when compared to formal ethical guidelines, and all

practices were supported by an ethical stance, many raised ethical questions that warrant a

more open and sustained engagement with reflexivity.

The paper also explores the difficulties in addressing the role of reflexivity in ethical practice

at a community-level, particularly when successful careers are often built on sustaining

certain theoretical positions and practices which may be seen as integral to ones academic

identity. Given the pressures on publication, and the limited scope for reflexive practice in

the context of word limits and reviewer preferences, it is likely that reflexive practice will

remain peripheral in the community, though this raises questions about critical researchers

who, by implication, make claims otherwise. Nonetheless embedding reflection and

reflexivity in training (which should exist alongside and supplement, question and inform

codes) at an early stage, and sustaining this throughout researchers careers, and seeking

changes at the community level for example by engaging with journal editors may enable

these practices to become accommodated and mainstreamed. Crucially it is about changing

and sustaining critical reflection on and reflexivity in practice. Writing about reflexivity

(certainly in abstract terms) is important but insufficient. This study demonstrates that writing

about reflexivity does not necessarily equate to its practice, and that changing practice is

32
probably more challenging when faced with established careers, which tend to confirm rather

than unsettle research practice, with no requirement for further training.

33
References

Abraham, J. (2008) 'Politics, Knowledge and Objectivity in Sociology of Education: A Response to

the Case for Ethical Reflexivity by Gewirtz and Cribb', British Journal of Sociology of
Education 29(5): 537-548.
Adler, N. J. and Hansen, H. (2012) 'Daring to Care: Scholarship that Supports the Courage of Our
Convictions', Journal of Management Inquiry 21(2): 128-139.
Alpaslan, C. M., Babb, M., Green, S. E. and Mitroff, I. I. (2006) 'Inquiry on Inquiry: Scientific
Inquiry as a Reflective Process', Journal of Management Inquiry 15(1): 7-16.
Alvesson, M. (1996) 'Leadership Studies: From Procedure and Abstraction to Reflexivity and
Situation', Leadership Quarterly 7(4): 455-485.
Alvesson, M. (2003) 'Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics and Localists: A Reflexive Approach to
Interviews in Organizational Research', Academy of Management Review 28(1): 13-33.
Alvesson, M. (2013) 'Do We Have Something to Say? From Re-search to Roi-search and Back
Again', Organization 20(1): 79-90.
Alvesson, M., Hardy, C. and Harley, B. (2008) 'Reflecting on Reflexivity: Reflexive Textual Practices
in Organization and Management Theory', Journal of Management Studies 45(3): 480-501.
Alvesson, M., and Skldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
London: Sage.
Archer, M. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ashmore, M. (1989) The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bell, E., and Bryman, A. (2007) 'The Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Content
Analysis', British Journal of Management 18(1): 63-77.
Bell, E. and Thorpe, R. (2013) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About
Management Research. London: Sage.
Bishop, L. (2009) 'Ethical Sharing and Reuse of Qualitative Data', Australian Journal of Social Issues
44(3): 255-272.
Boden, R., Epstein, D. and Latimer, J. (2009) 'Accounting for Ethos or Programmes for Conduct? The
Brave New World of Research Ethics Committees', The Sociological Review 57(4): 727-749.
Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu. P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations. (R. Nice, Trans.) London: Polity Press..
Bourdieu, P. (2004) Science of Science and Reflexivity (R. Nice, Trans.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. London: University
of Chicago Press.
Brewis, J. (2014) 'The Ethics of Researching Friends: On Convenience Sampling in Qualitative
Management and Organization Studies', British Journal of Management 25(4): 849-862.
Brewis, J. and Wray-Bliss, E. (2008) 'Re-searching Ethics: Towards a More Reflexive Critical
Management Studies', Organization Studies 29(12): 1521-1540.
Bryman, A. and Cassells, C. (2006) 'The Researcher Interview: A Reflexive Perspective', Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 1(1): 41-55.
Burkitt, I. (2012) 'Emotional Reflexivity: Feeling, Emotion and Imagination in Reflexive Dialogues',
Sociology 46(3): 458-472.
Cals, M. B. and Smircich, L. (1999) 'Past Postmodernism. Reflections and Tentative Directions',
Academy of Management Review 24(4): 649-671.
Caldwell, R. (2007) 'Agency and Change: Re-evaluating Foucault's legacy', Organization 14(6): 769-
791.
Calvey, D. (2008) 'The Art and Politics of Covert Research: Doing 'Situated Ethics' in the Field',
Sociology 42(5): 905-918.
Cannella, G. S. (2004) 'Regulatory Power: Can a Feminist Poststructuralist Engage in Research
Oversight?', Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 235-245.
Cannella, G. S. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2007) 'Predatory vs. Dialogic Ethics: Constructing an Illusion or
Ethical Practice as the Core of Research Methods', Qualitative Inquiry 13(3): 315-335.
Carr, C. T. (2015) 'Spotlight on Ethics: Institutional Review Boards as Systemic Bullies', Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management 37 (1): 14-29.
34
Chia, R. (1996) 'The Problem of Reflexivity in Organizational Research: Towards a Post-modern
Science of Organization', Organization 3(1): 31-59.
Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 133-155). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Collins, H. and Wray-Bliss, E. (2005) 'Discriminating Ethics', Human Relations 58(6): 799-824.
Connolly, W. E. (1993) 'Beyond Good and Evil: The Ethical Sensibility of Michel Foucault', Political
Theory 21(3): 365-389.
Coupal, L. (2005) 'Practitioner-Research and the Regulation of Research Ethics: The Challenge of
Individual, Organizational, and Social Interests', Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(1).
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.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2002a) 'Social Poetics as Management Inquiry. A Dialogical Approach', Journal of
Management Inquiry 11(2): 128-146.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2002b) 'Reflexive Dialogical Practice in Management Learning', Management
Learning 33(1): 35-61.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003) 'Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities',
Human Relations 56(8): 983-1003.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004) 'On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner', Journal of Management
Education 28(4): 407-426.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2009) 'The Philosopher Leader: On Relationalism, Ethics and Reflexivity-A Critical
Perspective to Teaching Leadership', Management Learning 40(1): 87-101.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2011) 'Crafting Qualitative Research: Morgan and Smircich 30 Years On',
Organizational Research Methods 14(4): 647-673
Cunliffe, A. L. and Karunanayake, G. (2013) 'Working Within Hyphen-Spaces in Ethnographic
Research: Implications for Research Identities and Practice', Organizational Research
Methods 16(3): 364-392.
Dallyn, S. (2014) 'Naming the Ideological Reflexively: Contesting Organizational Norms and
Practices', Organization 21(2): 244-265..
Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., et al. (2004) 'The
Ambivalent Practices of Reflexivity', Qualitative Inquiry 10(3): 360 - 389.
de Laine, M. (2000) Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative
Research. London: Sage.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S. and Liamputtong, P. (2009) 'Researching Sensitive
Topics: Qualitative Research as Emotion Work', Qualitative Research 9(1): 61-79.
du Gay, P. (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organisation, Ethics. London: Sage.
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. P. (2000) 'Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity', In N. K.
Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Essers, C. (2009) 'Reflections on the Narrative Approach: Dilemmas of Power, Emotions and Social
Location While Constructing Life-stories', Organization 16(2): 163-181.
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochran, E. (2006) 'Demonstrating Rigor using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid
Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development', International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 1-11.
Ferdinand, J., Pearson, G., Rowe, M. and Worthington, F. (2007) 'A Different Kind of Ethics',
Ethnography 8(4): 519-543.
Finlay, L. (2002) '''Outing'' the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity',
Qualitative Health Research 12(4): 531-545.
Finlay, L. (2005) '"Reflexive Embodied Empathy": A Phenomenology of Participant-Researcher
Intersubjectivity', The Humanistic Psychologist 33(4): 271-292.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S. and Wong, L. (2000) 'For Whom? Qualitative Research,
Representations, and Social Responsibilities', In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 107-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Foucault, M. (2000) The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, vol. 1: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth,
P. Rabinow (ed) London: Penguin.

35
Fournier, V., and Grey, C. (2000) 'At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for Critical
Management Studies', Human Relations 53(1): 7-32.
Furedi, F. (2002, 11 January) 'Don't Rock the Research Boat', The Times Higher Education
Supplement pp. 20-21.
Gabriel, Y. (2009) 'Reconciling and Ethic of Care with Critical Management Pedagogy', Management
Learning 40(4): 379-385.
Gatrell, C, (2009) 'Safeguarding Subjects? A Reflexive Appraisal of Researcher Accountability in
Qualitative Interviews', Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal 4(2): 110-122.
Gewirtz, S., and Cribb, A. (2006) 'What to Do About Values in Social Research: The Case for Ethical
Reflexivity in the Sociology of Education', British Journal of Sociology of Education 27(2):
141-155.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Golsorkhi, D., Leca, B., Lounsbury, M. and Ramirez, C. (2009) 'Analysing, Accounting for and
Unmasking Domination: On our Role as Scholars of Practice, Practitioners of Social Science
and Public Intellectuals', Organization 16(6): 779-797.
Goode, E. (1999) 'The Ethics of Deception in Social Research: A Case Study', In A. Bryman and R.
Burgess (eds) Qualitative Research (Vol. 4, pp. 412-432). London: Sage.
Goodwin, D., Pope, C., Mort, M. and Smith, A. (2003) 'Ethics and Ethnography: An Experiential
Account', Qualitative Health Research 13(4): 567-577.
Graffigna, G., Bosio, A. C. and Olson, K. (2009) 'How do Ethics Assessments Frame Results of
Comparative Qualitative Research? A Theory of Technique Approach', International Journal
of Social Research Methodology 13(4): 341-355.
Grey, C. and Sinclair, A. (2006) 'Writing differently', Organization 13(3): 443-453.
Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006) 'How Many Interviews are Enough? An Experiment with
Data Saturation', Field Methods 18 (1): 58-82.
Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2004) 'Ethics, Reflexivity, and "Ethically Important Moments" in
research', Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 261-280.
Guillemin, M., Gillam, L., Rosenthal, D., Bolitho, A. (2012) 'Human Research Ethics Committees:
Examining Their Roles and Practices', Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research
Ethics 7(3): 38-49.
Guta, A., Nixon, S. A. and Wilson, M. G. (2013) 'Resisting the Seduction of "Ethics Creep": Using
Foucault to Surface Complexity and Contradiction in Research Ethics Review', Social Science
and Medicine 98: 301-310.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004) 'Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics',
Qualitative Sociology 27(4): 391-414.
Hahn, T. (2006) 'Emerging Voices: Encounters with Reflexivity', Atlantis 30(2): 88-99.
Halse, C. and Honey, A. (2007) 'Rethinking Ethics Review as Institutional Discourse', Qualitative
Inquiry 13(3): 336-352.
Hammersley, M. (2006) 'Are Ethics Committees Ethical?', Qualitative Researcher 2: 4-8.
Hammersley, M. and Traianou, A. (2014) 'Foucault and Research Ethics. On the Autonomy of the
Researcher', Qualitative Inquiry 20(3): 227-238.
Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. (1997) 'Relativity Without Relativism: Reflexivity in Post-Paradigm
Organization Studies', British Journal of Management 8(Special Issue): S5-S17.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Clegg, S. (2001) 'Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory: A
Study of the Production of the Research 'Subject'', Human Relations 54(5): 531-560.
Hassard, J. (1993) 'Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Overview', In J. Hassard and M.
Parker (eds) Postmodernism and Organizations (pp. 123). London: Sage.
Hayes, D., and Wynward, R. (eds). (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. London:
Bergin and Garvey.
Haynes, K. (2006) 'A therapeutic journey? Reflections on the Impact of Research on Researcher and
Participant', Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal 1(3): 204-221.

36
Haynes, K. (2011) 'Tensions in (Re)presenting the Self in Reflexive Autoethnographic Research',
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 6 (2):
134-149.
Hedgecoe, A. (2008) 'Research Ethics Review and the Sociological Research Relationship', Sociology
42(5): 873-886.
Hibbert, P., Coupland, C. and MacIntosh, R. (2010) 'Reflexivity: Recursion and Relationality in
Organizational Research Processes', Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management:
An International Journal 5(1): 47-62.
Hibbert, P., Sillince, J., Diefenbach, T. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2014) 'Relationally Reflexive Practice: A
Generative Approach to Theory Development in Qualitative Research', Organizational
Research Methods 17(3): 278-298.
Holland, R. (1999) 'Reflexivity', Human Relations 52(4): 463-485.
Humphreys, M. (2005) 'Getting Personal: Reflexivity and Autoethnographic Vignettes', Qualitative
Inquiry 11(6): 840-860.
Hunter, D. L. H. (2008) 'The ESRC Research Ethics Framework and Research Ethics Review at UK
Universities: Rebuilding the Tower of Babel REC by REC.', Journal of Medical Ethics
34(11): 815-820.
Jeanes, E. L., Loacker, B., Sliwa, M. (2014) Uncovering Researcher Collaboration, in E. Jeanes and
T. Huzzard (eds) Critical Management Research: Reflections from the Field, London: Sage.
Johnson, B. (2014) 'Ethical Issues in Shadowing Research', Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International Journal 9(1): 21-40.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003) 'Reflexivity in Management Research', Journal of Management
Studies 40(5): 1279-1303.
Kara, H. (2013) ' It's Hard to Tell How Research Feels: Using Fiction to Enhance Academic Research
and Writing', Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal 8(1): 70-84.
Kensbock, S., Bailey, J., Jennings, G, and Patiar, A. (2015) 'Sexual Harrassment of Women Working
as Room Attendants within 5-Star Hotels', Gender, Work and Organization 22(1): 36-50.
Knight, M. G., Bentley, C. C., Norton, N. E. L. and Dixon, I. R. (2004) '(De)Constructing (In)Visible
Parent/Guardian Consent Forms: Negotiating Power, Reflexivity, and the Collective Within
Qualitative Research', Qualitative Inquiry 10: 390-411.
Koning, J. and Ooi, C-S. (2013) 'Awkward Encounters and Ethnography', Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management: An International Journal 8(1): 16-32.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., Gemignani, M., Brodeur, C. W. and Kmiec, C. (2007) 'The Technologies of
Normalization and Self: Thinking about IRBs and Extrinsic Research Ethics with Foucault',
Qualitative Inquiry 13(8): 1075-1094.
Kvale, S. (2006) 'Dominance Through Interviews and Dialogues', Qualitative Inquiry 12(3): 480-500.
Lee, N. and Hassard, J. (1999) 'Organization Unbound: Actor-Network Theory, Research Strategy
and Institutional Flexibility', Organization 6(3): 391-404.
Letiche, H. (2009) 'Reflexivity and Affectivity', Culture and Organization 15(3-4): 291-306.
Levinas, E. (1969) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. (Tr A Lingis) Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press.
Lewis, M. (2008) 'New Strategies of Control: Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Boards',
Qualitative Inquiry 14(5): 684-699.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Cannella, G. S. (2009) 'Ethics and the Broader Rethinking / Reconceptualisation of
Research as Construct', Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies 9(2): 273-285.
Linstead, S. (1994) 'Objectivity, Reflexivity, and Fiction: Humanity, Inhumanity, and the Science of
the Social', Human Relations 47(11): 1321-1345.
Lynch, M. (2000) 'Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge',
Theory, Culture and Society 17(3): 26-54.
Macbeth, D. (2001) 'On ''Reflexivity'' in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third',
Qualitative Inquiry 7(1): 35-68.
MacIntyre, A. (2007) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd Edn. Notre Dame, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Mahadevan, J. (2011) 'Reflexive Guidelines for Writing Organizational Culture', Qualitative Research
in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 6(2): 150-170.

37
Malone, S. (2003) 'Ethics at Home: Informed Consent in Your Own Backyard', Qualitative Studies in
Education 16(6): 797-815.
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
Marzano, M. (2007) 'Informed Consent, Deception, and Research Freedom in Qualitative Research',
Qualitative Inquiry 13(3): 417-436.
Maton, K. (2003) 'Reflexivity, Relationism, and Research: Pierre Bourdieu and the Epistemic
Conditions of Social Scientific Knowledge', Space and Culture 6(1): 52-65.
Mauthner, N. S. and Doucet, A. (2003) 'Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in
Qualitative Data Analysis', Sociology 37(3): 413-431.
McMurray, R., Pullen, A. and Rhodes, C. (2011) 'Ethical Subjectivity and Politics in Organizations: A
Case of Health Tendering', Organization, 18(4): 541-561.
Morse, J. M. (1994) 'Designing Funded Qualitative Research', In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln
(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Munro, E. R. (2008) 'Research Governance, Ethics and Access: A Case Study Illustrating the New
Challenges Facing Social Researchers', International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 11(5): 429-439.
O'Doherty, D. P. (2007) 'The Question of Theoretical Excess: Folly and Fall in Theorizing
Organization', Organization 14(6): 837-867.
Pssil, A. H., Oikarinen, T., and Harmaakorpi, V. (2015) 'Collective Voicing as a Reflective
Practice', Management Learning 46(1): 67-86.
Pels, D. (2000) 'Reflexivity. One Step Up', Theory, Culture & Society 17(3): 1-25.
Perlman, D. (2006) 'Putting the "Ethics" Back into Research Ethics: A Process for Ethical Reflection
for Human Research Protection', Journal of Research Administration 37(1): 13-23.
Pillow, W. (2003) 'Confession, Catharsis or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as
Methodological Power in Qualitative Research', International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education 16(2): 175-196.
Platt, J. (1981) 'On Interviewing One's Peers', The British Journal of Sociology 32(1): 75-91.
Pollner, M. (1991) 'Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline if Radical Reflexivity',
American Sociological Review 56(3): 370-380.
Ramcharan, P. and Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001) 'Judging the Ethics of Qualitative Research: Considering the
'Ethics as Process' Model', Health and Social Care in the Community 9(6): 358-366.
Rhodes, C. (2009) 'After Reflexivity: Ethics, Freedom and the Writing of Organization Studies',
Organization Studies 30(6): 653-672.
Rhodes, C. and Brown, A. D. (2005) 'Writing Responsibly: Narrative Fiction and Organization
Studies', Organization 12(4): 467-491.
Riach, K. (2009) 'Exploring Participant-centred Reflexivity in the Research Interview', Sociology
43(2): 356-370.
Riach, K. and Wilson, F. (2014) 'Bodyspace at the Pub: Sexual Orientations and Organizational
Space', Organization 21(3): 329-345.
Ribbens, J. and Edwards, R. (1998) 'Living on the Edges: Public Knowledge, Private Lives, Personal
Experience', In J. Ribbens and R. Edwards (eds) Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research:
Public Knowledge and Private Lives. London: Sage.
Robertson, M. (2014) 'The Case for Ethics Review in Social Sciences: Drawing from Practice at
Queen Mary University of London', Research Ethics 10(2): 69-76.
Rogers-Dillon, R. (2005) 'Hierarchical Qualitative Research Teams: Refining the Methodology',
Qualitative Research 5(4): 437-454.
Rossman, G. B. and Rallis, S. F. (2010) 'Everyday Ethics: Reflections on Practice', International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 23(4): 379-391.
Ryan, L. and Golden, A. (2006) 'Tick the Box Please: A Reflexive Approach to Doing Quantitative
Social Research', Sociology 40(6): 1191-1200.
Sampson, H., Bloor, M. and Fincham, B. (2008) 'A Price Worth Paying? : Considering the `Cost' of
Reflexive Research Methods and the Influence of Feminist Ways of `Doing'', Sociology
42(5): 919-933.
Schrag, Z. M. (2011) 'The Case Against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences', Research Ethics 7(4):
120-131.

38
Sergi, V. and Hallin, A. (2011) 'Thick Performances, Not Just thick Descriptions: The Processual
Nature of Doing Qualitative Research', Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal 6(2): 191-208.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. M. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Syed, J., Mingers, J. and Murray, P. (2009) 'Beyond Rigour and Relevance: A Critical Realist
Approach to Business Education', Management Learning 41(1): 71-85.
Thomas, R., Tienari, J., Davies, A. and Merilinen, S. (2009) 'Let's Talk about "Us": A Reflexive
Account of a Cross-Cultural Research Collaboration', Journal of Management Inquiry 18(4):
313-324.
Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2010) 'Towards an Integrative Reflexivity in Organizational Research',
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 5(2): 16281.
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (2003) 'Introduction: The Need for Meta-Theoretical Reflection in
Organisation Theory', In H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds) The Oxford Handbook of
Organization Theory (pp. 1-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, P. K. and Norwood, K. M. (2013) 'Body of Research: Impetus, Instrument, and Impediment',
Qualitative Inquiry 19(9): 696-711.
Weick, K. (1999) 'Theory Construction as Disciplined Reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s', Academy of
Management Review 24(4): 797- 806.
Weick, K. (2002) 'Essai: Real-time Reflexivity: Prods to Reflection', Organization Studies 23(6): 893-
898.
Wester, K. (2007) 'Teaching Research Integrity in the Field of Counseling', Counselor Education and
Supervision 46(March): 199-211.
Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G. and Heath, S. (2006) 'Researching Researchers: Lessons for
Research Ethics', Qualitative Research 6(3): 283-299.
Willmott, H. (1998) 'Re-cognizing the Other: Reflections on a 'New Sensibility' in Social and
Organizational Studies. In R. Chia (ed) In the Realm of Organization: Essays for Robert
Cooper (pp. 213-241). London: Routledge.
Woolgar, S. (1998) 'Reflexivity is the Ethnographer of the Text', In S. Woolgar (ed) Knowledge and
Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 14-34). London: Sage.
Wray-Bliss, E. (2002) 'Abstract Ethics, Embodied Ethics: The Strange Marriage of Foucault and
Positivism in Labour Process Theory', Organization 9(1): 5-39.
Wray-Bliss, E. (2003) 'Research Subjects/Research Subjections: Exploring the Ethics and Politics of
Critical Research', Organization 10(2): 307-325.
Young E. H. and Lee R. M. (1996) 'Fieldworker Feelings as Data: Emotion Work and Feeling
Rules in First Person Accounts of Sociological Fieldwork', In V. James and J. Gabe (eds)
Health and the Sociology of Emotions (pp. 77-113). Oxford: Blackwell.

i
In searching for examples of these challenges being discussed by researchers in management and organization
studies I was struck by how often studies of sensitive topics such as sexual harassment had short methodology
sections with no reference to ethical considerations, making it hard to assess how they are tackled in practice.
See, for example: Kensbock et al (2015).
ii
Indeed, when ethical reflexivity is discussed it tends to refer to the more narrowly defined field of political
values (Abraham, 2008; Gewirtz and Cribb, 2006, but see Collins and Wray-Bliss, 2005).
iii
Guilleman and Gillam (2004) argue that the gulf between procedural and situated ethics is not vast, given that
codes are designed to encapsulate experience when providing principles. However this underplays the role of
habitus in how ethical issues are framed, and the lack of self-reflexivity in accounting for this.
iv
A distinction is made between the UK and rest of Europe given the proportion of participants based in the UK.
v
Interviews with fellow researchers are peculiar in that both parties have a shared understanding of the research
process and in this case also the topic of research; consequently identity work plays a significant role (Bryman
and Cassell, 2006) and may have framed their responses. It is worth noting, however, that the interviewees were
all senior to the interviewer and unlikely to feel compelled to say the right thing (procedurally or politically).
vi
This notion derives from Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), but a Grounded Theory approach was
not taken.

39
vii
The project emerged out of a conversation with this colleague. Both of us are qualitative researchers, and
have acted as ethics officers. However our experience of and approach to the role had been different, reflecting
our different national and institutional contexts, and our own perspective on ethical review processes and
practice. The colleague was experienced in, and more sympathetic to, extensive formal review processes
(though also recognized their limitations) but was unfamiliar with notions of reflexivity. My own experience
was that of a lighter touch review involving less paperwork, alongside a concern that (regardless of the formal
review process) ethical concerns were insufficiently understood or (self-) regulated. Sharing and discussing the
data forced me to confront my own predilection for a critical attitude towards formal review and reflect on
influences at the (UK) institutional and (Critical Management) community-level on my approach to data and its
analysis. University ethical guidelines were followed throughout this project.
viii
Such concerns are gaining more attention through the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), journal codes
of ethics (See for example the Academy of Managements code of ethics: http://aom.org/Content.aspx?id=798)
and initiatives such as retraction watch (http://retractionwatch.com ).

40