Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researcher Ethics, Solidarity and Accountability: The Promise of Understanding

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Concepts, Approaches and Methods

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment ((HWBEAH,volume 1))

  • 167 Accesses

Abstract

Following Sabar and Ben-Yeoshua’s (2017) line of argument on ethical dilemmas associated with reporting on sensitive matters to avoid harm and Watson’s (2008) critique of evoking reader’s empathy through manipulation, this chapter takes the argument further by showing how solidarity to targets of workplace bullying, the unspoken promise of “understanding” and expectation for validation of interview accounts, can be undermined by sexist comments, arrogance and aggression from interviewees. Using two interview encounters from a large Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded study into workplace bullying amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual employees in the British workplace, I illustrate how researcher understanding cannot be promised, how simple it is to blame targets for workplace bullying (either fully or partially) and how easy it is to discredit stories. Strictly speaking, I had failed, failed as a researcher to show empathy and failed to demonstrate solidarity as a lesbian to other queer people. Faced with sexism, arrogance and aggression during the interviews, I struggled to deliver on both suitable research integrity and being queer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abell, J., Locke, A., Condor, S., Gibson, S., & Stevenson, C. (2006). Trying similarity, doing difference: The role of interviewer self-disclosure in interview talk with young people. Qualitative Research, 6(2), 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahn, S., & Weatherill, P. (2012). Qualitative social research: A risky business when it comes to collecting ‘sensitive’ data. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, C. (2005). Creating the interviewer: Identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research, 5(2), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies & human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2006). “Permission to talk about it”: Narratives of sexualities equality in the primary classroom. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(7), 876–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7(3), 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downey, H., Hamilton, K., & Catterall, M. (2007). Researching vulnerability: What about the researcher? European Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), 734–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsdóttir, A. (2012). Sexy subject, unflattering questions: Interviewing partners about intimacies and sex. In C. N. Phellas (Ed.), Researching non-heterosexual sexualities (pp. 215–234). Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H. & Lewis, D. (2015). It’s nothing personal: Anti-homosexuality in the British workplace. Sociology, 49(6), 1183–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2016). Fitting the bill?: (Dis)embodied disclosure of sexual identities in the workplace. Work, Employment & Society, 30(3), 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmir, R., Schmied, V., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher (through 2013), 19(1), 12–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research (2nd ed). London: SAGE

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRC. (2015). ESRC framework for research ethics: Updated January 2015. Retrieved from London: https://esrc.ukri.org/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-research-ethics-2015/.

  • Gabb, J. (2010). Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Open Research Online, 10, 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, S., & Keys, J. L. (2007). Reflections on two studies of emotionally sensitive topics: Bereavement from murder and abortion. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(4), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam, J. (2011). The queer art of failure. London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H., & Trank, C. Q. (2016). This is going to hurt: Compassionate research methods. Organizational Research Methods, 19(3), 352–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaphy, B. (2008). The sociology of lesbian and gay reflexivity or reflexive sociology? Sociological Research Online, 13(1). http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1675.

  • Hephy, B., Smart, C., & Einarsdóttir, A. (2013). Same-sex marriages: New generations, new relationships. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoel, H., Lewis, D. and Einarsdóttir, A. (2014). The ups and downs of LGBs workplace experiences: Discrimination, bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay and bisexual employees in Britain. Manchester: Manchester Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoel, H., Lewis, D. & Einarsdóttir, A. (2017). Debate: Bullying and harassment of lesbians, gay men and bisexual employees: Findings from a representative British national study. Public Money and Management, 37(5), 312–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research (Vol. 19, pp. 279–289).

    Google Scholar 

  • Katherine, C. (2012). Infertile? The emotional labour of sensitive and feminist research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 546–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieblich, A., Zilber, T. B., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2008). Narrating human actions: The subjective experience of agency. Structure, Communion, and Serendipity. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4), 613–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, T., & Clark, E. (2005). Using unstructured interviews with participants who have schizophrenia. Nurse Researcher (through 2013), 13(1), 7–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Natalie, W., Milica, M., & Lenore, M. (2007). “Researcher saturation”: The impact of data triangulation and intensive-research practices on the researcher and qualitative research process. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1392–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabar, G., & Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, N. (2017). ‘I’ll sue you if you publish my wife’s interview’: ethical dilemmas in qualitative research based on life stories. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sam, P. (2004). ‘Some of our people can be the most difficult’. Reflections on difficult interviews. Sociological Research Online, 9(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, L., & Mitchell, C. (2008). Researching conservative groups: Rapport and understanding across moral and political boundaries. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2011). The intimate insider: Negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qualitative Research, 11(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, A., & Bouchard, K. A. (2013). Exploring and developing reciprocity in research design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(8), 986–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C. (2008). Tensions and aporias in the narrative construction of lives. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 333–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the ESRC (RES-062-23-2412).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The York Management School, University of York, York, UK

    Anna Einarsdóttir

Authors
  1. Anna Einarsdóttir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Einarsdóttir .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Organizational Behaviour (OB), Indian Institute of Management Organizational Behaviour (OB), Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    Premilla D'Cruz

  2. Organisation Behaviour, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Organisation Behaviour, Ahmedabad, India

    Ernesto Noronha

  3. University of Bergen, Department of Psychosocial Science University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Guy Notelaers

  4. Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth Portsmouth Business School, Portsmouth, UK

    Charlotte Rayner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Einarsdóttir, A. (2018). Researcher Ethics, Solidarity and Accountability: The Promise of Understanding. In: D'Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Notelaers, G., Rayner, C. (eds) Concepts, Approaches and Methods. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_21-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_21-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5334-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5334-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation