Issues of Integrity in Qualitative Research Coursework

Introduction

Recall that the research problem in the planned dissertation concerns the personality traits of both bullying perpetrators and provocative bullies in the work setting. The mixed-methods approach will incorporate in-depth interviews with adult workers who have participated in an earlier postal survey and thus been identified, by reason of frequency and regency, as belonging to the target groups. Access will be via the labor union locals.

Addressing the Questions of Integrity

The route of access is the least likely to arouse questions of integrity. The sampling frame for the first-stage postal survey depends completely on heads of union federation offices in the city granting permission for access to their members’ mailing addresses. For delays, permission denials and inadequate sampling frames at this level, the fallbacks shall be approaches to a sample of unionized firms in the city or a purchased list of white- and blue-collar workers.

On the other hand, it remains to be seen how many union members play supervisory roles. This is a concern, given that those carrying the formal designation are normally excluded from union membership and National Labor Relations Act protections. As well, prior data already provides strong evidence that superiors account for a substantial proportion of bullying perpetrators. Doubtless, the second fallback above can help solve this problem of access since no union official has power over company supervisors. As well, there are many who are designated “coordinator”, “lead men”, “charge nurses”, “load supervisors” and “journeymen” in education, health care, construction, manufacturing, broadcast, energy, shipping, and accounting who still remain legally rank-and-file but really bear “hire and fire” responsibilities.

Regardless of route of access, one anticipates that permissions can be facilitated with a study rationale promising reduction of stressful events in the workplace and working towards interventions to help habitual bullies and their victims. Fortunately, those who must give permission in the primary and first fallback access routes have no power to coerce, force participation or sanction members who report bullying experiences.

On the other hand, consent is a matter of three essential elements ensuring that participation is based on informed consent, is voluntary, and protects respondents from retaliation or other adverse consequences. All three objectives will be met by including a cover letter in the questionnaire and checklist mail packet. This letter will elucidate the above study rationale, assure the recipients that participation is entirely voluntary and that only the researcher will have access for all time to the information provided. Moreover, the letter will pledge that all personal and contact information will be destroyed after a certain time.

These assurances will need to be reiterated during the telephone recruitment of identified bullies or provocative victims for the second stage of depth interviews. When participants finally meet the researcher in the appointed venue, it will prove necessary to verbalize further reassurances about why the subsequent interview will cover the topics it does. Trust must be built up else the selected participant has no incentive to divulge intensely private matters about his upbringing, domestic situation, personal traits, lived experience of bullying, and the antecedents of how he learned/adapted to work with others in such a manner. Such trust will be based on the researcher’s: neutral work affiliation and setting for the interview; optimal rapport based on professional appearance and verbal assurances; openness to what is revealed no matter how unsavory; reiterating the confidentiality of personal details; the vital promise that the researcher will not engage in follow-up interviews with the respondent’s colleagues; and even the slightly naïve stance of an industrial psychologist eager to know what really goes on in the work place (Patton, 2002; Schram, 2005; Shank, 2005).

Female investigators are common enough in occupational health and employee relations settings so that gender need not pose a hindrance in establishing rapport with either male or female subjects. At worst, one may expect a certain degree of masculine bluster that they are able to show everyone “who’s boss”. But then personality traits are the real subject at this stage, not gender-biased teamwork and leadership.

Conclusion

One anticipates that depth interview subjects will be less reticent about bullying behavior (than about their own traits) since they may well be operating on the notion that they are only being direct, explicit and justifiably rude in their leadership and collegial styles.

Moving forward, the ethical stance of this study is strengthened by the routes of access chosen and by various confidence-building measures the researcher knows to undertake.

References

Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.) London: Sage.

Shank, G. D. (2005). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2^nd Ed).

Schram, T. H. (2005). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.