Enter or Not - how to gain and sustain access to research sites

Cite as: Owen, J., Algeo, C., & Connor, J. (2015). Enter or Not - how to gain and sustain access to research sites. In B. Pasian (Ed.), Designs, Methods and Practices for Research in Project Management (pp. 261-269). Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing.

of 12

Enter or Not – how to gain and sustain access to research sites.

Jill Owen*, Chivonne Algeo** and James Connor*

* School of Business University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia ** School of the Built Environment, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Abstract

Identifying, gaining access to and negotiating your relationship with your research site/subjects is

crucial. This chapter provides advice on how to select your research site, start negotiations with

them and manage your ongoing relationship. We outline a range of strategies to select and set up

your research site, including utilising networks, social media and professional bodies. We then

explore key questions of ethics approval, anonymity and identification of the site and people, data

ownership, publishing permissions and legal agreements. We outline communication and risk

strategies, and mitigation strategies that can be employed to ensure the research relationship is

productive for both parties. There cannot be research without subjects and this chapter gives you

the knowledge to negotiate successful research relationships.

At the end of this chapter, the reader can:

identify, access and undertake PM research with external parties, drawing on real case

studies;

select a research site, participants, and open negotiations so that you gain the access that

you require, including advice on developing and utilising research networks;

discuss the risks and opportunities presented by different types of research engagement;

and

understand the importance of site access and ideas on how to negotiate formal research

agreements with third parties and/or informal agreements with collaborators.

Key Words

research site selection; negotiating site access; project management fieldwork

Gaining access to appropriate research sites for empirical work is critical for the success of research.

This is an area that proves difficult for all researchers, and rarely do we realise that our method of

research will also be determined by the type of organisation researched and the agreement struck

with them. While in approaching an organization we have to have a method in mind (eg action


of 12

research), you must always allow for the modification of approach based on the needs of the site

and of you as researcher. Finding a promising site and starting the negotiations presents problems

and even when a research site is identified and agreement is reached in principle there are often

failures in terms of negotiating contracts, site/personnel access, agreeing to what data can be

accessed (including how it is accessed), and what can be published. This chapter draws on three

researchers’ experiences in obtaining access to research sites using formal and informal networks,

with a catalogue of the lessons learned.

Granovetter (1973) coined the term ‘The strength of weak ties’ to explain how you can gain access

to social groups that are beyond your immediate ties of friends, family and colleagues. The research

sites we provide as case studies, using formal and informal networks to gain access, arose because

of the presence of the researchers in academic and professional networks. This only occurred

because we had done the work to establish ourselves in the community, via research and

practitioner engagement. This can be difficult for the new researcher, especially if they cannot draw

on previous work and/or professional networks.

Drawing on the common themes of formal and informal networks we explore the lessons learned

through an analysis of the case study sites and approaches, including negotiating with individuals

and organisations. We discuss: site identification; negotiating research deliverables; contract

negotiation; types of funding; identification of the research ‘champion’; implementation; close out;

publication of results; ongoing development of the relationship/network, and finally, what to do

when negotiations fail.

The chapter is structured to present the chapter goals followed by our experiences. We conclude

with a discussion of the lessons learned of how research sites were accessed using formal and

informal networks.

The two sites discussed below were major change programs, one in the Australian Department of

Defence and the second in an Australian Federal Government Agency. The programs were complex,

multi-year programs designed to fundamentally change how business was conducted.


of 12

Site One: Defence

Set Up

One of the authors was invited to give a keynote speech on organisational change to a Command

(akin to a group / division) within the Australian Defence Force. This Command was embarking on a

major change program that incorporated process and IT change, amalgamation of buildings and

services, and construction of new facilities, changing the way that they had conducted business over

the last 40 years. The program was flagged as a key driver of savings for the Australian Government

within the Defence portfolio. Amazed at the audacity of the change program, we asked what

academic input they had into the process. Not surprisingly the answer was none. We seized on and

offered our services as academic researchers who would be able to offer a very different perspective

on the program’s progress in comparison to the consultants and permanent staff.

Doing

It was a simple question that began a year-long process that ultimately failed to achieve any

research engagement. Given the scale of the change program we proposed an ongoing action

research engagement across the life of the program plus one year. Initially five academics were

involved in the proposal, covering a range of methodologies and expertise in data analysis, which

decreased to three academics as time progressed. We achieved initial agreement from the

Command to proceed with the negotiation of a multi-year, seven dollar figure research agreement.

Much of this initial agreement was based on the trust built by one of the academic team with the

key research sponsor within the Command.

Risks

With acceptance of the costings and research proposal, the lawyers for the University and Command

became involved. It was at this point that the discussions became protracted and difficult. As

academic researchers it is fundamental that we maintain our independence and carry out, analyse

and publish research with freedom (while following the best practices of our disciplines). Our

negotiations included the clause that the University would hold the rights to all the data generated

and that we could publish all of our research, after anonymising, without the Command being able

to veto what we wrote. The maintenance of research integrity was crucial to the team but created

an enormous problem for the lawyers. Even with the intervention of the research sponsor, on behalf

of the Commander of the unit, the Defence lawyers were never comfortable allowing us control of

freedom to publish the data. Our use of the data was obviously a major risk for the organisation. The

legal wrangling continued for a year and we also had continuing problems with how the research


of 12

was going to be funded by Defence – they saw the arrangement as a procurement based contract

with specified deliverables, rather than a research contract.

They withdrew their interest after 15 months of work from the research team and a significant

investment from the university in terms of legal and grant administration support.

Lessons Learned

The adage that you learn more from a loss than a win also holds in the realm of research.

The different approaches to funding and access can materially affect your ability to get sign

off. Don’t assume that the potential subjects understand the research process versus

consultant work – explain how and why research is different. The knowledge gleaned from

the failed attempt stood us well for the next opportunity. We recycled much of the research

ideas and experiences with lawyers and research contracts into the next potential site. Our

knowledge from the failed process allowed us to circumvent and/or assure the next partner

on the issue of confidentiality, while also providing us with the freedom to research and

publish the results.

Site Two: Government Agency

Set Up

We were approached by a Federal Government Agency, via a contracted Program Manager who

knew of our research reputation via our involvement in the Project Management Institute (PMI),

specifically the worldwide academic and professional reputation of one of the researchers. There

was a professional relationship between one researcher and the Program Manager via PMI. They

initially conducted a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of Tranche One of a major IT heavy change

program.

Doing

We offered the Agency the option of commercial consultant rates for our time or the option of ‘free’

work if we owned the data and could publish any material with no right of organisational veto. As

part of the initial agreement we secured a promise to discuss a two year on-going research

relationship with the Agency and Program Manager. After successfully conducting and reporting our

PIR for Tranche One, the Agency agreed to the two year option. This is the classic ‘foot-in-the-door’

sales technique and it allowed us to ‘prove’ the value of the research with limited risk to both sides.


of 12

Risks

Reflecting on the risks involved in long research agreements, you need a strong sponsor in the

organisation who shares the vision and is willing to accept the risk. The risks of research need to be

clearly communicated to the host organization and sponsor, in terms they understand as research is

very different from consultancy work.

Lessons Learned

Constant communication is essential with the people in the potential research site.

Failure must be considered a learning experience and you can take the knowledge of what

got you close, then why it failed, into the next research site.

The resources you build can also be recycled, such as research proposals, contracts, and

explanations of process which can and should be re-used for multiple sites.

You will need legal advice for any formal contract. Take advantage of the expertise in your

university legal office as they will have done this many times before.

You can start small, get the early ‘wins’ and show the sponsor that you can deliver value to

them and undertake rigorous research.

EXAMPLES OF INFORMAL AND FORMAL SITE NEGOTIATIONS

Context

One of the researchers has conducted case study research using two sites, one as exploratory and

the second as in-depth sites. These two sites researched the role of Knowledge Based Practices

(KBPs) in the effective management and delivery of Information Systems Development (ISD)

Projects.

Site 1: Engineering Consulting Organization and Site 2: Outsource Provider in a

Government Department

Setup

The first case study was negotiated at the beginning of the research with access to this site being

gained due to the researcher’s networks. An associate of the researcher had met a representative

from this organization at a conference and they had continued to network and exchange

communication on a topic in which they had a shared interest, namely Knowledge Management

Systems. The researcher had an industry background that enabled her to understand the context of

the work carried out in the organization. The researcher developed a research proposal and


of 12

presentation and met with people within the organization outlining the proposed area of research.

The research site was enthusiastic with the research and, in supporting the researcher, to conduct

research within the organization. Several projects were discussed. A complex innovative project that

was a component of an inter-organizational (Alliance) Project was decided on as it could be accessed

within the organization. Access was gained without signing a Memorandum of Understanding and

instead used a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

For the second case study the researcher used her extensive professional and personal networks to

assess potential sites. After two meetings with a target organization they agreed to the research

proposal. Different client sites and the organization itself were explored as potential sites. A number

of the projects were discounted due to political and geographical reasons. The research site was

ultimately chosen due to the complex nature of the project and the fact that key project team

members were part of the researcher’s professional network. The researcher researched the

implementation of software into a major Australian Federal Government Department.

Doing

Stakeholder management was key in ensuring that the research site subjects were aware of what

was happening and that their collaborative research needs were met. The researcher met with the

stakeholders at key points that were agreed to prior to the research commencing. This allowed the

research to be managed as a project, which was a comfortable and understandable way of

communicating with staff. Other tools, such as status reports, were tabled and any emerging issues

or risks identified. In one case people did not understand why they were being interviewed, even

though an explanatory statement had been supplied. After consultation between the researcher and

the project manager the process changed by the project manager following up on this, and ensuring

that the participants understood the collaborative research and why the research was being

undertaken.

At the completion of each phase of the study the researcher wrote a technical report for both

organizations and presented research findings to interested parties within the organizations. Not

only did this allow each organization to obtain an independent report on particular aspects of

project management within their organization (the quid-pro-quo for access) but the presentation

was also used as a validation exercise for the research. In both cases there has been an ongoing

relationship with both research sites to ratify that the published research reflects their view of

factual accuracy and does not identify the organizations involved.


of 12

Risks

Both of the successful research sites still had risks associated with them, in particular change in

engagement over time. As access became more difficult, alternative ways to obtain data had to be

used or we risked not being able to complete the research. In the case of the project management

consulting firm that specialized in implementing enterprise software, when formal access to one of

their consulting sites was proving difficult, the risk was mitigated via a modification of the access to

site (fewer interviews, partially redacted data). Other data sources supplemented the research and

helped make up for the reduced access, in this case the researcher’s network was consulted for

views and experiences based on the public data.

Lessons Learned

As with any project, one of the risks is that during the research the stakeholders change

their interests or feel that it is no longer of importance to the organization. The key to

managing this risk is to manage the stakeholders, communicate with them and ensure that

their needs are addressed as part of the research. As their interests change if it is possible

you need to ensure that these emerging interests are incorporated.

INFORMAL AND FORMAL SITE NEGOTIATION: ACTION RESEARCH CONTEXT

Context

The action research methodology was selected by the researcher as the basis to investigate how

project managers exchange knowledge while delivering projects. Action research involves collecting

data in a social setting through cycles of interventions, each requiring planned reflection (Cardno &

Piggot-Irvine 1996, p. 20). This cyclical approach provides the researcher scope to adjust the process

while ‘intervening’ in the research site and addressing any emergent requirements. Unlike other

more detached research methodologies, action research relies on the interpretation of data through

an iterative and yet structured method that marries the researchers’ experiences with what they are

observing to develop and test a theory or hypothesis. The research sites for this investigation were

located in Australia and included large private and public sector organisations, with the actors

selected for their experience in managing projects.

Setup

The research framework was formally structured through a review of the literature which indicated

that a valid unit for analysis was to involve five project managers in the research. The decision to


of 12

limit the actors to five was based on the seminal research conducted by Kotter (1999a, 1999b) into

“What Leaders Really Do” and “What Effective General Managers Really Do”.

The research focused on observations and interventions in the workplace of the selected actors.

Initially eight project managers were selected to participate in the research, which allowed for the

risk of redundancy. Two project managers left the research as they did not have senior management

support to continue with their involvement. This was due to changes in their organizations which

resulted in the research not being considered an essential business activity.

The actors were selected from the researchers informal network of project managers to represent a

range of industries and project types. This network was established over many years of engaging

with the actors, initially in professional and subsequently in academic settings, with some actors

already established in the researchers social network. Several of the actors were initially not known

to the researcher, as their managers, who were known to the researcher, recommended them for

the research. This represented a ‘snowball’ approach where the initial contact is not the primary

source in the research. This ‘cold’ start required the researcher to dedicate time to establish a level

of trust with these unknown actors. Trust was initially established through the recognition of the

relationship that the researcher had with the actor’s colleague/manager.

The actors all had a minimum of five years project management experience and were employed full

time as a project manager in Australia. The industry sectors that the actors were selected from were

deliberately diverse so that the research captured how knowledge may be exchanged with a minimal

effect of industry-specific behaviours. This was important so that generalizations could not be made

based on assumed industry specific behaviours, for example construction project managers will all

behave in a predictably similar manner. The research sites were representative of the information

technology, engineering, financial services and public infrastructure sectors.

Doing

To secure the actors agreement, a formal letter of consent outlining both their and the researchers

obligations, and the confidentiality of the data collected, was provided to the actor. Once formal

approval was gained from the manager and the individual actor the research began.

The first intervention required the researcher to co-ordinate a one hour meeting with each actor in

their place of work. The first meeting was conducted, due to the actors schedule, in a restaurant,


of 12

which proved challenging from a noise and distraction perspective. The remaining interventions with

all the actors were conducted in the workplace and at the researchers university. This required the

researcher to maintain ongoing contact with the actors either through phone calls, emails or in

actual face-to-face interventions.

Risks

The potential for some of the actors to leave the research was mitigated through initiating the

research with more project managers than the five required. This risk occurred with the departure of

two actors due to lack of senior management support. The data that was generated from the

interviews with these actors was kept, although not used in the final analysis, as they did not

participate in all three interventions.

Loss of data through inappropriate or inadequate storage of the interview transcripts and notes can

occur, requiring formal processes to be planned and implemented. This provides ease of retrieval

and confidentiality, and in some cases the return of proprietary or personal documents ‘borrowed’

by the researcher for analysis.

Respect for the confidential nature of the data gathered by the researcher, especially when asked to

disclose findings to colleagues or managers that work with the actor, can create an ethical dilemma.

It is therefore imperative for the researcher to negotiate at the very beginning what information can

and cannot be shared with third parties, even management. This can be managed through

maintaining a level of formal ‘distance’ at the research site and avoid being seen as part of the

actors project team, or the workplace in general.

Lessons Learned

To provide a different perspective of what the actor is disclosing, and with their knowledge

but not their participation, interview one of their colleagues who is involved in the work that

you are researching.

The researcher needs to keep notes of not only the specific research data, but also relevant

personal information to assist in continuing meaningful conversations at subsequent

meetings which fosters a level of trust.

Prepare a robust plan for your research, with in-built mitigation strategies for the identified

risks, and then test the plan with trusted colleagues who will provide constructive feedback.


of 12

Always have a contingency if actors or organisations change priorities and drop out of the

research.

Develop a level of trust with your actors through informal conversations to identify shared

areas of knowledge or experiences. Also arrange where possible to provide your actors with

third party endorsements of your capabilities.

Your professional and in some cases your personal networks will prove to be highly valuable

when sourcing actors. Establish an equal relationship where all parties gain from the

research and are appropriately recognised.

When the research has finished and the results published, the relationships that you have

developed with your actors may need to be formally closed. Alternatively, the relationships

may continue through networks, or informally if friendships have developed.

Conclusion

While we justifiably make much of the research methodology and its rigor that you will use in your

research, it is pointless without site access. Establishing a research location and the access you have

will partly determine the methodologies employed. If you lack a professional history or a solid

research network then draw on colleagues networks and establish yourself via them. Engage in the

practitioner organizations and use social media to get your presence noticed. Once you have

established a reputation, or used the leverage/support of others, begin managing the research like

you would a project.

Constant communication with the gate-keepers at the potential site is crucial, in particular around

issues of ethics, anonymity and access to/control of the data you create. Plan for the input of

lawyers on both sides to ensure that the research agreement meets all party’s needs, in particular

have the data ownership and process of pre-publishing approval clear and agreed to. Once you are

in a site, communication and risk mitigation are still key. Communicating why you are there and

what you are doing and finding is crucial to keeping trust and access open. Mitigate the risks of

withdrawal from the research or change in circumstances as best you can. Finally, like the ‘campsite

rule’ leave a research site and the subjects better off than how you found them so that they will say

yes to further research.


of 12

Tips and Questions

STUDENT TIPS

Assess and manage the risks associated with relying on other organizations and people for

your research data.

Have a back up plan (or two) and accept that research evolves and requires flexibility while

adhering to the research objectives.

Be up front with research contracts, ethics and the question of data ownership with the

research subjects and maintain communication throughout the research with these key

stakeholders.

A good, successful relationship can be an ongoing one for further research or employment, a

bad engagement severely damages your reputation and closes that site for research for all.

SUPERVISOR TIPS

Manage the expectations of the student in regards to the difficulty of access and how

permissions can change.

Assess the risks involved in access and advise appropriately.

Utilise your own networks to assist the student gain access.

QUESTIONS

These deceptively simple questions may assist in breaking down your research approach when

negotiating access to the site and to engage the actors:

1. What is a key way of gaining access to empirical data?

2. What role do networks play in gaining access to research sites?

3. What lessons learned can you take from one research site to the next?

4. What is the role of communication in gaining access to and managing research sites?

5. How do you manage change in actors, their organisations, and research sites?


of 12

References

Cardno, C., & Piggot-Irvine, E. (1996). Incorporating Action Research in School Senior Management

Training. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(5), 19-24.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-

1380.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What Effective General Managers Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 77(2),

145-159.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What Leaders Really Do. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Suggested Reading

Brydon-Miller, M., & Greenwood, D. (2006). A re-examination of the relationship between action

research and human subjects review processes. Action Research, 4(1), 117–128.

Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and

Action Research, 11(1), 9-21.

Dick, B. (2004). Action Research Literature. Action Research, 2(4), 425–444.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management Field Research.

Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization

Science, 22, 1240-1253.

Kemmis, S. (2009). Action Research as a Practice-based Practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3),

463-474.

Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: quantitative and qualitative approaches.

London: SAGE.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research Methodology in Management: current practices,

trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248-

1264.

Enter or Not - how to gain and sustain access to research sites

Documents

Transcript of Enter or Not - how to gain and sustain access to research sites