Navigating access to the boardroom: experiences from my PhD journey

This blog was written by Lindsay Wilson Jones, a PhD Student in the Faculty of Business and Law at The Open University. You can find out more about Lindsay's research here.

Securing access to individuals within organizations is central in qualitative research (Alexander and Smith, 2019, p.172). But ‘there is no online dating service that connects researchers and organizations’ (p.181). So how researchers gain access is not well understood yet. While access is the most common and overriding obstacle for success (Johl and Renganathan, 2009), gathering empirical data from within organizations is an important issue in case study research (Okumus et al., 2006). But access will not be approved if there is a risk of confidential commercial information being disclosed (Buchanan et al. 1988). Irrespective of the organization’s position on confidentiality, access is dependent on the goodwill of gatekeepers who can facilitate and withdraw access, drop of hat. And while ‘rich backstories’ of qualitative researchers (e.g. Buchanan et al., 1988) give a relational perspective on how to gain access, each organization is unique and what works in one may not be appropriate for another (Alexander and Smith, 2019, p. 172).

My qualitative case study depended mainly on semi-structured interview data supported by observation, to explore individuals’ and boards’ everyday lived experiences of leadership and governance. Securing access was a strategic initiative moving beyond the act of gaining access and pointing to the ‘trustworthiness’ and credibility of the researcher in interpreting findings and collecting data by securing access (Alexander and Smith, 2019, p. 183).

My experience

I draw on Buchanan et al. (1988) and their four-stage process of ‘Getting in, getting on, getting out, and getting back’ to illustrate my experience to date. Securing initial access for a pilot study of federated boards in a UK charity, the first step in my PhD, was straightforward. It followed a speculative email to the CEO and a subsequent meeting with the CEO and one other senior gatekeeper. Navigating access as an ongoing process however was a less structured process. As a student researcher while I recognised that I had a weak bargaining position for negotiating access (Okumus et al. 2006) I had not anticipated that it would be such a time-consuming activity, including, for example, waiting weeks for responses to emails or mid-winter site meetings and meetings over coffee and cake in smart London and rural places which led nowhere.

‘Getting in’ – the researcher’s influence

Data collected mainly from interviews and observation required a relational perspective on access such as that of Buchanan et al. (1988). But unlike these scholars, I didn’t have lunch with a friend who gave access to his own organisation (Okumus et al., 2006). Here, two full research proposals, including a detailed ‘Information Leaflet’, one year apart, set out the changing research aims; moving from a pilot study to the main study; methods; timelines; and assessment of risk of harm to participants. A reciprocal condition of providing 1000-word reports for each participating group was agreed at the start (Buchanan et al., 1988).

Access for the main study was a formal type of access that was both physical and mental (Okumus et al., 2006). It was based on a successful pilot and a process to upscale the pilot study. However, a subsequent design change to accommodate a shift in the organization’s position on access to all groups and a framework defining groups as ‘thriving or surviving’ was granted by return email. I entered fieldwork as an ‘outsider’ who gathered ‘insider’ knowledge from a pilot study; foreshadowed interviews with group and regional chairs and drew on a management career including Company Secretary to a UK nonprofit board.

‘Getting on’ – gatekeepers’ influence

From May 2018 access meetings for the main study included a third ‘gatekeeper’ who handled most email communications. Three ‘gatekeepers’ shaped my type of research (Alexander and Smith, 2019) and introduced unanticipated risk that I was unable to control (Buchanan et al., 1988). Firstly, in relation to purposive sampling a previous informal agreement gave direct access through a speculative email to all groups in England, however this was reversed. A gatekeeper email [22/08/2018] advised ‘I don’t really want to write to all of these groups……’ and started a process of framing access to groups in certain regions. At other times, this gatekeeper suggested ad hoc groups as good prospects. Secondly, the process of consulting selected chairs of committees, constrained and prevented access to other groups outside these regions.

Following email and telephone discussion with group contacts referred to me by national office, two local groups agreed to participate in the study. Later they were joined by the national senior management team. My interpretation of the organization’s shift in position on giving direct access for sampling, was partly about controlling the process in-house by an overworked staffer, who did not have time to handle additional email and telephone queries. But it was also a ‘political’ decision that acknowledged sensitivity around the organizational structure (Gummesson 2000), most notably the unspoken power of historically influential regional committees.

‘Getting on’ – organizational influence

While securing access for the main study in November 2017 (PhD year 1) the data collection process did not get underway until December 2018. I kept in regular contact with the organization and in May 2018 attended a meeting when funding for a ‘Volunteer Development’ project, focussing on leadership was raised. The organization proceeded to carry out its own research on groups. In my own research, emails [29/08/2020; 26/20/2018] advised that the ‘thriving/surviving’ framework I was expecting to access for a comparative study, was not in place. At this point I pivoted to a phenomenological form of inquiry into groups at different levels in the structure.

‘Getting out, Getting back’

My desire to understand everyday leadership and governance from participants’ perspectives led to phenomenology, a logical approach to open the ‘black box’ of board leadership. On reflection, I regret not questioning gatekeepers in more depth when access agreements were being changed. My main concern was losing goodwill access to the organisation. What I have learned is the importance of detailing how access is navigated during the ‘going on’ and ‘getting out’ stages.

An unintended consequence of my requests for national board access is a lack of communication from the organization since December 2019. My current dilemma is whether to pursue a further request for access to the national board or the agreement of a strategy for ‘getting out’ and re-entering the organization when my findings are ready to be reported. Both carry risks, and while a face to face approach is preferable for both, the negative impact of Covid19 on renegotiating a managed process of ‘getting back’ is unlikely to take place before late Autumn, given the episodic calendar of the national board (Buchanan et al. 1988, p.72). PhD timelines do not favour data collection beyond October 2020.

References

Alexander, B., N., and Smith, A., D. (2019) ‘Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management’ An International Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 172-193. DOI 10.1108/QROM-10-2017-1574
Buchanan et al., D., Boddy, D., and McCalman, J, (1988) Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out and Getting Back. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313166490
Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, London, Sage.
Johl, S.K. and Renganathan, S. (2010), ‘Strategies for Gaining Access in Doing Fieldwork: Reflection of two Researchers’ The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, vol. 8 no. 1, pp. 42-50.
Okumus, F., Altinay, L. and Roper, A. (2006) ‘Gaining Access for Research: Reflections from Experience’ Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 7-26.
Wright, A. L., Middleton, S., Hibbert, P. and Brazil, V. (2020)‘Getting On With Field Research Using Participant Deconstruction’ Organizational Research Methods vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 275-295. DOI: 10.1177/1094428118782589