DBA 8100 Module 5 Trustworthiness and Ethics Paper: Rigor, Member Checking and Insider Research Example

Researching Where I Work: Trustworthiness and Ethics in an Insider Capstone

Student Name

Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University

DBA-8100: Qualitative Research Methods and Applications

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Researching Where I Work: Trustworthiness and Ethics in an Insider Capstone

Introduction

Qualitative research cannot rely on statistical tests to show that its findings are sound. Instead, researchers use criteria and strategies that show readers their work is credible, careful and ethical. My study has a particular challenge: the supervisors I am interviewing work for the company where I lead HR. Insider status gives access and context but raises questions about power, confidentiality and bias. This paper sets out how the study will address quality and ethics.

Criteria for Quality

Tracy (2010) proposed eight big-tent criteria that apply across qualitative traditions: a worthy topic that is relevant and timely; rich rigor, meaning sufficient data, appropriate samples and careful procedures; sincerity, including self-reflexivity and transparency about methods and challenges; credibility, achieved through thick description, triangulation or crystallization and member reflections; resonance, the ability to affect readers and to transfer to other settings; a significant contribution to theory or practice; ethics, including procedural, situational, relational and exiting ethics; and meaningful coherence, in which the study achieves what it claims and its methods fit its goals.

Trustworthiness in Each Phase

Nowell et al. (2017) applied Lincoln and Guba's trustworthiness criteria, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, to each phase of thematic analysis. They recommended specific practices: prolonged engagement with data and triangulation during familiarization; a reflexive journal and peer debriefing during coding; diagrams and team discussion of themes; documentation of theme naming; and an audit trail of decisions throughout. Thick description in the report supports transferability.

For this study, I will keep a reflexive journal after each interview and coding session, recording my reactions, assumptions and decisions. A faculty mentor and a peer in the DBA cohort, neither connected to the firm, will read several of my coded transcripts and comment on the developing themes in two debriefing sessions. All coding decisions, merges and theme changes will be logged in the analysis software, creating an audit trail.

Member Checking

Birt et al. (2016) reviewed member checking, the practice of returning data or results to participants. They noted problems with returning transcripts alone, which participants may find unhelpful or uncomfortable to read. They described synthesized member checking, where people who took part are sent a summary of the combined findings, with illustrative quotations, and are invited to comment on whether the findings resonate with their experience and to add anything. In their study, many participants engaged with the summaries and added comments, which enriched the analysis.

This study will use synthesized member checking. After themes are developed, each participant will receive a four-page summary in plain language, with quotations that do not identify anyone, and be invited to a short call or written reply. Their responses will be treated as further data rather than as a test of truth, and any disagreement will be reported alongside the theme it concerns.

Ethics of Insider Research

Tracy's procedural ethics will be met through approval by the university's institutional review board and permission from the firm, with written informed consent. Situational ethics require attention to this setting. Participants may fear that criticism will reach managers or affect promotions. To address this, I will recruit through a university letter, hold interviews away from the warehouses or online, after working hours, assign pseudonyms, remove warehouse names and identifying details from quotations and store data on a university server, not company systems. No one in the firm will see raw data or know who participated. Former supervisors who left will be told that participation will not affect any rehire decision.

Relational ethics concern how I treat participants as people. If a participant describes unsafe conditions or harassment, I will explain beforehand the limits of confidentiality required by law and policy and will offer information about confidential reporting channels rather than act on it myself without consent, unless law requires it.

Exiting ethics concern how the study ends. Participants will receive a thank-you note and a summary of the final recommendations, and the firm will receive only aggregated findings.

A Reflexive Journal Entry

An early entry illustrates the practice: "Interview 4 described the training as useless. I felt defensive; my team built it. I asked fewer follow-up questions after that. Next time: notice the reaction, keep probing, ask what would have been useful." Entries like this make my influence on the data visible to me, to my peer reviewers and later to readers.

Looking for Disconfirming Cases

Credibility also depends on searching for cases that do not fit. Throughout analysis I will look for participants whose experiences contradict emerging themes, such as a supervisor who felt no loss of place, and report them rather than set them aside. A participant whose account runs against a theme can sharpen its boundaries, marking the conditions under which it holds, which makes the finding more useful to the firm.

Power and Position

As an HR leader, I hold power over policies that affect participants. I will not interview anyone in my direct reporting line, and I will not use any information from the study in individual employment decisions. My reflexive journal will track when my HR perspective shapes what I notice.

Limits

Insider studies cannot remove power differences entirely, and some participants may still hold back. Peer debriefing depends on reviewers' time.

Conclusion

Tracy's eight criteria give the study a full map of quality, Nowell and colleagues' practices make trustworthiness concrete at each phase of analysis and Birt and colleagues' synthesized member checking offers participants a meaningful voice in the findings. Careful procedural, situational, relational and exiting ethics address the particular risks of researching where I work.

References

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), Article 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121