Negotiating access into firms: obstacles and strategies

Researchers often experience difficulties with the negotiation of access into firms for the purpose of data collection. The question we explore is: What are the main obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and what strategies do researchers employ to increase their chances of success? Our research work on the tendering process of contractors took place between 2006 and 2008. We successfully negotiated access into four firms (two each in Ghana and the UK) to observe live examples of tender preparation The techniques we employed in negotiating access were personal contacts, contacting firms through online details and professional institutions, etc. With all of this effort, our average success rate was less than 5 per cent. The main obstacles encountered were firms’ reluctance because of commercial sensitiveness and fear that the data could eventually be divulged to their competitors or end up in the public domain. However, some firms agreed mainly because of the written assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in reporting the study; reputation of the researchers’ academic institution; gatekeepers who spoke to their colleagues on our behalf; academic purpose of the study; and a feedback report which was promised in return for access to the case studies. Although the access through personal contacts is by far the easiest, it is not always possible. Researchers can approach firms as complete strangers, especially in a foreign country, and that could make the firms more likely to assist the research.

Researching from within: external and internal ethical engagement

This article examines the superficial and deep ethical and moral dilemmas confronting ‘insider’ researchers which we term external and internal ethical engagement. External ethical engagement refers to the traditional, easily identifiable ethical issues that insider researchers attend to by submitting their application for ethical approval to their institution’s internal review board. Internal ethical engagement relates to the deeper level ethical and moral dilemmas that insider researchers have to deal with once ‘in the field’ linked to on-going personal and professional relationships with participants, insider knowledge, conflicting professional and researcher roles, and anonymity. By reviewing the literature in this area and drawing on the authors’ experiences of undertaking interpretive studies at institutions where they were members of staff, we explore these concepts and examine the implications for insider researchers. Keywords: insider research; ethics; professional relationships; anonymity; access

Time and retribution

Retributivists believe that punishment can be deserved, and that deserved punishment is intrinsically good. They also believe that certain crimes deserve certain quantities of punishment. On the plausible assumption that the overall amount of any given punishment is a function of its severity and duration, we might think that retributivists (qua retributivists) would be indifferent as to whether a punishment were long and light or short and sharp, provided the offender gets the overall amount of punishment he deserves. In this paper I argue against this, showing that retributivists should actually prefer shorter and more severe punishments to longer, gentler options. I show this by focusing on, and developing a series of interpretations of, the retributivist claim that not punishing the guilty is bad, focussing on the relationship between that badness and time. I then show that each interpretation leads to a preference for shorter over longer punishment.

Circles of support and accountability: criminal justice volunteers as the 'Deliberative public'

This paper provides a review of the role played by volunteers within one particular offender management and reintegration scheme in the United Kingdom. Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) draw on the expertise of volunteer members of the public to create supportive monitoring frameworks around sex offenders following their release from prison. The paper presents evidence as to the motivations of these volunteers, and argues that they play a crucial role in the success of the scheme, as they provide an instrumentally-useful form of reintegrative social contact to a socially-excluded offender population, and perform a symbolically important role as representatives of the wider community in taking ownership of offender management practices on behalf of the wider society. This is particularly significant in grounding those processes in the communicative practices of the social sphere, providing powerful reasons for intervention that reinforce the work that COSA do.

Translation practices in political institutions: a comparison of national, supranational, and non-governmental organisations

This paper explores the settings and practices of translation at three types of political institutions, i.e. national, supranational, and non-governmental organisations. The three institutions are the translation service of the German Foreign Office, the translation department of the European Central Bank, and translation provision by the non-governmental organisation Amnesty International. The three case studies describe the specific translation practices in place at these institutions and illustrate some characteristic translation strategies. In this way, we reflect on how different translation practices can impact on translation agency and how these practices in turn are influenced by the type of institution and its organisational structure. The article also aims to explore to which extent the characteristics of collectivity, anonymity and standardisation, and of institutional translation as self-translation are applicable to the institutions under discussion.

Interviewing children and young people with learning disabilities: guidelines for researchers and multi-professional practice

We argue that it is important for researchers and service providers to not only recognize the rights of children and young people with learning disabilities to have a ‘voice’, but also to work actively towards eliciting views from all. A set of guidelines for critical self-evaluation by those engaged in systematically collecting the views of children and young people with learning disabilities is proposed. The guidelines are based on a series of questions concerning: research aims and ethics (encompassing access/gatekeepers; consent/assent; confidentiality/anonymity/secrecy, recognition, feedback and ownership; and social responsibility) sampling, design and communication