The aims is to consider the political and ethical challenges involved in conducting ethnographic managerial/organisational behaviour research within the highly regulated health and social care context, in light of the emergence of more stringent “ethical approval” policies and requirements set by Local Research Ethics Committees in the United Kingdom. In the attempt and requirement to protect “vulnerable” employees, this paper aims to present an unintended paradox of consequences when participants voluntarily revealed themselves.
The authors briefly review literature on research ethics and present an understanding of the ethical regulations currently existing within the British National Health Service. Within an ethnographic case study exploring the psychological contract, the authors consider the issues that arose during one stage of data collection: a qualitative questionnaire survey with 13 participants, including members of the lead author's team. Incorporating excerpts from the researcher's reflexive journal, the paper exposes the struggles of being an “insider” researcher and the tensions this raises for data analysis when participants voluntarily revealed themselves.
Ethnography is at “risk” within health and social care and ethnographic “managerial” research is likely to be unduly restricted and potentially threatened. The evidence suggests that some employees either did not wish to be protected or, conversely, felt compelled to reveal their identities, raising questions of their motivation and creating a paradox of unintended consequences.
This paper offers an insight into the challenges of conducting nurse‐managerial ethnography in compliance with ethical guidelines, yet disrupted by participants. The findings will be useful to other nurse‐researchers attempting to conduct insider research.
