3.3.1 Language in the Workplace (LWP)4 project
This research study adopted a participatory approach, an approach similar to that used by the LWP project team at Victoria University of Wellington. The LWP project began in 1996 and was spearheaded by Professor Janet Holmes of Victoria University of Wellington to explore effective workplace communication in various settings (e.g. hospital, factory, government). Some of the areas of workplace discourse based on authentic workplace interaction include leadership discourse (Holmes, Marra, & Vine, 2011; Schnurr & Chan, 2009), business meetings (Chan, 2005; Marra, 2003; Murata, 2011), organizational
knowledge creation (Fletcher, 2011), workplace email communication (Waldvogel, 2005) and directives (Vine, 2001).
The LWP team has developed a distinctive methodology for collecting interactions for
workplace discourse in New Zealand (see Holmes & Stubbe, 2003b; Marra, 2008). In terms of the data collection procedures, volunteers in each organisation were asked to record their own work-related interactions with two aims in mind (1) “to give participants as much control as possible over the research process, and especially the data collection process; and (2) to reduce the researchers’ involvement in the physical collection of data to the absolute minimum” (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003b, p. 21). Some examples of studies which made use of this model or a similar model are Murata (2011), Fletcher (2011), Chan (2005), Marra (2003) and Alsree (1997).
The stages of the LWP data collection process are: 1. Initial meeting with the management 2. Volunteers record their own data 3. Feedback sessions
4. Data analysis
4
39
I have only adopted those aspects of the methodology which were relevant for my study. I give a detailed account of each stage in the next section. I explain how access was
negotiated and how the initial meeting with the management of the three workplaces was arranged.
3.3.2 Gaining access
One of the central problems researchers face is gaining access to the field (Watt & Jones, 2010). As it is difficult to collect authentic data in business settings (acknowledged by Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris, 1997), identifying key people, i.e. “gatekeepers” (Denscombe, 2010, p. 89) is crucial to the success of gaining entry to the research site. In addition researchers have to work with whichever companies agree to participate in the research project.
Researchers have to be prepared to face challenges if they choose to be involved in authentic workplace research. In my case, the disappointment of being turned down by several workplaces. My first experience was with Company A, the first workplace which we (my supervisor and I) approached at the end of 2010. The representative from Company A had shown great enthusiasm and had agreed to participate in my research project and plans were made to meet the team at the beginning of 2011, however, two days before the arranged meeting, Company A withdrew from my research. With this rejection, we started to look for another workplace. My second experience was another workplace which also showed great interest in my research project, but which decided to postpone their involvement to a later time because of work commitments and priorities.
My subsequent experiences involved rejections from a number of workplaces in Malaysia. Generally, it was very difficult to find workplaces in Malaysia that were willing to participate in this study as people are reluctant to share their written documents. An email was sent to one workplace which showed some interest but it was rejected when the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the workplace declined to give consent explaining “Unless there is a formal collaboration with us in the form of joint research, we are unable to consider supporting request of such nature.”
40
After failing to secure approval from the President and Chief Operating Officer to conduct research at my previous workplace, I wrote to the Vice Chancellor. Unfortunately, again, my proposal was turned down due to issues of confidentiality.
While rejection is something that is unavoidable in authentic workplace research, there are also other workplaces which are supportive of research of this nature. Following examples by practitioners of participant observation such as Agar (1996) and Holmes (2000b) who sought personal contacts through networking, I was fortunate to get my first research participant, Company NZ1, as my entry point to the ‘real’ research world which began in March 2011. The selection of the second and the third workplace relied on social networks or ‘friend-of-a-friend’ approach (Milroy, 1987). The social network established through attending a local church in 2010 to 2011 assisted in making contact with the participant in Company NZ2 (the second workplace) and the third workplace in Malaysia (Company M) was secured through a personal contact. Access to these three workplaces is discussed in Section 3.3.3.
As cautioned by Watt and Jones (2010) negotiating entry into the workplace proved to be the most difficult phase in my research since it was the workplaces, i.e. the gatekeepers (Denscombe, 2010), that chose to give their cooperation. Negotiating entry had to be done cautiously and carefully to protect the good name of the University. Although there were numerous rejections encountered throughout the whole negotiation period, such situations
must be handled in a diplomatic way.
3.3.3 Initial meeting with management 3.3.3.1 Company NZ1
Entry to Company NZ1 was first negotiated by my supervisor, Professor Janet Holmes, with
the Relationship Manager via email. An appointment was set with the CEO on the 1st March
2011. At our initial meeting we discussed the objectives of the research and the types of data that I aimed to collect. At this initial meeting I provided a written information sheet which outlined the project (see Appendix 2), a proposal outlining the LWP project (see Appendix 3) as well as the consent form (see Appendix 4) for the participants (Marra 2003, Waldvogel 2005). The CEO expressed her interest in participating in the research and gave us
41
an overview of the changing culture since her appointment the previous year. After this discussion, the CEO invited us to give a presentation about my research project to the staff members at the company’s weekly meeting the following week.
During this presentation, I was introduced to the staff members of Company NZ1. The CEO was very positive but stressed that there was no pressure on anyone to participate. A copy of the LWP proposal, information sheet, consent form and questionnaire (see Appendix 5) were distributed to all staff members. All who were present returned the consent forms immediately. One staff member collected consent forms for two members who were not present at the meeting. They completed the forms and returned them to me within a week. It was agreed that I take on some tasks during my time there. Data gathering was arranged for one full day each week but to obtain rich observational data, I spent at least three full days in a week in the organisation in the first month. I also chose to go on different days of the week for two and a half months to carry out my observation to enable me to see how all the staff members interacted with each other as not all of them worked every day.
3.3.3.2 Company NZ2
For the second workplace, a church friend who worked in this large New Zealand organisation asked the Divisional Manager to meet me and arranged the initial meeting opportunity in August 2011. I met the Divisional Manager and talked about my research project, explaining it using the research information sheet for participants and the LWP initial proposal. After the Divisional Manager obtained approval from the Operations Manager of the Wellington branch, a meeting was set up to meet with the four nominated key participants to discuss the detailed arrangements for the project. This meeting gave my supervisor and me the opportunity to address any issues that the key participants had before they gave their consent to participate in my project. One participant enquired about the benefit of conducting research of this nature while the rest had no comment. As with the arrangement with Company NZ1, it was also agreed that I take on some administrative tasks during my time in Company NZ2. It was decided that I start the following week. Due to the nature of the business, I went to ‘work’ as early as six in the morning in order to capture all the actions taking place. I also chose to go every day for three weeks as it gave me the opportunity to become familiar with the staff members in this large organisation.
42 3.3.3.3 Company M
The third workplace was secured with the help of a close friend who had vouched for my credibility as a researcher and this gave me an opportunity to present my proposal to the MD. Because I was in New Zealand during this negotiation period, a different approach was adopted and all communication was done via email. After obtaining permission from the MD, the next level was to get an agreement from the CEO who was quick to agree and gave me full cooperation. I informed him of the criteria for choosing key participants for this project and three weeks later, he gave me the nominated staff members. Unlike the other
workplaces where I had the opportunity to meet the participants before the project began, in Company M, all queries were addressed via email. The only concern the company had was the issue of confidentiality and the assurance of giving pseudonyms to both participants and company was well received. As with the arrangement with Company NZ1 and Company NZ2, it was agreed that I take on some administrative tasks during the time I was at the workplace to conduct observations. Unlike the first two companies where I started immediately upon obtaining consent from the “gatekeepers” (Denscombe, 2010, p. 89), my first day at the workplace was five months later, i.e. May 2012.
It is important to note that, as in many applied linguistics research studies, my study uses non-probability sampling (i.e. convenience sampling). According to Wagner (2010, p. 25), convenience sampling “involves surveying individuals who are readily available and that the research has access to”. In other words, I worked with workplaces which were “available” (Dornyei, 2007, p. 129). While I cannot make generalisations on the basis of the three workplaces because each workplace was different from the others, my data analysis show that features of email communication in one of the New Zealand workplaces was more similar to that of the Malaysian workplace in a number of respects than it was to the other New Zealand workplace. See Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 for details.
3.3.4 Preparation for data collection
Before I entered the ‘real world’ to collect data, I trialled the proposed methods to test their suitability. The trial period provided me with valuable information which helped me
43
that follow, I discuss each method by outlining how it was trialled, the challenges faced, the final decisions made and the actual data collection.