Responsabilidad Social Empresarial y sus Indicadores

Throughout the course of undertaking the research I was cognisant of a number of ethical issues which I sought to address through a reflexive approach, which included regular reflections in a research diary and conversations with my supervisor. The

application of reflexive methodologies has been proposed as a means by which the researcher’s process is made transparent and used as part of the data (Alvesson and Karreman 2000; Alvesson and Skoldberg 2000; Freshwater and Rolfe 2001; Carolan 2003; Etherington 2004; Bulpitt and Martin 2010). In a qualitative study such as this one, there is an ethical obligation for a qualitative researcher to make this data available, providing as it does an important means by which the validity of the findings can be justified and any potential transferability can be genuinely assessed by a reader.

Undertaking this reflexive approach towards my initial interviews raised a number of ethical concerns, recently published (Bulpitt and Martin 2010), concerning the potential for an ‘expert’ interviewer to manipulate the interviewee into exposing more personal and revealing information than they may otherwise have been willing to give. As an experienced counsellor myself, I became quickly aware that I had at my disposal a number of interventions that could invoke a more therapeutic tone to the interview, and so potentially invite intimate and emotive responses from the

interviewees. There could be a temptation to congratulate myself for the way in which I managed to gather such rich and interesting data to inform my study, but a reflexive approach to this experience alerted me to the ethical dilemma that this raised: the interviewee never agreed to embark on a therapeutic session with a counsellor. Indeed, they did not know that I was a counsellor. They agreed to ‘help’ me conduct a genuine research project. They did not agree to be ‘helped’ by me at some quasi-therapeutic level. An ethical approach obliged me to be alert to this potential and, whilst I remained eager to gather rich data, it was imperative that my interventions were confined within the boundaries of the consent given.

In addition to this awareness, I also became quickly aware of the difference in professional knowledge and experience between me and my interviewees. As a counsellor myself, my own professional experience carries with it potential risks that the discrepancy in my knowledge, skills and understanding between the respondents from the counselling profession and those from the nursing and psychology

professions could seriously skew the nature and quality of data I was able to collect through the interviews. There existed the very real risk that my prior assumptions may cause me to miss opportunities to explore more detailed analysis and

explanations of meaning within the counselling context. I took the decision not to tell my participants that I was a counsellor myself as I wanted to avoid the possibility that they would make assumptions about me and my role in the research. On

subsequent reflection, I wondered whether this caused the interviews to be less transparent and therefore less consistent with my espoused approach to the collecting and analysing of the data, than they otherwise might have been.

5. A rigorous study

Bernard and Goodyear suggest that case study research sits comfortably within a first stage of supervision research, the descriptive stage, where the second and third stages are testing hypotheses, and building theory respectively (Bernard and

Goodyear 1998). Whilst I accept that my study is largely descriptive, I do not accept that it serves simply as a precursor to testing hypotheses and building theory. Bernard and Goodyear’s statement suggests that they were drawing from a largely positivistic research paradigm, one of which much good supervision research has fallen foul and one which I would strongly resist. There is much good research into clinical supervision which has been rejected by the few systematic reviews that have been undertaken to date (Ellis, Ladany and Krengel 1996; Wheeler and Richards 2007) on the basis that it does not meet the inclusion criteria, criteria that are based on largely quantitative, and positivist paradigms. This issue around the status of

diverse research paradigms is explored in the discussion chapter and in depth in the literature review on page 47 as it became clear during this study that this is a critical issue in the profile of supervision research. This thesis seeks to present a rigorous and unapologetic account of a piece of qualitative research which can, as a single piece of work, stand up to scrutiny on methodological grounds, inform the debate about the practice usefulness and practice of supervision and influence actual practice. It is descriptive, but it is not incomplete without Bernard and Goodyear’s second and third stages.

Many of the elements designed to provide the necessary rigour to this study have been identified in sections above, but they include a transparent and reflexive account of the rationale, protocols and procedures undertaken in order that an audit trail of decision-making can be followed and scrutinised by others. (Ladany 2004; Koch 2006 (first published 1994)):

Researchers need to consciously reflect on the dual roles and declare, rather than deny, their complex layers of identity.

(Leslie and McAllister 2002 p703)

In addition, this thesis aims to provide an honest presentation of findings, including their conditionality and provisional nature and the need to be clear that any

conclusions are considered and transparent, a ‘considered response’ (Barbour 2003 p1019).

Having described in detail the way in which I operationalised a study consistent with a Foucauldian approach, the next chapter provides a comprehensive literature review which serves as the basis from which the subsequent discursive frame is derived.