Access, Ethics and Reflexivity Considerations

3.3.1. Access

Negotiating access to research participants (stakeholders, PSVs, and volunteer managers) was a crucial element to the success of this study. Johnson (1975, in Lee, 1993) argues that gaining access is unpredictable as an understanding of the social organisation in which research participants are based is often required, making access increasingly more likely once the researcher is actually inside the research setting.

These issues are particularly poignant when working within the parameters of this study’s primary research setting – the Metropolitan Police Service. In this sense, I had an advantage as an employee of a police related organisation (the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)), with an academic and professional background in the field of policing. In addition, I am security cleared negating the need for any lengthy police checks and, acquired through work and study, have an understanding of acronyms, jargon, hierarchy, politics, and some of the nuances of policing in London (Labaree, 2002). Brannick and Coghlan (2007) argue that being close to the subject area can assist in researching it, allowing the researcher to use their experiential and theoretical knowledge to reframe understandings of situations.

Initial access to the primary gatekeeper for this study – the Metropolitan Police Volunteer Programme Manager – was straightforward in terms of finding out who to contact and obtaining contact details. However, as I am not part of the Metropolitan Police Service and the subject matter does not form part of my MOPAC ‘day job’, access still necessitated negotiation and I was required to complete a research protocol (with the Met Volunteer Programme Manager as my ‘sponsor’) in order to obtain agreement from the MPS to conduct the research in the same way as any external researcher (see Appendix A). Even where access is granted, the way that it is negotiated on the ground remains a critical factor. This can be aided by clear information, details of how findings will be used, being flexible, and inviting the gatekeeper’s input where appropriate, with cooperation “likely to be easier if the

research objectives are seen as valuable and relevant by those involved” (Lewis, 2003:

63). The Met Volunteer Programme Manager was aware of, supportive, and interested in the research goals of this study from the outset. The gatekeeper is often viewed as a static instrument in the research process – an individual who must be ingratiated in order to secure access to the desired research population. However, Crowhurst (2013: 464) advances this notion, emphasising the importance of gatekeepers as “social actors embedded, participating in, and influencing relations of power” and access being a “dynamic process that is shaped by transformative encounters between researchers, gatekeepers and participants”. Indeed, the gatekeeper contribution in this study moved beyond simply a point of entry to PSVs, contributing to survey development and pilot, providing access to data, disseminating the survey link to all PSVs in the MPS, and assisting with sampling and facilitating introductions for interviews with PSVs and volunteer managers.

3.3.2. Ethics, Confidentiality, and Anonymity

The study adhered to the University of Surrey’s research ethics procedures throughout. The study explores legitimate activity and non-sensitive issues, and requirements set out in the university’s research ethics checklist in the early stages of the work indicated that it did not meet the threshold to necessitate formal approval by the ethics board. However, consideration of ethical issues, and ensuring processes are in place to minimise the risk of negative impact on participants, are essential features of any research and, as such, formed a central plank of study design (France, 2006; Munro, 2008). Furthermore, as McCosker et al. (2001) acknowledge, the sensitive nature of research may not always be apparent at the start, while, conversely, a presumed sensitive subject may not prove to be so. Indeed, ethics are an ongoing feature throughout the lifetime of a study and should not be treated as a separate, distinct, or ‘one off’ part of the research process (Hornsby-Smith, 1993; Sin, 2005).

As the research was conducted with adult volunteers or employees within the MPS or other stakeholder organisations, it seemed reasonable to assume that participants were competent enough to understand what their involvement entailed and able to give their consent to take part, and/or have access to support in the organisation to help them with this. To facilitate informed consent it was vital that potential participants were provided with information about the study in clear, accessible language (France, 2006). Interview and survey consent forms were written in plain English, and concisely outlined details of the study, why the individual had been contacted, what their involvement would entail, and how data would be used, together with a clear explanation of the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw consent (and have data destroyed) at any time (see Appendix B for copies of consent forms).

In terms of practical data confidentiality and anonymity considerations, all data files were individually password protected and stored securely on a password protected laptop, and backed up on a password protected cloud storage facility and the Surrey University drive. Survey respondents were not required to give their name or contact details; however, where they chose to do so (to possibly take part in an interview at a later date), this information was saved separately from the full survey data.

Interviewee transcripts were allocated an anonymous identifier and personal contact details stored separately in a password protected file. When presenting quotes throughout the thesis, survey respondents and interviewees were given a pseudonym, randomly generated via an online tool (www.name-generator.org.uk). Interviews were conducted in a location of the interviewee’s choice – usually the site of their volunteering or place of work (most often a police building). This significantly minimised health and safety issues and provided a convenient and secure place for interview, while also allowing data capture and interpretation within the actual social situation in which it was produced, offering further insight of not just what was said, but how and where, including ‘routine’ processes that the interviewee may not think to mention (May, 1997; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004).

Adopting a reflexive approach, considering how my data was collected, handled, stored, and interpreted, and my relationship with my gatekeeper and research participants, remained a paramount and continuous part of this study. I regularly kept in touch with the Met Volunteer Programme Manager throughout the study via emails and meetings, and sought their advice and input where appropriate. Crowhurst (2013:

463) highlights the limitations of normative approaches to the research process where the “clearly defined stages of getting in the field, gaining access, collaboration and consent, and ‘dealing with ethics’ are viewed as administrative-like tasks to be sorted out before the ‘real’ research takes place”. Indeed, this sterile and systemised approach to research practice rarely reflects reality.

According to Clark (2008), studying under researched groups, such as police volunteers, comes with additional responsibilities as if the research group do not perceive that their involvement had any impact, or see feedback or outcomes, they may become disillusioned with future participation. This can also damage relationships with gatekeepers. Feeding back results to participants and gatekeepers is an important part of the research process. It is intended that study results will be shared with participants via a one-page poster-style infographic, communicating key findings through an engaging, visual display. This will be emailed to PSVs via the central volunteer programme management team, and/or placed on the Met Volunteer intranet pages. Following conversations with policy colleagues in MOPAC who hold responsibility for overseeing workforce development in the MPS, there are also plans to table findings from my completed research at a senior level MPS board to include in discussions around forthcoming volunteer and community engagement strategies.

3.3.3. Reflexivity and Researcher Identity

The researcher brings multiple identities to the research setting, which can shape the way they collect and understand data (Beoky-Betts, 1994 in Labaree, 2002; Crowhurst, 2013). This is true throughout research encounters, perhaps particularly so in

qualitative inquiry where the researcher is the main ‘tool’ of research and the quality of the study relies on their skill, competence, and rigour (Patton, 2002; Legard et al., 2003). Indeed, Holstein and Gubrium (2004: 141) argue that interview respondents are “not so much repositories of knowledge – treasures of information awaiting excavation – as they are constructors of knowledge in association with interviewers”.

Understanding (or at least being aware) of their identity and influence becomes even more important when considering the researcher’s position as an “active maker of meaning” in this context (Legard et al., 2003; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004: 141;

Crowhurst, 2013).

I arguably held two ‘professional’ identities in this study (in addition to those related to my personal appearance, demographics, and characteristics): a definite ‘outside outsider’ – an academic from the University of Surrey not employed or commissioned in any way by the police or governmental body, and a partial ‘inside outsider’ – a non-police officer with an official role in a related body (i.e., MOPAC) (Reiner, 2000). My role within MOPAC raised some interesting considerations. I was not an employee of the organisation that I was researching (the Metropolitan Police Service) or involved in the Met Volunteer Programme in any way; however, I was linked to an external body involved in oversight and strategic direction of the police service – an organisation that may be viewed with suspicion and uncertainty by the MPS, particularly during times of budget reductions. With this dual identity it was even more imperative that I adopted a reflexive approach throughout my study, remaining conscious of my subjectivities and understanding of the social world, and actively questioning my familiarity with the organisation (Labaree, 2002).

I was upfront with participants about my academic and professional background during introductions and recruitment; however, made clear that my research was related to my PhD only – not my MOPAC role. Being an ‘insider’ (a very partial one, as the case was in this study) gives no guarantee of access or the establishment of trust and rapport with gatekeepers and respondents (Labaree, 2002; Brannick and Coghlan, 2007). Initially I was concerned that my ‘partial insider’ position may have been a

PSVs – however, this did not appear to be the case. It was uncertain how participants perceived me, or which of my identities they prioritised. This may have differed depending on how familiar participants were with MOPAC. From experience, the role of the organisation often requires explanation to police officers, civil servants, and other ‘informed’ parties, therefore it was perhaps likely that I was viewed as a PhD student first and foremost – a position that many people are familiar with.