Examining Ethics for an Action Research Project in an Enterprise Social Network Enabled Virtual Communities of Practice Environment

Importance and Key Contribution The implementation of social media tools in organisations, known as enterprise social networking (ESN), provides a convenient means for staff to share knowledge in informal settings and... [ view full abstract ]

Importance and Key Contribution

The implementation of social media tools in organisations, known as enterprise social networking (ESN), provides a convenient means for staff to share knowledge in informal settings and arrangements. ESN can be used to support a knowledge management technique known as communities of practice (CoP), and the use of ESN and CoP for organisational knowledge sharing is the subject of increasing interest and research as awareness of the potential benefit for organisations grows. Action research (AR) is seen as a suitable approach for studies in this field where ESN are implemented in organisations and the results can be observed and analysed, leading to further change. However, given the people-centric nature of these systems, AR in this area presents considerable ethical dilemmas; brought about by the nature of AR itself and its associated research methods, and the nature of use of the ESN tools themselves. This paper addresses how these ethical issues might be dealt with in the course of an AR study that examines how ESN can enable staff knowledge sharing in virtual CoP (vCoP) in a higher education context.

Theoretical Base

Knowledge sharing by staff in organisations has long been recognised has having a significant role to play in the development of the intellectual capital and the competitive advantage of organisations (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2013). ESN is the application of social media tools within the workplaces of organisations to facilitate work-related communication and collaboration. CoP are described by Wenger and Snyder (2000) as groups of individuals linked together by their enthusiasm for sharing and expanding their knowledge, typically in informal settings and arrangements. The combination of these has the potential to help integrate knowledge management practices into higher education institutions; the lack of which is seen as somewhat of a paradox, given the knowledge intensive nature of these organisations (Fullwood et al., 2013).

In examining how ESN can enable staff knowledge sharing in vCoP in higher education, this AR study is presented with a number of ethical issues, and there are certain aspects of the project and the methods used that require careful ethical consideration. AR involves the active participation of the researcher and seeks to bring about change within the organisation in which it is conducted. According to Baskerville and Myers (2004), the goal of AR is to solve existing practical problems while generating scientific knowledge at the same time. It is about creating organizational change and simultaneously studying the process.

Rapoport (1970) identified ethical issues arising from the researcher’s personal over-involvement with the research as one of the main dilemmas with AR and places particular emphasis on the development of a mutually acceptable ethical framework. Indeed, Mumford (2001) stresses that an important aspect of beginning AR is “to ensure that both the researcher and all contacts in the company have a clear, specific and agreed knowledge of what is to take place”, and there should be no ambiguity or uncertainty. According to Koshy et al. (2010), following strict guidelines on ethical issues is of particular importance for action researchers because of the small-scale nature of the projects located within the working situations of the researcher, and special care needs to be taken both for data collection and the dissemination of findings as it would be easy to recognise people and events within local situations.

According to Rowan (2000), performing AR ethically involves building relationships between the researcher and the research participants, whether they are individuals, groups or communities. In building these relationships, a number of ethical questions arise, mostly due to the understanding that AR is a political enterprise which has consequences for both the researcher and the participants. Researchers and participants have to work closely together, so others may know who participated and may be able to identify who said or contributed what, such that the preservation of confidentiality and anonymity may become an issue. An AR project influences change in organisations so, although the informed consent of participants is entirely necessary, it may not be clear as to exactly what they are consenting to. Change may be met with resistance and this may also present the researcher with difficulties. Williamson and Prosser (2002) point to the establishment of an ethical code for action researchers and extensive collaboration so that participants own the findings as much as the researcher, as ways of addressing these dilemmas. Coghlan and Brannick (2014) highlight the usefulness of journaling in coping with and exploring ethical issues in AR and pay particular attention to the reflective aspect of this practice.

The issues of confidentiality and anonymity extend to the research methods being used in the study which, in this case, are focus groups, semi-structured interviews and content analysis. In dealing with focus groups and interviews, participants must be given the opportunity to request that any of their comments be erased from transcripts (Barbour, 2008), and all data gathered using these methods should be completely anonymised before analysis. Content analysis may present other difficulties for the researcher in that informed consent for participation in focus groups and interviews tends to be clearly understood by participants, but this may not be the case with content analysis. According to Rourke et al. (2001), informed consent is the biggest ethical issue for content analysis research and may require the researcher to go to great lengths to obtain consent or strip non-participant postings.

The implementation of an ESN is a central component of the AR project and further ethical issues arise when considering the use of the ESN tools. It is important that the systems are supported by an acceptable use policy (AUP) to mitigate against any inappropriate or unsecure behaviour by users which may put the organization in danger of financial losses, reputational damage or litigation, and staff themselves in danger of disciplinary action or prosecution. According to Doherty et al. (2011), this is of particularly importance for knowledge-intensive organisations, such as higher education institutions, and advocate the use of formal AUPs as a mechanism to reduce inappropriate behaviours. AUPs serve to protect both the organisation and the users but must allow the achievement of intended outcomes without constricting the flexibility of ESN tools. Husin and Hanisch (2011) conclude that traditional development methods for AUPs are unsuitable for ESN and suggest a framework for the development of new AUPs for ESN that finds a balance between these requirements.

Implications

This paper explores the ethical issues surrounding the research and in doing so extends the limited understanding of the ethical implications of conducting AR studies in this field. The study findings will provide an opportunity for educationalists to better understand the scope and the impact of employing ESN platforms for knowledge sharing. An objective of the study is to develop a framework for the development of new AUPs for ESN as a vehicle to ensure a more positive outcome for the AR study.

References

Barbour, R. (2008) Doing Focus Groups, London, Sage.
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (2013) 'Building competitive advantage through people', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 2.
Baskerville, R. and Myers, M. D. (2004) 'Special Issue on action research in Informaton Systems: Making IS research relevant to practice foreword', Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, p. 2.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2014) Doing Action Research In Your Own Organization, London, Sage.
Doherty, N. F., Anastasakis, L. and Fulford, H. (2011) 'Reinforcing the security of corporate information resources: A critical review of the role of the acceptable use policy', International journal of information management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 201-209.
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J. and Delbridge, R. (2013) 'Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 123-136.
Husin, M. H. and Hanisch, J. Social media and organisation policy (someop): finding the perfect balance. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 2011 Helsinki.
Koshy, E., Koshy, V. and Waterman, H. (2010) Action Research in Healthcare, London, Sage.
Mumford, E. (2001) 'Advice for an action researcher', Information Technology & People, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 12-27.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rapoport, R. (1970) 'Three dilemmas of action research', Human Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 499-513.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. and Archer, W. (2001) 'Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts', International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), Vol. 12, No., pp. 8-22.
Rowan, J. (2000) 'Research ethics', International Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 103-111.
Wenger, E. C. and Snyder, W. M. (2000) 'Communities of practice: The organizational frontier', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 139-146.
Williamson, G. R. and Prosser, S. (2002) 'Action research: politics, ethics and participation', Journal of advanced nursing, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 587-593.

enterprise social networking, communities of practice, knowledge management, higher education, acceptable usage policies, research ethics [ view full abstract ]

enterprise social networking, communities of practice, knowledge management, higher education, acceptable usage policies, research ethics