NEGOTIATING ACCESS INTO FIRMS: OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES

NEGOTIATIING ACCESS INTO FIRMS: OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES

Samuel Laryea, University of Reading, Reading, UK (s.laryea@reading.ac.uk)
Will Hughes, University of Reading, Reading, UK (w.p.hughes@reading.ac.uk)


REFERENCE
Laryea, S. and Hughes, W. (2011) Negotiating access into firms: obstacles and strategies, In: Procs 6th Nordic conference on construction economics and organisation, 13-16 April 2011, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 577-586.

ABSTRACT
Researchers often experience difficulties with the negotiation of access into firms for the purpose of data collection. The question we explore is: What are the main obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and what strategies do researchers employ to increase their chances of success? Our research work on the tendering process of contractors took place between 2006 and 2008. We successfully negotiated access into four firms (two each in Ghana and the UK) to observe live examples of tender preparation The techniques we employed in negotiating access were personal contacts, contacting firms through online details and professional institutions, etc. With all of this effort, our average success rate was less than 5 per cent. The main obstacles encountered were firms’ reluctance because of commercial sensitiveness and fear that the data could eventually be divulged to their competitors or end up in the public domain. However, some firms agreed mainly because of the written assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in reporting the study; reputation of the researchers’ academic institution; gatekeepers who spoke to their colleagues on our behalf; academic purpose of the study; and a feedback report which was promised in return for access to the case studies. Although the access through personal contacts is by far the easiest, it is not always possible. Researchers can approach firms as complete strangers, especially in a foreign country, and that could make the firms more likely to assist the research.

KEYWORDS: access negotiation, data collection, Ghana, observation, UK

INTRODUCTION
Researchers often experience difficulties with the negotiation of access into organisations for the purpose of data collection (as explained by Buchanan et al. in Bryman 1988). This is particularly common when the data required is sensitive in nature (Koosimile, 2002). Between 2006 and 2008, we successfully negotiated access into four firms (two each in Ghana and the UK) to observe live examples of tender preparation. The aim here is to discuss our access negotiation experiences. We explore the obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and the strategies used by researchers, here and elsewhere in the literature, to increase the chances of success.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of the literature revealed seven main points in relation to access negotiation obstacles and strategies. First, there are multiple layers of access negotiation into firms. Second, gatekeepers can be both advantageous and disadvantageous (Clark, 2010). Third, more than one technique often needs to be used to negotiate access. Fourth, a significant amount of sensitivity and skills is required in access negotiation. Fifth, personal contacts are useful but it is not always possible. Sixth, the main strategies for negotiating access in most cases are gatekeepers, making a good first contact, personal contacts, highlighting benefits to participants, and physical follow-ups. Seventh, the main obstacles to negotiating access into firms are layers of gatekeepers to overcome, ethics, confidentiality, informed consent, lack of personal contacts, micropolitics in organisations, suspicion and bureaucratic formalities.

NEGOTIATING ACCESS INTO FOUR FIRMS
The four firms involved in the study are hereafter referred to as Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta. Alpha and Beta are construction firms in Ghana. Gamma and Delta are construction firms in the UK.
The research interest here was the bidding process of contractors, which involves commercially sensitive information including prices and competitors. Past studies of contractors in the UK, for example Skitmore and Wilcock (1994: 142) had showed that gaining access to commercially sensitive information of contractors is difficult. Therefore, one access negotiation strategy was to use personal contacts and gatekeepers.
A number of our industry contacts provided assistance with our access negotiations. One of them suggested that the lead researcher should mention the fact that he was carrying out the research work as a foreigner in the country of study. According to him “…this will make the recipients more likely to assist your research”. We found the advice to be in contrast with suggestions in the literature, which stated that the use of personal contacts would make firms more willing to assist the research. Ultimately, two of the case study firms were firms where we had no personal contacts at all.
The contractors who agreed to our access request mainly did so because of the influential role of the gatekeepers who spoke to their colleagues on our behalf; the academic purpose of the study; the written assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in reporting the study; and a feedback report which was promised in return for access to the case studies. It was also mentioned in the letter that the researcher’s professional background as a Quantity Surveyor could enable him to provide an extra pair of hands to the bid team for some routine tasks.
It was difficult to secure access into the four firms. A wide range of ideas and skills had to be used. Each contractor was clearly concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the data involved. The access gained into Alpha (Ghana) was achieved with the help of personal contacts in the firm. The access gained into Beta (Ghana) was also achieved with the help of personal contacts in the firm. In both cases, the contacts held high positions in the firms. The access gained into Gamma (UK) was achieved without the help of personal contacts. The contact detail of the gatekeeper was provided to us by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. The access gained into Delta (UK) was also achieved without personal contacts. Lists of contact details found on the website of firms were approached. Out of 87 firms contacted only one of them responded by providing a case study opportunity.

DISCUSSION
Five points are discussed. First, the main factor that facilitated access negotiation in Alpha and Beta was the use of personal contacts. Personal contacts facilitated the access negotiation process greatly which confirms assertions in Matthiesen and Richter (2007) and Winkler (1987). Second, time taken to negotiate access was longer in the case of Gamma and Delta. Third, access negotiation success rate varied in the four cases. The main concern for most contractors was not intrusion (as suggested in Gill and Johnson, 2010) but commercial sensitiveness of the information involved (as suggested in Skitmore and Wilcock, 1994). Fourth, one of the incentives to Gamma and Delta was the feedback report that was promised in return for the access to case studies. Fifth, the frustration encountered in the access negotiation processes is not unique to this study. Similar situations of frustration have been encountered by other researchers offer suggestions for dealing with frustration and fatigue issues in research.

CONCLUSIONS
The question explored was: What are the main obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and what strategies do researchers, here and elsewhere in the literature, employ to increase the chances of success? We successfully negotiated access into four firms between 2006 and 2008 to observe live examples of tender preparation. The techniques we employed in negotiating access were personal contacts, contacting firms through online details and professional institutions, etc. With all of this effort, our success rate was less than 5 per cent. The main obstacles encountered were firms’ reluctance because of commercial sensitiveness and fear that the data could eventually be divulged to their competitors or end up in the public domain. Although the access through personal contacts is by far the easiest, it is not always possible. Contrary to assertions in the literature, researchers can approach firms as complete strangers, especially in a foreign country, and that could make the firms more likely to assist the research.

REFERENCES
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D. and McCalman, J. (1988) Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back. In A. Bryman (Ed.) Doing research in organizations, London: Routledge
Clark, T. (2010) Gaining and Maintaining Access Exploring the Mechanisms that Support and Challenge the Relationship between Gatekeepers and Researchers, Qualitative Social Work, published online 6 April 2010
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, 4ed, London: Sage
Koosimile, A.T. (2002) Access negotiation and curriculum change: Lessons from Botswana, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 205-223
Matthiesen, J.K. and Richter, A.W. (2007) Negotiating access: Foot in the door… or door in the face, The Psychologist, 20(3), 144-147
Skitmore, M. and Wilcock, J. (1994) Estimating processes of smaller builders, Construction Management and Economics, 12, 139-154
Winkler, J. T. (1987) The fly on the wall of the inner sanctum: observing company directors at work, In: Moyser, G. and Wagstaffe, M. (Eds), Research methods for elite studies