19
on the condition that the research ’not be published’. This bar on the reporting on and
dissemination of the data ultimately led to a requirement that the researcher was
required to seek written clarification from the military authorities in order to have the
work examined by the university. This placed the researcher in an invidious and
vulnerable position given that much of the data and conclusions were critical of the
military authorities.
Having said that, the Chief of Staff provided this clarification without hesitation. It is
testimony to his professionalism that he should endorse the publication of research
that could be constructed by the military authorities as critical and ’sensitive’. In this
regard, I was fortunate to have the backing of a powerful sponsor. Would-be
researchers into secretive or sensitive areas should take cognisance of this factor.
For third level institutions, I would advocate an approach to ’non traditional’
researchers that is sensitive to their personal circumstances and the reality of their
working lives. In this regard, the vast majority of literature on research methodology
concentrates on the paradigm of the researcher residing in the academic setting,
visiting the ’field’ to gather data and returning to the safe haven of the academic
setting to write up findings. The reality for this researcher was more complex and
difficult. I found that the literature did not adequately cover the problem of
workplace secrecy and sensitivity for the ’reflective practitioner’. The paradigm of the
researcher living and residing in the setting ought to be given more attention in the
literature and more consideration by third level institutions.
Convention