Researching Inclusion in Platform-Based Technology Companies
My research began as a project on everyday discourse and inclusion in platform-based technology workplaces. It focused on how inclusion is negotiated in day-to-day professional settings of this industry, which develops and manages platforms that are increasingly influential for everyday life and social practices. Given this area of focus, it was crucial that I gain access to a company within this sector to assess everyday discourse in professional spaces.
Getting Access
In order to gain entry, I began attending networking events on inclusion in technology and pitching myself to people who worked at the companies I was targeting. While many people were kind and helpful, this approach did not lead to gaining access to a company. Instead, I gained access through online outreach. Here, over a period of several months, I reached out to companies “cold.” I prioritised reaching out to people who had an interest in and understanding of inclusion, as stated on their online profiles. In my experience, the best sources of online outreach were through email and LinkedIn. Even when I was reaching out via email, it was useful to include a link to my LinkedIn profile in the message. This allowed people to learn more about me and look into the organisations I am affiliated with. In other words, it helped to build trust.
Finding the “Right Fit” Company for Ethnographic Research
The process of reaching out to companies was a challenging one that involved a great deal of administrative work. Here, I had initial conversations with several companies. After some of these conversations it became clear that the relationship was not a fit, either from my perspective or the company’s. Eventually, I connected with someone from a company that was a good fit. I was in conversation with this company for several months prior to my fieldwork taking place. During these conversations, an important aspect of negotiating access involved discussions around the scope of my research. Studying a corporation means that in most cases you will either a) be restricted in the scope of the data you collect but retain data privacy, or b) conduct research with and for the company, and sharing your data with them. As is often the case with research, either route presents its own challenges and complexities. From an early stage, I made the decision to pursue option a) and to conduct a multi-sited fieldwork, which meant that the company I studied was not the sole site of my data collection. Thus, my data does not reflect solely on the company but instead on the broader context of my object of study, of which the company is only one aspect alongside large-scale conferences and industry events.
Finding the Right Methodological Approach
I used an inductive approach, which was an important aspect of my project theoretically and methodologically. This was also helpful in terms of gaining access as it meant that if I was asked to avoid collecting data in a particular setting, this was workable (i.e. it did not hinder my plans). An inductive approach was also useful because, as is often the case with ethnographic research, I did not know what I was going to find in the field, nor did I know which settings would be most pertinent to my topic. For instance, I initially thought that sitting among teams while they conducted day-to-day work would be one of the most important aspects of my data collection. While this did yield some interesting results, it was the meetings, training sessions and events that ended up being more relevant. Moreover, as part of my approach I conducted coding and thematic analysis during fieldwork, which provided me with a sense of which sites yielded themes that were most closely related to my topic. This meant that I was able to narrow my area of study while in the field, and further focus my data collection.
Insights Gained from Ethnographic Fieldwork within the Company Setting
The methodological approach I chose led to my current topic, which maintains my original focus on inclusion and discourse, and also assesses how individuals manage their emotions in professional settings of platform-based tech. During my fieldwork within and outside of the company I studied, multiple self-improvement discourses began to materialise as dominant themes in my data, both from the institutional settings I studied and among individuals. I began to assess in what ways the professionals I studied were exhorted to manage themselves and their emotions, and how they responded to these calls. I argue that in assessing the discourses drawn on in emotion management in professional settings, it is possible to understand a less known aspect of how power is reproduced, negotiated, and challenged in this powerful industry. Moreover, while multiple incredibly important studies focus on inclusion in terms of barriers faced by professionals working in tech, there are relatively few studies assessing subjectivity and emotion management within these spaces. This topic can reveal an understudied aspect of values within professional tech settings, which is significant considering that research has shown that the socially and historically situated values of those who imagine and build online products become embedded in online platforms themselves. My research also helps to expose the affective-emotional realm of North American tech culture, which has become influential within and beyond the sector. Thus, the ways in which companies, conferences and other professional settings compel the privileged people who work in this sector to understand their inner worlds offers important insights into the broader values of an increasingly influential industry, and of the society in which it is situated.
It is unlikely that I would have narrowed my focus in this way had I not had access to the company I studied. The many hours of fieldwork I was able to conduct, using an inductive approach, allowed me to let my research topic unfold in a way that spoke to the data I was collecting. In other words, being situated at a company for several months allowed me to let the data lead in terms of narrowing the topic, which was crucial for my study. Overall, my research project benefited immensely from the corporate fieldwork I conducted. Additionally, I was fortunate to have a supportive supervisory committee who all provided thoughtful insights and advice throughout the process.
Advice for Other PhD Researchers Studying Corporations
The most important piece of advice I have for PhD researchers interested in studying corporations is: be somewhat flexible. A company has a lot at stake when they let you in their doors, and gaining access to study it might mean that certain things about your research plan need to change. If the core question and focus area has to change, then that likely means it’s not the right fit, however, if for instance there are aspects of the scope or methods that the company wishes to restrict, I would argue that this is a conversation worth having. Another piece of advice might be to speak with as many people you can who have done research that’s similar to the kind you would like to pursue. In terms of methodological training, I highly recommend taking ethnography courses with Chana Teeger, which enabled me to grapple with anticipated issues in the field. Finally, be prepared to feel a bit lonely while in the field. Having the positionality of a researcher means that even when participating in “social” time with participants, you are still at work with ethical obligations to the people and sites you are studying. This is hardly a relaxing social context, and often exhausting, but I did find it to be incredibly rewarding in the end. Take good care of yourself while in the field, and best of luck!