3.7 Role of the Researcher This research is a qualitative and quantitative study. In the qualitative aspect, as the researcher, my role is not to influence the participants of the survey when filling questionnaires. They will convey their independent ideas through the questionnaires. In the quantitative aspect, the research is considered as an “Instrument” in data collection (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Here, quantitative data are mediated through the “human instrument”. Therefore, the qualitative researcher needs to describe relevant aspects of self, including any biases and assumptions, any expectations, and experience to qualify his or her ability to conduct the research (Greenbank, 2003). As an employee in apparel industry, who works in the same company as an executive from which the collect data was and as a MBA student, capability of controlling the human instrument to collect data and analyze them quantitatively without any biases was achieved to a significant level.3.8 Validity of the researchValidity determines whether the research truly measures which it intended to measure or how truthful the research results are (Joppe, 2000). In this research, validity was determined by asking a series of questions, and often looked for the answers in the research of others aligned with the objectives of the research. Since these results were collected from actual executive grade employees engaged in fabric manufacturing who utilize nanotechnology, their answers on perception can be considered as valid answers.3.9 Reliability of the researchJoppe (2000) defines reliability as the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable. In this research, the representative sample was taken using Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table out of the executive grade employees of MAS Fabrics (pvt) Ltd who engage in fabric manufacturing and the methodology was to analyse hypothesis on perception using a conceptual model with a questioner. Therefore, it can be reproduced and can be considered as a reliable study.3.10 Generalizability of the researchGeneralisability can be defined as the extension of research findings and conclusions from a study conducted on a sample population to the population at large. The sample of my research was executive grade employees engage in fabric manufacturing at MAS Fabrics (pvt) Ltd. Population at large can be defined as all executive grade employees engaged in fabric manufacturing in all organizations including the likes of Brandix, Ocean Lanka and Hirdaramani. Since all are in apparel industry and MAS Fabrics has the highest percentage of nanotechnology utilization in fabric manufacturing, a valid assumption can be made that this research on perception can be generalised to all of above mentioned fabric manufacturing organizations.3.11 Ethics of the researchThis research can be considered as ethical due to following reasons. No plagiarism was involved in this research. Minors, disabled people or victims were not involved in this research to collect data. The outcome of this research did not cause any negative effect on any of the parties inside or outside the organization. The sensitivity about the topic was maintained throughout the research. This research has no negative implications towards the operations of any organization. It was emphasized to the organization that this work was designed to identify individual and organisational learning in relation to the topic (a positive inference). No requests were sent that appears to concentrate on aspects associated with non-achievement or failure of the organization when collected the data. The requests for data access were therefore more favourably considered to outline a research topic that did not appear to be sensitive to the organization. confidentiality of the data that provided and the anonymity of the organization or individual participants were protected throughout the research. Clear assurances of all aspects of the research like internal data, participants names and their filled questionnaires were provided to the participants and the organization. The language of the questionnaire was without any hint of being patronising, threatening or just boring to avoid any bias. Integrity and objectivity of the researcher was adhered. This means acted openly, being truthful and promoted accuracy throughout the research. Conversely it also meant avoiding deception, dishonesty, misrepresentation (of data and findings etc), partiality, reckless commitments or disingenuous promises. The conduct of research entailed social responsibility and obligations to those who participated in or at affected by it. The rights of all persons were recognised and their dignity respected throughout the research. Any harm to participants was avoided. Harms may have been occurred through risks to emotional wellbeing, mental or physical health, or social or group cohesion. It may take a number of forms including embarrassment, stress, discomfort, pain or conflict. It may be caused by using a research method in an intrusive or zealous way that involves mental or social pressure causing anxiety or stress. It may also be caused by violating assurances about confidentiality and anonymity, or through harassment or discrimination. All these circumstances were avoided throughout the research to conduct a harmless research. The right not to participate in a research project was not challenged. This was accompanied by the right not to be harassed to participate which was protected. No attempts were made to extend the scope of participation beyond that freely given. Those taken part were given the freedom to choose how they would like to participate in the data collection process, including rights: not to answer any question, or set of questions; not to provide any data requested; to modify the nature of their consent; to withdraw from participation; and withdraw data they have provided. Sufficient information was provided and assurances about taking part were given to individuals to allow to understand the implications of participation and to reach a fully informed, considered and freely given decision about whether or not to do so, without the exercise of any pressure or coercion. This lead to protect the right of those taking part to expect the researcher to abide by the extent of the consent given and not to find that the researcher wishes to widen the scope of the research without first seeking and obtaining permission, or to commit any subsequent breach of the consent given. Individuals remained anonymous and the data they provide were processed to make it non-attributable, unless there is an explicit agreement to attribute comments. Reliability of data was also enhanced where confidentiality and anonymity were assured. This principle lead to the right to expect assurances about anonymity and confidentiality to be observed strictly. Assurances about privacy, anonymity and confidentiality were upheld when analysed and reported data. Primary data were made up and results were not falsified. Findings were reported fully and accurately, irrespective of whether they contradicted expected outcomes. Analyses and the interpretations that follow from these were checked carefully and corrections were made to ensure the accuracy of the research report and any other outcome. No personal data were involved in this research like age, gender or marriage. The safety of researcher also ensured without no physical threat, abuse or risk of psychological trauma.