If board members have an obligation not to criticize their organization in an academic paper, then they should also have an obligation not to discuss anything related to their organization in an academic paper. The ability to be honest is important, and if a researcher can’t say anything critical about an organization, then non-critical things they say about it lose credibility.
“anything related to”, depending how it’s interpreted, might be overly broad, but something like this seems like a necessary implication, yes. Is that a bad thing?
If board members have an obligation not to criticize their organization in an academic paper, then they should also have an obligation not to discuss anything related to their organization in an academic paper. The ability to be honest is important, and if a researcher can’t say anything critical about an organization, then non-critical things they say about it lose credibility.
“anything related to”, depending how it’s interpreted, might be overly broad, but something like this seems like a necessary implication, yes. Is that a bad thing?