I am writing a paper analysing various organisations that I need to de-identify.
For my analysis I need to cite three types of sources:
Publicly available published works that identify the organisations (e.g. reports by the organisation, peer reviewed works that assess the performance of the organisation, etc)
Interviews I have conducted with the organisations where I need to de-identify the organisations.
Personal correspondence (emails) with the organisations where I need to de-identify the organisations.
For the sake of explanation, lets pretend that "Organisation A" is Google (in actuality this report has nothing to do with Google). I have undertaken an interview with Google (that needs to be de-identified per ethics approval), had personal correspondence by email with Google (that needs to be de-identified) and also I want to cite public reports Google has published.
When combining these three types of sources I end up writing sentences like this:
"Organisation A performed well against validity metrics (interview with Organisation A), sufficiently against accuracy metrics (personal correspondence with Organisation A) but poorly against correctness metrics (Google et al., 2020).
Problems with that include:
When I am analysing publicly available sources alongside interviews I essentially re-identify the organisation. It is obvious in the above sentence that Organisation A is Google.
These sentences are really ugly with all the interjections of "(personal correspondence with Organisation A, 2021)" and "(interview with Organisation A, 2021)".
How should I deal with citing these three types of sources without re-identifying organisations?
Is there a citation style that will make this less ugly? Maybe something where personal correspondence and interviews can be references with a superscript or similar? At the moment I am using Vancouver and I don't think it is the best choice.
Thank you kindly for your assistance.
Edit: clarification - even though I know that it is not necessary to reference your own interviews in the text of your study (i.e. interviews that have been undertaken pursuant to a description in the methods section), I would still like to find a notation style that allows me to intermingle interviews, personal correspondence and public documents in a way that is visually clean but also shows where information has come from (i.e. not ugly in the way I have described above). This issue is almost separate and apart from the issue of deidentifying sources.