RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

SAMPLING AND ACCESS 123
forethought in their planning. Investigators have
to be adroit in anticipating problems of access, and
set up their studies in ways that circumvent such
problems, preventing them from arising in the
first place, e.g. by exploring their own institutions
or personal situations, even if this compromises
generalizability. Such anticipatory behaviour can
lead to a glut of case studies, action research and
accounts of their own institutions, as these are the
only kinds of research possible, given the problem
of access.
Gatekeepers
Access might be gained through gatekeepers, that
is, those who control access. Lee (1993: 123)
suggests that ‘social access crucially depends on
establishing interpersonal trust. Gatekeepersplaya
significant role in research, particularly in ethnographic
research (Miller and Bell 2002: 53). They
control access and re-access (Miller and Bell
2002: 55). They may provide or block access;
they may steer the course of a piece of research,
‘shepherding the fieldworker in one direction or
another’ (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 65), or
exercise surveillance over the research.
Gatekeepers may wish to avoid, contain, spread
or control risk and therefore may bar access
or make access conditional. Making research
conditional may require researchers to change
the nature of their original plans in terms of
methodology, sampling, focus, dissemination,
reliability and validity, reporting and control of
data (Morrison 2006).
Morrison (2006) found that in conducting
sensitive educational research there were problems
of
gaining access to schools and teachers
gaining permission to conduct the research
(e.g. from school principals)
resentment by principals
people vetting which data could be used
finding enough willing participants for the
sample
schools/institutions/people not wishing to
divulge information about themselves
schools/institutions not wishing to be identifiable,
even with protections guaranteed
local political factors that impinge on the
school/educational institution
teachers’/participants’ fear of being identified/traceable,
even with protections guaranteed
fear of participation by teachers (e.g. if they
say critical matters about the school or others
they could lose their contracts)
unwillingness of teachers to be involved
because of their workload
the principal deciding on whether to involve
the staff, without consultation with the staff
schools’ fear of criticism/loss of face or
reputation
the sensitivity of the research – the issues being
investigated
the power/position of the researcher (e.g. if the
researcher is a junior or senior member of staff
or an influential person in education).
Risk reduction may result in participants
imposing conditions on research (e.g. on what
information investigators may or may not use; to
whom the data can be shown; what is ‘public’;
what is ‘off the record’ (and what should be
done with off-the-record remarks). It may also
lead to surveillance/‘chaperoning’ of the researcher
while the study is being conducted on site (Lee
1993: 125).
Gatekeepers may want to ‘inspect, modify or
suppress the published products of the research’
(Lee 1993: 128). They may also wish to use the
research for their own ends, i.e. their involvement
may not be selfless or disinterested, or they may
wish for something in return, e.g. for the researcher
to include in the study an area of interest to the
gatekeeper, or to report directly – and maybe exclusively
– to the gatekeeper. The researcher has to
negotiate a potential minefield here, for example,
not to be seen as an informer for the headteacher.
As Walford (2001: 45) writes: ‘headteachers [may]
suggest that researchers observe certain teachers
whom they want information about’. Researchers
may need to reassure participants that their data
will not be given to the headteacher.
Chapter 5