RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

180 NATURALISTIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
A related issue is the timing of the point
of entry, so that researchers can commence the
research at appropriate junctures (e.g. before the
start of a programme, at the start of a programme,
during a programme, at the end of a programme,
after the end of a programme). The issue goes
further than this, for the ethnographer will need
to ensure acceptance into the group, which will
be a matter of dress, demeanour, persona, age,
colour, ethnicity, empathy and identification with
the group, language, accent, argot and jargon,
willingness to become involved and to take on the
group’s values and behaviour etc. (see Patrick’s
(1973) fascinating study of a Glasgow gang). The
researcher, then, has to be aware of the significance
of ‘impression management’ (Hammersley and
Atkinson 1983: 78 ff.). In covert research these
factors take on added significance, as one slip
could blow one’s cover (Patrick 1973).
Lofland (1971) suggests that the field researcher
should attempt to adopt the role of the ‘acceptable
incompetent’, balancing intrusion with knowing
when to remain apart. Such balancing is
an ongoing process. Hammersley and Atkinson
(1983: 97–9) suggest that researchers have to
handle the management of ‘marginality’: they are
in the organization but not of it. They comment
that ‘the ethnographer must be intellectually
poised between ‘‘familiarity’’ and ‘‘strangeness’’,
while socially he or she is poised between
‘‘stranger’’ and ‘‘friend’’.’ They also comment
that this management of several roles, not least
the management of marginality, can engender ‘a
continual sense of insecurity’ (Hammersley and
Atkinson 1983: 100).
Gaining access and entry, as we argue in
Chapter 5, should be regarded as a process
(Walford 2001: 31) that unfolds over time, rather
than a once and for all matter. Walford charts
the several setbacks, delays and modifications that
occur and have to be expected in gaining entry to
qualitative research sites.
Stage 5: Finding informants
Finding informants involves identifying those
people who have the knowledge about the society
or group being studied. This places researchers in
adifficultposition,fortheyhavetobeableto
evaluate key informants, to decide:
whose accounts are more important than others
which informants are competent to pass
comments
which are reliable
what the statuses of the informants are
how representative are the key informants (of
the range of people, of issues, of situations, of
views, of status, of roles, of the group)
how to see the informants in different settings
how knowledgeable informants actually are –
do they have intimate and expert understanding
of the situation
how central to the organization or situation
the informant is (e.g. marginal or central)
how to meet and select informants
how critical the informants are as gatekeepers
to other informants, opening up or restricting
entry to people (Hammersley and Atkinson
1983: 73)
the relationship between the informant and
others in the group or situation being studied.
Selecting informants and engaging with them
is problematical; LeCompte and Preissle (1993:
95), for example, suggest that the first informants
that an ethnographer meets might be self-selected
people who are marginal to the group, have a low
status, and who, therefore, might be seeking to
enhance their own prestige by being involved with
the research. Indeed, Lincoln and Guba (1985:
252) argue that the researcher must be careful to
use informants rather than informers, the latter
possibly having ‘an axe to grind’. Researchers who
are working with gatekeepers, they argue, will be
engaged in a constant process of bargaining and
negotiation.
A‘good’informant,Morse(1994:228)declares,
is one who has the necessary knowledge,
information and experience of the issue being
researched, is capable of reflecting on that
knowledge and experience, has time to be involved
in the project, is willing to be involved in the
project, and, indeed, can provide access to other
informants. An informant who fulfils all of these