Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research

Abstract

Accessing research participants within some social institutions for research purposes may involve a simple single administrative event. However, accessing some institutions to conduct research on their data, personnel, clients or service users can be quite complex. Research ethics committee chairpersons frequently field questions from researchers wanting to know when and why gatekeeper permission should be sought. This article examines the role and influence of gatekeepers in formal and organisational settings and explores pragmatic methods to improve understanding and facilitation of this process. Conscientious and well-informed negotiations with gatekeepers are required in order to honour the ethical obligations to conduct appropriate stakeholder engagement before and during research, along with respect for the autonomy of institutions and their employees/clients/service recipients. Provision must be made to identify explicit and implicit gatekeepers to initiate and build collaborative networks that could best support the research process. Careful mutually respectful access agreements which consider the needs and vulnerabilities of both the gatekeeper and the researcher can improve the quality of the scientific data collected. Strategic planning in the research process must take these sometimes complex processes of gatekeeper permission into careful account.

“Hard to reach, but not out of reach”: Barriers and facilitators to recruiting Black African and Black Caribbean men with prostate cancer and their partners into qualitative research

“…Whilst acknowledging the autonomous power of gatekeepers at support groups and religious organisations to either hinder or promote access to their members or contacts (Singh & Wassenaar, ), there is need to also consider how this may possibly impact on the voluntary rights of potential participants to personally decide their participation or otherwise in a research study (Mamotte & Wassenaar, ; Wanat, ). Experience with participants in this study suggests that they may be willing to participate in research studies if they are asked, as many of them seemed to view their participation as a way of “helping others.” Although the researcher offered to volunteer at one of the support groups approached and all the support groups were also told they would be provided with summary of research findings as an “incentive” for their cooperation (Singh & Wassenaar, ), this strategy remained unsuccessful for the current study.…”

“…Hence such men did not give their partners the opportunity to make their own informed decision to participate or not. Whilst acknowledging the autonomous power of gatekeepers at support groups and religious organisations to either hinder or promote access to their members or contacts (Singh & Wassenaar, 2016), there is need to also consider how this may possibly impact on the voluntary rights of potential participants to personally decide their participation or otherwise in a research study (Mamotte & Wassenaar, 2017;Wanat, 2008). Experience with participants in this study suggests that they may be willing to participate in research studies if they are asked, as many of them seemed to view their participation as a way of "helping others."…”

“…Experience with participants in this study suggests that they may be willing to participate in research studies if they are asked, as many of them seemed to view their participation as a way of "helping others." Although the researcher offered to volunteer at one of the support groups approached and all the support groups were also told they would be provided with summary of research findings as an "incentive" for their cooperation (Singh & Wassenaar, 2016), this strategy remained unsuccessful for the current study.…”

Defining and Negotiating the Social Value of Research in Public Health Facilities: Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Research‐Active Province of South Africa

“…DoH managers control access by researchers to provincial health facilities and are among those stakeholders who are likely to use the results of research. 31 Varying notions of ‘valuable’ research in provincial health facilities emerged as a key theme, as reported and discussed below.…”

Strengthening stakeholder engagement through ethics review in biomedicalHIVprevention trials: opportunities and complexities

“…For example, application forms for initial review should have questions that will "trigger" researchers to describe their engagement practices in a way that is 'broad and inclusive' (e.g. more than permission from "institutional gatekeepers") [31]. Renewal forms (progress reports) should enable researchers to describe progress in the preceding year, to promote 'sustained' engagement.…”