“It’s a case of access.” The problematics of accessing research participants

Amundsen, Diana Leigh; Msoroka, Mohamed Salum; Findsen, Brian

doi:10.15663/wje.v22i4.425

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both ventures, seeking and conducting ethical research presented challenges for the researchers. ‘A research plan may be approved as ethical but may not prove to be practical when the researcher tries to enact it, thus necessitating modification and in some cases, going beyond orthodox methods’ (Amundsen et al, 2017: 10).…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity

Msoroka

Amundsen

2017

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For researchers in Aotearoa New Zealand who intend to conduct research with people, it is common practice to first ensure that their proposals are approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). HRECs take the role of reviewing, approving or rejecting research proposals and deciding on whether the intended research will be completed in the 'right', rather than the 'wrong' way. Such decisions are based upon a system which is guided by universal ethical principles-principles that assume there is universal agreement about the ethically right way to conduct research. Increasingly, Aotearoa New Zealand is becoming more culturally diverse. Actions that are assumed as 'right' in reference to ethical norms endorsed in one culture or society may not always be considered 'right' in reference to ethical norms in another culture or society. In this article we first set out what is already known in the literature about the origins and applications of universal ethics in a research context. Next, we analyse how cultural values and beliefs bear influence on the process of ethical deliberation. Two case studies illustrate our own examples of how conducting ethical research projects following universal principles with cultural diversity operated in practice. We conclude that one size fits not quite all. Lastly, we propose that Aotearoa New Zealand HRECs may need to consider expanding their approach from universal ethical principles to include a more diverse interpretation of what is 'ethical research conduct'. Rather than advocating a radical approach, i.e. either universality or diversity, it is time for HRECs to

show abstract

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1. Highly restricted organisations, isolated from the rest of the world, and operate with structured daily routines; See Goffman (1962) and Amundsen, Msoroka, & Findsen (2017). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity

Msoroka

Amundsen

2017

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a number of efforts were made, as outlined later in this paper, to lessen the distance between researcher and respondents, the positionality of the researcher, as a white male from South Africa, shaped the way in which both gatekeepers and respondents responded to and understood the study. Current critical qualitative methodological literature has reflected at length on the insider-outsider dynamic that exists between researchers and their subjects, as well as the positionalities, roles, assumptions and biases that this entails (Amundsen et al, 2017;Crossley et al, 2015;Greene, 2014;Sunal and Mutua, 2008). Greene (2014), for instance, cautions that outsider researchers can face difficulties when seeking access to particular groups, and may not ever find acceptance into certain spaces.…”

Section: The N13 Highway Rehabilitation Programmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gatekeepers can facilitate or hinder the research process, acting as constraints or conduits to access during fieldwork ( Johnston, 1994). The importance of researcher-gatekeeper relations in negotiating access to the field is highlighted in both foundational and methodological literature (Clark, 2011;Dowler, 2001;Frankel and Devers, 2000;Limb and Dwyer, 2001;Merriam, 2009;Singh and Wassenaar, 2016;Valentine, 2001), as well as in more recent reflections on empirical investigations (Amundsen et al, 2017;Andoh-Arthur et al, 2018;Koen et al, 2017;Lund et al, 2016;McFadyen and Rankin, 2017;Nelson, 2013;Reeves, 2010;Sanghera and Thapar-Björkert, 2008;Turner, 2013). However, as Campbell et al (2006) note, the majority of studies focus on the "entry stage" of fieldwork, on building gatekeeper relationships before entering the field or in the early stages of entering the field, while offering little guidance to researchers for navigating or maintaining potentially fluid relationships throughout the entirety of the research process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“You have to say everything is nice here”

Kalina

Scott

2019

QRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the author’s research experiences in northern Mozambique in order explore the multiplicity of gatekeeper relations that arose while seeking to arrange access to both “the field” and respondents, as well as the impacts that these relationships had on the research process. Although this dynamic has been thoroughly described within methodological literature, there exists a tendency to presume research–gatekeeper relations as static; once established, there is little discussion on how the relationships develop or can be managed, once access has (or has not) been achieved. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon qualitative fieldwork conducted predominantly in rural communities in northern Mozambique. The study analysed the development of the Nacala Development Corridor programme and the N13 Highway Rehabilitation Project in northern Mozambique in order to examine the impacts of the development on local citizens and examine the relationship between citizen and state within development processes. Fieldwork consisted of three different phases of semi-structured and open-ended interviews with key stakeholders and affected persons, spanning five different interview schedules, and a total of 77 individual interviews and 27 community focus groups conducted along the N13. Findings The study found that duality of Mozambican governance which includes both local officials and traditional leadership contributed to a multiplicity of local gatekeepers which impacted the research process in a multitude of ways. As a result, researcher–gatekeeper relations were not static, but had to be managed throughout the duration of the study. Originality/value This discussion provides a more dynamic representation of the challenges involved with establishing and managing gatekeeper relations in rural, developing, and in particular, southern African, contexts, while offering cautious practical advice to researchers working within rural or southern African contexts.

show abstract

“…Each author each had experienced research engagement within their own disciplines before embarking on this study and had previously experienced being part of collaborative research processes. For instance, Diana Amundsen had collaborated and co-authored on a research ethics project related to the problematics of accessing research sites and participants (see Amundsen, Msoroka, & Findsen, 2017); Nadine Ballam had been involved in a multi-country international research project spanning four years pertaining to the pedagogies of educational transitions (see Ballam, Peters, & Paki, 2017); and Marg Cosgriff had been a research collaborator in the 'Everybody counts? Reimagining health and physical education in the primary school' study, a Teaching Learning Research Initiative-funded project (see Petrie, Cosgriff, & Burrows, 2013;Petrie, Burrows, & Cosgriff, 2014).…”

Section: Researcher Positionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The ABCs of Collaboration in Academia

Amundsen

Ballam

Cosgriff

2019

WJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The occurrence of research collaboration among multiple researchers is becoming more widespread within the academic research community. Research collaboration endeavours offer many benefits yet are not without challenges. This think piece draws on our lived experiences as educators and university researchers to evaluate a research collaboration journey. The process prompted us to deeply question and critically reflect on what enables and supports research collaboration in academic research partnerships. We undertook a critical reflective-in-action study collecting and analysing data for a period of 15 months. We uncovered three elements we propose are integral to supporting effective research collaboration practice and outcomes in academia. These are Acknowledging the Affective, Becoming Bolder, and Cultivating Creativity in what we term, the ‘ABCs of collaboration in academia.

show abstract

“It’s a case of access.” The problematics of accessing research participants

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity

One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity

“You have to say everything is nice here”

The ABCs of Collaboration in Academia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About