7/30/2019 Gaining Access to the Field of Research

1/4

Gaining Access to the Field of Research

First Level Gatekeepers

I was sitting with a great proposal but in order to turn this into a reality I had to gainaccess to the field of study. The study took place across two Local Education

Authorities (LEAs) in Central Scotland. As an employee of LEA 1, I was able to use

my insider position by emailing the Director of Education through the internal mail

system with my proposal. However, in LEA 2, where I was not an employee, I had to

write to the Director of Education. The Director responded by sending me a standard

pro forma for research within that particular LEA and on completion access was

granted. In LEA 1, I set about seeking access to the instiutions where I could possibly

carry out my research. I did this in consultation with my own Head Teacher who

knew the schools and their politics. I also consulted the Speech and Language

Therapist who had an overview of the distribution of the autism population within the

authority.

The Head Teacher was the gatekeeper in each school and was in control of access to

the institution and its community members including the groups I was interested in

this included children, teachers, support staff and parents. In LEA 1, I was grateful

that my Head Teacher wrote a cover letter to go with my letter and let me use the

LEA headed note paper and internal mail system to give it more credibility. Of the 8

schools that I wrote to within LEA 1, two accepted the invitation to take part in the

research and invited me in for an initial meeting that made three in total within this

authority including my own school. One of the schools passed this responsibility to

the Deputy Head and subsequently the Principal Teacher when she wasnt in school to

act as the gatekeeper. It was all of these Head Teachers at the initial stage that

dictated my sample and which voices would be heard in LEA 1. The gatekeepers

were very accommodating in helping me to gain access to the sites of research.

Ironically, the most challenging part was working around my own teaching

commitments and each institutions commitments. Interestingly, I found my own

institution the most challenging to work within this will be explored in greater depth

later. In LEA 2, I was fortunate enough to have had a verbal agreement from a Head

Teacher (a fellow EdD student) prior to contacting the Director. Following

permission from LEA 2 I sent a formal letter to this Head Teacher to formalise the

arrangement and start the process of gaining access to a potential sample.

Second Level Gatekeepers

Parents

A big challenge in the planning stage was how to approach parents in my own

institution as I was attached to the Support Base for pupils identified as being on the

autism spectrum. I was conscious that any invitation for participation in research for

mainstream pupils who were not on the autism spectrum may be met by suspicion

from their parents/carers due to my remit in the school. Given that pupils on theautism spectrum were also being invited to take part, I wanted to avoid the possibility

7/30/2019 Gaining Access to the Field of Research

2/4

that parents thought I had invited their child to take part because I thought they were

on the autism spectrum which was not the case at all. My way around this dilemma

was to position the study as a general study on pupil voice with one aspect of it

looking specifically at the voices of those on the autism spectrum. This resulted in me

creating two separate letters, one for the pupil who were identified as being on the

autism spectrum and one for those who were not (see appendix for comparison). Thisserved the purpose of letting all parents know that I was interested in their childs

voice at school but also making the parents of the pupils identified as being on the

autism spectrum aware that I was interested in their voice because of their diagnosis.

If I had only written to them to say that I was interested in their childs voice and had

not been specific about the fact that it was because they were identified as autistic,

then I would have been in breach of the BERA 2004 guidance on deception (BERA

2004, page 6). I could have also set myself up for a negative response at a later date

had I used any of the information in publications without parents being fully aware of

my motives.

The same methods for gaining parental consent for both groups taking part in theresearch were used in the other schools within the project. I was happy that the same

letters were appropriate here but did provide the gatekeepers with the opportunity to

ask for changes in keeping with my Transformative Framework. As Oliver points

out, researchers have an ethical obligation to seek informed consent of gatekeepers as

they have much more to lose than the researcher. Once the research is complete the

researcher simply packs up and moves on whereas the gatekeeper has to live with the

daily consequence of any impact the research has (Oliver 2003, p. 39 cited in Cohen

and Manion 2011, p. 79). I was also explicit with these gatekeepers about the

reasons for two separate letters and they were happy with my justification.

Only two parents decided that their children should not take part in the study both of

whom were in my own institution. One replied saying not to consent and the other

form was never returned despite a reminder being issued. I have not followed up on

their reasons for saying no.

Teachers

7/30/2019 Gaining Access to the Field of Research

3/4

This is a piece that was scribed for the child by an adult. The important fact here

was that this was adapted from original data collection methods by teacher herself.

Teachers were vitally important gatekeepers as they controlled the childrens daily

routines through their class time-tables and agendas. In my own institution they

controlled my access to pupils and this dynamic was further complicated as these

teachers were also my colleagues. In other institutions, this was managed by the first

level gatekeepers discussed above and in practice was a much easier dynamic to

manage. The main task that teachers had control over was the daily diary task. It wasapparent that time to complete the diary was dependent on the teachers attitude

towards the research coupled with other pressures they were faced with. There were

two examples of teachers who went over and above the call of duty to ensure that the

voices of pupils in their care were shared. One teacher constantly adapted and

tweaked the resources I had provided for one young person to ensure that he was able

to access the research. After experimenting with a number of methods, he settled on

the teacher scribing for him (see above) this particular community developed a real

ownership over the project. This pocket of excellent practice was replicated by

another teacher and child for whom my intial data collection method for diary did not

suit them. Instead they made use of the class handheld video camera and produced

some fantastic video diaries.

Access to all children in this project within my own insitution was controlled by class

teachers as their gatekeeper. However, I was Daniels class teacher and therefore his

gatekeeper within the research. Homan (2002) argues that in insider research,

gatekeepers should avoid acting exclusively in their own professional interests. I was

very much aware that I was in a position to exceed the rights offered to me by my

position (Fraser 2007). In my own classroom I had to manage the boundary between

researcher and class teacher. As Alderson warns, researchers who are also doctors,

teachers, early years staff or students, for example, should therefore be clear about

when they are providing a service and when they are doing research (WHO 2000 and

Alderson 1999). However, all I could do was be aware of this issue and try to

7/30/2019 Gaining Access to the Field of Research

4/4

respond reflexively in my practice. This was achieved by sticking to the principles of

assent before any research activities and by explaining that this was not class work

and he didnt have to do it.