Prison Gatekeeping and Ethical Challenges in Qualitative Research with Homicide Offenders in Ghana

Abstract

This reflexive qualitative study examines prison gatekeeping in Ghanaian homicide research. Drawing on interviews with male and female offenders in a medium-security prison, it explores ethical, methodological, and relational challenges in negotiating access and conducting research in highly regulated environments. Findings show that gatekeepers perform dual roles: facilitating access, trust, and ethical compliance, while enforcing protocols that may limit confidentiality, autonomy, and researcher independence. Through reflexive analysis of access, engagement, and methodological decisions, the study highlights transparency, trust-building, and culturally sensitive negotiation, offering practical insights and contributing to Global South prison scholarship.

Keywords

prison gatekeeping qualitative prison research homicide offenders research ethics reflexivity Ghana

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

DiGiacomo

Magin

(2018). A scoping review of qualitative research methods used with people in prison. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918803824. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918803824

Abrah

P. B.

(2019). Labeling theory and life stories of juvenile delinquents transitioning into adulthood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18787303

Abraham

S. A.

Annor

Cudjoe

Anumel

B. K.

Agyare

D. F.

Tawiah

B. O.

Obiri-Yeboah

(2024). They are trying their best”: Incarcerated individuals’ assessment of general healthcare services in selected Ghanaian prisons. Health & Justice, 12(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-024-00298-1

Akoensi

T. D.

(2016). Perceptions of self-legitimacy and audience legitimacy among prison officers in Ghana. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 40(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2016.1165712

Akoensi

T. D.

Tankebe

(2020). Prison officer self-legitimacy and support for rehabilitation in Ghana. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819879729

Akonor

E. T.

Obeng

A. S.

(2021). Conducting research in Ghana’s prisons: Recounting administrative and ethical dilemmas. Complimentary Copy, 21.

Amankwaa

(2020). Parent-child contact during parent’s incarceration: A study of children of incarcerated parents in southern Ghana. Children and Youth Services Review, 109(1), 104643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104643

Andoh-Arthur

(2019). Gatekeepers in Qualitative Research. In Atkinson

Delamont

Cernat

Sakshaug

J. W.

Williams

R. A.

(Eds.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. Sage, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036854377

Andoh-Arthur

Hjelmeland

Osafo

Knizek

B. L.

(2018). Walking a Tightrope: Reflections on police gatekeeping roles in suicide research in Ghana. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(3), 289–301.

10.

Baffour

F. D.

(2020). Factors contributing to recidivism among inmates in selected Ghana prisons [Doctoral dissertation]. James Cook University.

11.

Baffour

F. D.

Francis

A. P.

Chong

M. D.

Harris

(2022). Mental health experiences among inmates serving life sentences in Ghana prisons. International Criminal Justice Review, 32(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567720963718

12.

Baffour

F. D.

Francis

A. P.

Chong

M. D.

Harris

(2024). Doing qualitative research in a controlled site: Challenges, lessons, and strategies. Crime & Delinquency, 70(8), 1921–1942. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106944

13.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

15.

Broadhead

R. S.

Rist

R. C.

(1976). Gatekeepers and the social control of social research. Social Problems, 23(3), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.2307/799778

16.

Bunn

(2023). Critical narratives or crime stories? The ethics and politics of narrative research in criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(6), 1557–1573. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac101

17.

Crowhurst

(2013). The fallacy of the instrumental gate? Contextualising the process of gaining access through gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.823282

18.

Crowhurst

Kennedy-Macfoy

(2013). Troubling gatekeepers: Methodological considerations for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(6), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.823281

19.

Di Marco

M. H.

Sandberg

(2023). This is my story”: Why people in prison participate in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231171102. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231171102

20.

Fitz-Gibbon

(2016a). Gaining access and managing gatekeepers. In Liquid Criminology: Doing Imaginative Criminological Research. Routledge.

21.

Fitz-Gibbon

(2016b). Gaining access and managing gatekeepers: Undertaking criminological research with those ‘within’ the system. In Liquid criminology (pp. 173–187). Routledge.

22.

Foucault

(1977). Discipline and punish ( Sheridan

, trans.). Pantheon.

23.

Gaber

Kerrigan

Grenada

I. M.

Kief

Metcalfe

Kouyoumdjian

F. G.

(2025). Continuing the conversation: Practical strategies to enable acceptable and feasible health research in prisons. Archives of Public Health, 83(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01619-y

24.

Gibson-Light

Goodman

(2025). The consent of the punished: Toward a gramscian theory of penal punishment, labor, and control. Incarceration, 6, 26326663251341190. https://doi.org/10.1177/26326663251341190

25.

Goffman

(1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Ravenio Books.

26.

Greene

M. J.

(2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1106

27.

Gřundělová

Broskevičová

Kowolová

(2024a). Negotiating access to hard-to-reach populations through institutional gatekeepers in social work research. The British Journal of Social Work, 54(6), 2790–2807. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcae039

28.

Gřundělová

Broskevičová

Kowolová

(2024b). When a gatekeeper denies a researcher access: Circumstances of gate closure in social work research. Research Ethics, 17470161241273813.

29.

Hayden

(2016). Gatekeeping in restorative justice and related research. In Reconstructing restorative justice philosophy (pp. 91–103). Routledge.

30.

Lafferty

(2023). Navigating the dynamics of trust, rapport and power while conducting social health research with people in prison. Qualitative Social Work, 22(6), 1222–1236. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221122301

31.

Lumsden

Winter

(2014). Reflexivity in criminological research. In Reflexivity in criminological research: Experiences with the powerful and the powerless (pp. 1–19). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

32.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.

33.

Patenaude

A. L.

(2004). No promises, but I’m willing to listen and tell what I hear: Conducting qualitative research among prison inmates and staff. The Prison Journal, 84(4_suppl), 69S–91S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504269898

34.

Petintseva

Faria

Eski

(2020). Interviewing elites, experts and the powerful in criminology. Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Ranaweera

(2024). Beyond numbers: Embracing the depth of qualitative research in criminology. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 3(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.47540/ijqr.v3i3.1346

36.

Reichert

(2025). Overlooked and Underserved: Increasing Educational Access for Incarcerated Students in California Jails Through Multidistrict Partnerships [Doctoral dissertation]. San Francisco State University.

37.

Rodrigues

Murphy

Jack

H. E.

Berk

(2024). Participation with compensation: Ethical considerations for research payment practices with people who are incarcerated. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 30(6), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1089/jchc.24.01.0002

38.

Savolainen

(2020). Manifestations of expert power in gatekeeping: A conceptual study. Journal of Documentation, 76(6), 1215–1232. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2020-0010

39.

Shammas

V. L.

(2017). Prisons of welfare. Incarceration, Social Democracy and the Sociology of Punishment. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23908.88963

40.

Sharpe

(2017). Sociological stalking? Methods, ethics and power in longitudinal criminological research. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816669214

41.

Sowatey

E. A.

Tankebe

(2019). Doing research with police elites in Ghana. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(5), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818787022

42.

Sweet

P. L.

(2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

43.

Tritton

Fleetwood

(2017). An insider’s view of prison reform in Ecuador. Prison Service Journal, 229, 40–45.

44.

Turner

Whyte

(2022). Introduction: Refugee camps as carceral junctions. Incarceration, 3(1), 26326663221084591. https://doi.org/10.1177/26326663221084591

45.

Umamaheswar

(2014). Gate keeping and the politics of access to prisons: Implications for qualitative prison research. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 3(1), 238–267. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.a0f03b64

46.

Wacquant

(2003). Ethnografeast: A progress report on the practice and promise of ethnography in the sociology of penal governance. Qualitative Sociology, 26(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138103004001001

47.

Watson

T. M.

van der Meulen

(2019). Research in carceral contexts: Confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners. Qualitative Research, 19(2), 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117753353