The politics of gatekeeping: respondents as gatekeepers and gatekeepers as respondents

Abstract

The important role of gatekeepers in accessing and negotiating the field has been well established. In this research note, we highlight an underexplored dimension of gatekeeping in relation to our fieldwork on the Kalbeliya community of Rajasthan in India. Existing scholarship on the Kalbeliyas has mainly focused on the politics of heritage recognition of Kalbeliya dance of India, which was recognized as Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO in 2010. Nonetheless, no significant research exists on the methodological challenges encountered in this field. Our navigations in the field uncovered an aspect deeply embedded in arguably, the multi-layered nature of gatekeeping – the blurred boundaries and shifting positionalities between gatekeepers and respondents, with respondents acting as gatekeepers and gatekeepers as respondents. In this research, key respondents were Kalbeliya women dancers and other respondents included state officials, Manganiyars and Kalbeliya men, who acted as gatekeepers in accessing Kalbeliya dancers. These shifting positionalities also exposed their gendered power dynamics, which shaped our methodological navigations in the field.

Keywords

state gatekeeping caste heritage Kalbeliya

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agbebiyi

(2013) Tiers of gatekeepers and ethical practice: researching adolescent students and sexually explicit online material. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 535–540.

Angelillo

(2012) Caste in the making, dance in the making. Carcow Indological Studies 14: 193–213.

Bourdieu

(1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.

Clark

(2011) Gaining and maintaining access: exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work 10(4): 485–502.

Crowhurst

(2013) The fallacy of the instrumental gate? Contextualising the process of gaining access through gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 463–475.

Crowhurst

Kennedy-Macfoy

(2013) Troubling gatekeepers: methodological considerations for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 457–462.

Edwards

(2013) Power and trust: an academic researcher’s perspective on working with interpreters as gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 503–514.

Eldridge

(2013) Gatekeeping and drinking cultures: how do we talk about drinking? International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 477–489.

Hett

(2013) Ethics in intercultural research: reflections on the challenges of conducting field research in a Syrian context. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 43(4): 496–515.

10.

Higgins

(2010) Charming Images of History: kalbeliya Memories of Itinerancy, Begging and Snake Services. MA Thesis, Cornell University, New York.

11.

Joncheere

(2015) Intangible inventions: the Kalbeliya gypsy dance form, from its creation to UNESCO recognition. Archiv Orientalni 83(1): 71–93.

12.

Joncheere

(2017) Kalbeliya dance from Rajasthan: invented Gypsy form or traditional snake charmers’ folk dance? Dance Research Journal 49(1): 37–54.

13.

Kalina

Scott

(2019) ‘You have to say everything is nice here’: complexities of gatekeeping in qualitative research in Northern Mozambique. Qualitative Research Journal 19(3): 307–323.

14.

Kawulich

(2011) Gatekeeping: an ongoing adventure in research. Field Methods 23(1): 57–76.

15.

Kay

(2019) Guardians of research: negotiating the strata of gatekeepers in research with vulnerable participants. Practice 1(1): 37–52.

16.

Kennedy-Macfoy

(2013) ‘It’s important for the students to meet someone like you.’ How perceptions of the researcher can affect gaining access, building rapport and securing cooperation in school-based research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 491–502.

17.

Luna

(2009) Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1): 121–139.

18.

Lund

Panda

Dhal

(2016) Narrating spaces of inclusion and exclusion in research collaboration – researcher–gatekeeper dialogue. Qualitative Research 16(3): 280–292.

19.

Matamanda

(2022) Gatekeeper politics and urban planning research in the contested space of an emerging settlement: reflection on experiences in Hopley farm settlement, Harare. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 26(6): 733–743.

20.

Mugge

(2013) Sexually harassed by gatekeepers: reflections on fieldwork in Surinam and Turkey. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(6): 541–546.

21.

Ranwa

(2021a) Impact of tourism on intangible cultural heritage: Case of Kalbeliyas from Rajasthan, India. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 20(1-2): 20–36.

22.

Ranwa

(2021b) Heritage, community participation and the state: case of the Kalbeliya dance of India. International Journal of Heritage Studies 27(10): 1038–1050.

23.

Reeves

(2010) A difficult negotiation: fieldwork relations with gatekeepers. Qualitative Research 10(3): 315–331.

24.

Singh

(2017) Raising the Curtain: Recasting Women Performers in India. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

25.

Tilley

Kalina

(2021) “My flight arrives at 5 am, can you pick me up?”: the gatekeeping burden of the African academic. Journal of African Cultural Studies 33(4): 538–548.

26.

Wanat

(2008) Getting past the gatekeepers: differences between access and cooperation in public school research. Field Methods 20(2): 191–208.