When a gatekeeper denies a researcher access: circumstances of gate closure in social work research

Introduction

Social work research is oriented towards the development of social work theory or practice. The aim of this research is to build a social work knowledge base to solve problems in social work practice or social policy, for example, improve services or describe the effects of a particular programme on particular clients, etc. Sampling decisions in social work research are driven by the need to intensively study people, places or phenomena that interest us. Research participants should reflect the diversity of the culture and conditions in which they live in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc. A lack of diversity among research participants can have consequences (Creswell, 2007; Larsson, 2009; Stringer, 1999).

Gatekeepers have an important position within social work research and their involvement in research is essential to the development of social work knowledge (Clark, 2011). The diversity of people, groups and organisations that can act as gatekeepers within the social work research field is vast. However, the role and influence of gatekeepers in social work research has been neglected and remains a challenge for many researchers.

Matulayová (2011: 9) notes that a researcher ‘. . ..is inquisitive and persistent. He (or she) seeks the truth and does not carry out research by the path of least resistance’. Clark (2011), on the other hand, argues that researchers often choose gatekeepers according to their own needs and interests, and any gatekeeper demands that are deemed problematic from the researcher’s perspective can be resolved by contacting other potential gatekeepers until they find those with less demanding requests. At some institutional gatekeepers, however, this option is severely limited. For example, some public institutions often hold data that is difficult to access other way than through official procedures. In order to avoid denial, and thus being able to acquire the data needed, researchers are willing to, for example, lower population selection criteria, fully accommodate gatekeepers’ time, agree to change data collection techniques, etc., in an attempt to alleviate gatekeeper concerns. As Glazer (1972: 9) noted, ‘the field worker will often promise things that he (or she) will come to regret’.

Theoretical framework

Unfortunately, there are still only few published studies in which researchers have discussed the control that gatekeepers exerted when forcing the researchers to either revise or depoliticise their analysis (Broadhead and Rist, 1976). We therefore draw on critical theory (Bhavnani et al., 2014) here, which is particularly important to us because it addresses what is constructed, under what conditions and using what sources.

Critical theory, among other things, raises the question: Whose needs does research serve? (Fook, 2003). Critical research on institutional gatekeepers that takes into account the power position of the gatekeeper as a ‘mediator’ can help to understand not only the benefits of gatekeeper involvement, but also the barriers to cooperation and manipulation strategies by gatekeepers (through a critical study of gatekeepers’ motivations, interests, demonstrations of power and control over the researcher, the research process and the participants). Therefore, securing gatekeeper collaboration within the research process is not necessarily a straightforward process and researchers will need to demonstrate that the research engagement will also benefit the gatekeeper (Clark, 2011).

Our theoretical perspective based on the critical approach emphasises the influence of predetermined system conditions that condition research collaboration with gatekeepers (Broadhead and Rist, 1976; Eldridge, 2013; Sanghera and Thapar-Björkert, 2008; Scourfield, 2012). In this perspective, the negotiation of gatekeeper research collaboration operates within a structured field of power unequal social positions, roles, values and norms (Crowhurst, 2013; Emmel et al., 2007; Kennedy-Macfoy, 2013). Therefore, the inability to negotiate cooperation may not be related to a poor personal relationship between the gatekeeper and the researcher.

Furthermore, we use the lenses of social construcitionsms (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Gergen, 1999). From this theoretical position, research collaboration with gatekeepers is viewed as a dynamic interaction process (Aaltonen and Kivijärvi, 2019; Emmel et al., 2007; Eldridge, 2013; Hayes, 2005). The roles and relationships of the researcher, gatekeepers and target groups in research are constructed in social interactions (Emmel et al., 2007; Kay, 2019). Therefore, the micro-interactional and relational context through which research collaboration with gatekeepers is negotiated is crucial within research practice.

Gatekeeping as a dynamic process

In line with other authors (e.g. Bryman, 2016; Hayes, 2005; Heptinstall, 2000; Kay, 2019), we understand gatekeeping here as a process that is political in nature, due to the power gatekeepers have in relationships or organisations and their key involvement and motivation in making decisions for others. In this sense, gatekeeping can be approached as a social and cultural process that embodies power relations of the contexts in which it takes place. According to Crowhurst and Kennedy-Macfoy (2013), power dynamics of this type have implications for the quantity and quality of data that can be collected, as well as for the kinds of conclusions a researcher can draw.

Current challenges of Czech social work research

Czech social work, as in other European countries, faces many challenges. Social workers in the Czech Republic face significantly below-average wages, which affect their quality of life and contribute to high turnover (MoLSA, 2019). In addition to economic problems, social workers often face a lack of social recognition and feel psychological burden due to the demanding nature of their work (Suchanec and Ďásek, 2019). This also negatively affects research in social work, which is similarly underfunded. Researchers in this field face many ethical and practical challenges to which they are forced to respond flexibly. One of these challenges is encountering frustration, rejection and disinterest from gatekeepers. This reaction may stem from their previous research experience and growing research fatigue (Broskevičová et al., 2024). Research fatigue can be identified as a reluctance to continue with current research, or they refuse or avoid participating in any further research (Clark, 2008). In the long term, this may lead to a further gap between practice and research in social work and may threaten the co-production of knowledge between academia and practice (Thyer, 2015). Refusal to engage in further research may be related to a previous research experience that participants felt was unnecessary because it did not provide them with any tangible benefits or outcomes (Ashley, 2021). Additionally, research in social work is influenced by the strong ethical principles of the social work profession and the specific relationship of trust and power between social worker and client (IFSW, 2018).

Methodology

The authors of this text have sought to bring attention to signs of a social control over research and different dangers that scientists face when they attempt to study those whose power far exceeds their own. An impulse for the project came from the first author’s own experience of being denied access to informants by a major institutional gatekeeper. Although we have been identified as members of a local academic community, and although we were backed by the recommendation of a local city representative and willingness to cooperate by one of the regional authority managers, our economic and political influence was not sufficient. Our orientation towards critical and constructionist approaches led us to reflect on the whole situation. The process of rejection consisted of a whole series of manipulations and non-transparency, which raised a number of questions in us that we needed to answer and explicitly name what happened. Therefore, three years apart, the first author addressed two researchers with a similar epistemological orientation for research cooperation who had no experience with gatekeeping yet, so that perspectives unencumbered by this experience would be included.

At the same time, we tried to point out to the fact that, this issue is currently not given attention in Czech social work, despite extensive changes in research governance (establishment of ethics committees, etc.) and the increasingly legally oriented frameworks (informed consent, legal regulation of personal data processing) in which social work research is carried out.

The paper was written based on findings from the qualitative research study focused on understanding the process of negotiating collaboration and building a research relationship between researcher and gatekeeper. The research project was approved by the Faculty’s Ethics Committee. The paper intends to explore how researchers respond to being denied research access to research participants when dealing with institutional gatekeepers. We herein focus on the circumstances in gate closure and other practices of researchers in recruiting participants after gatekeeper denial.

We present partial data from the project, which included a total of 18 semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers and 6 gatekeepers. Only interviews with researchers were used in this study.

Our informants (researchers) were contacted through the heads of social work departments. In total, there were seven managers from departments and institutes of social work from public universities from all over the Czech Republic. They were contacted by email. From this, three managers responded, recommending researchers from their department based on the criteria specified below. At the same time, we used our own collegial networks.

The main criterion for inclusion in the study was the implementation of field social work research in the last 5 years, in which the researchers engaged gatekeepers to gain access to informants or target group related documents and information.

Interviews with researchers (who agreed to be interviewed) were conducted between June and August 2022 either online or in person by the first and second authors of the paper. Informed consents were given verbally and recorded on a Dictaphone. The Zoom platform was used for online meetings. An interview protocol was used. The interview protocol was informed by the literature review and previous research and social work experience of the authors. The interviews used broad, open-ended questions that allowed participants to describe their experiences and interpretations in detail (Charmaz, 2014).

Interviews involved researchers at different stages of their academic career (from PhD students to professors). There were five men and seven women. The participants were from a total of five universities from five different regions of the Czech Republic. They were focused on the contexts of gatekeeping process in schools, prisons, courts, authorities and social service organisations.

The interview duration was between 39 and 100 minutes (62 minutes on average). After implementation of interviews, they were transcribed verbatim by the third author of the paper. The computer software program ATLAS.ti was used to organise, analyse and store the data.

Data were processed using the Charmaz’s Grounded Theory (2014). To analyse the data, the researchers used an iterative process of coding through initial and focused coding, along with memo-writing. During this process, the researchers constantly compared codes within and among themselves, combining them into categories with a higher level of abstraction. Data were collected and analysed for both content and context. To achieve trustworthiness, all authors were involved in the analysis process and the data were analysed and discussed during team meetings (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Thorne et al., 2004). Discovered reality emerged from an interactive process and its temporal, cultural and structural contexts (Charmaz, 2000). Authors needed to go beyond the surface in seeking meaning in the data, searching and questioning the silent meanings of values, beliefs and ideologies (Mills et al., 2006). Charmaz’s Grounded Theory fits into the used theoretical framework and forms the methodological basis of the research. This research methodology is well aligned with social work and its systematic yet flexible guidelines align with social work ethics, which also focus on the importance of professional integrity (Clarke et al., 2023).

Although this is a relatively small sample, the number of informants can be considered sufficient because saturation was finally reached (Guest et al., 2006). However, due to the low number of informants, there is no right to generalise the results; however, results can be credible if they can be transferred to comparable situations (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

Findings

Discussion

Social work researchers often want to understand client and organisational problems in ways other than through ‘official’ perspectives (Broadhead and Rist, 1976). These researchers explore the ‘hidden side’ of social work, or those activities that are strategically hidden from public view, which may be contrary to the gatekeeper’s interest. The gatekeeper’s authority to decline critical or controversial research is reinforced by the research institution’s reluctance to create conflict and hostility within its institutional or organisational community. Universities, professional organisations and donators currently provide little support for researchers who wish to pursue controversial critical research (Holgersson and Wieslander, 2019).

The researcher is often a relatively uncontrolled element in an otherwise highly controlled environment. Any adverse outcomes for gatekeepers therefore need to be assessed and negotiated if access to the research target group is to be granted. These may include legal concerns, concerns about the privacy of those involved, and even harm to the gatekeeper or those associated with the gatekeeper (Broadhead and Rist, 1976). On a more practical level, disengagement can be explained at a material level by lack of time, resources and disruption of the operation of the organisation. Research activities can also have a negative impact on participants. This may include, for example, participants’ distrust of a research process, social, psychological and physical risks to participants, etc. (Emmel et al., 2007).

Given asymmetric power relations, it is essential to make ethical decisions that guarantee the well-being of all participants. A focus on ethics in social work research is particularly important because of the populations and issues that social work researchers study, because they are often associated with a range of social and political consequences, system power imbalances, and stigmatisation (Shaw and Holland, 2014; Sobočan et al., 2019). The Code of Ethics of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2012) claims that the aims and process of social work research, including the choice of methodology and the use of findings, should be in line with the values of social work, which include a commitment to promote human rights, social justice and social change (Shaw and Gould, 2001). Although social workers are committed to research ethics, relying on codes of ethics alone is not sufficient (procedural ethics), as no code can cover every possible situation or prescribe every aspect of conduct (ethics in practice). The ethical codes do not seem to capture all ethical issues that arise during fieldwork involving hard-to-reach populations, especially issues of trust-building and ethical decision-making on the ground (Müller et al., 2020; Shaw and Holland, 2014).

We assume here that science is not superior to the investigated reality but is an inherent part of it. The consequence is that the researcher bears responsibility for how he enters the world and what consequences the research and the report about him have in this world. That is why any research must be thought out, prepared and implemented so that it is ethical in all its steps and outputs (Zandlová and Šťovíčková Jantulová, 2019).

However, it is necessary to avoid individual responsibility. Kanel et al. (2023: 13) note that ‘not only the researcher, but also the gatekeeper and the research participants should equally be responsible for generating research-outputs ethically’. Social constructionist approaches assume that knowledge and language are relational and generative. They suggest replacing individual responsibility with relational responsibility (McNamee and Gergen, 1999). This means that accountability is not individual characteristics of the researcher or unidirectional process. Such a conception of ethics invites us to carefully assess consensus definitions of ethics and ethical standards from wider social and professional discourses that are presented as unquestionable truths; to the constant awareness and reflection of the consequences of ethics; to a careful critique of dominant discourses (Anderson, 2001). If our intention is to do no harm to anyone, then we must invite people’s voices, thereby encouraging mutual accountability. This brings with it inherent uncertainties, including the possible questioning and transformation of our ethics that we believe in (Anderson, 2001).

According to Lužný (2012 in Zandlová and Šťovíčková Jantulová, 2019), it is good to stick to two interconnected principles: critical reflexivity and intellectual professional honesty, while the specific solution always depends on the given situation. Reflexivity is a useful proactive learning process for researchers that they can incorporate into the whole research (McFadyen and Rankin, 2016). Researchers should constantly reflect on their actions and their role in the research process and subject them to critical scrutiny (Mason, 1996). They should, for example, think about what assumptions about the world are taken for granted and what questions and answers are left unaddressed or excluded from research designs (D’Cruz and Jones, 2004).

From a critical perspective, the roles and relationships of the researcher, the gatekeeper and the target group are influenced by the power structures of competing positions and interests and are negotiated within power discourses and established ways of doing things. Thus, the researcher may come across systemic barriers (Scourfield, 2012) that he cannot influence and must ‘circumvent’.

It is not always possible to carry out research totally openly, as researchers studying marginalised populations or bureaucratic systems sometimes encounter data that may be criminalising in nature, or that may collide with dysfunctional systems, discrimination or marginalisation by bureaucratic institutions or social services (Hejnal and Lupták, 2013). With this in mind, we believe that there is a need to open the debate on the dilemma of open or covert research in social work.

As social workers and researchers, we often find ourselves in complex discursive contexts that reflect neoliberal ideology and values that are at odds with social work's social justice orientation. Social work has made an ethical commitment to challenge and resist oppressive discourses. Social work critiques the dominant social, economic and political order with its patriarchal capitalist, while providing the premises and means for creating alternatives in an unjust world (Ife, 2012). A situated ethics of social justice (Banks, 2012) leads us to question unjust policies, practices and oppression, requires critical analysis of social problems and guides us in working with complexity and contradictions.

Conclusion

Researchers encounter from gatekeepers manifestations of both formal and informal power that greatly affect an actual research process. These power relations are reflected in various aspects of research interactions, particularly in the process of negotiating access, information provision and the overall flow of communication. The impacts of these power dynamics are significant and can raise new ethical dilemmas that researchers themselves face. Any denial or limitation of access can raise questions of researchers’ moral obligations, the balance between privacy and information collection, and the fair treatment of the target population. It is evident that in the field of social work, research is not only a process of data collection, but also a complex network of relationships and power interactions. Understanding these complex factors is key to ensuring ethically responsible research that reflects the needs and rights of the research subjects.

At the same time, the freedom and independence of research is crucial. Researchers continue to be reluctant to admit how often or in what ways their research is influenced by gatekeeping. Indeed, there is still too little attention on how to keep secure ‘sensitive information’ about powerful bureaucracies, perhaps because the idea of curious and persistent researchers seeking the truth and not pursuing research through the path of least resistance does not apply in practice. Finding a path to this idealised idea of the researcher depends not so much on personal characteristics of researchers, but often more on the set-up of the system.

Based on the above, we therefore believe it is important to develop the discussion about the complicated relationship between universities, the powerful gatekeepers, state institutions and the risk of potential conflict, especially with reference to research funding or state universities’ funding. We see the subjugation of academia to market rationality as a great problem, with researchers being forced to find different sources of funding for their activities, in a society where there is still a reluctance to open up to the constructive criticism of researchers.