Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

FIELD RESEARCH AND FOCUS GROUP RESEARCH

(see Example Box 2, Gatekeepers and Access). You
should expect to negotiate with gatekeepers and
bargain for access. Gatekeepers may not appreciate
the need for conceptual distance or ethical balance.
You need to set nonnegotiable limits to protect
research integrity. If there are many restrictions ini-
tially, you can often reopen negotiations later, and
gatekeepers may forget their initial demands as
trust develops. It is ethically and politically astute
to call on gatekeepers. Many of them do not care
about the findings except so far as these findings
might provide evidence for someone to criticize
them.
Dealing with gatekeepers is a recurrent issue
as you enter new levels or areas of a field site. In
addition, a gatekeeper can shape the direction of
research. “Even the most friendly and co-operative
gatekeepers or sponsors will shape the conduct
and development of research. To one degree or
another, the ethnographer will be channeled in line

with existing networks of friendship and enmity,

territory, and equivalent boundaries”(Hammersley

and Atkinson, 1983:73). In some sites, gatekeeper

approval creates a stigma that inhibits the cooper-

ation of members. For example, prisoners may not

be cooperative if they know that the prison warden

gave approval to the researcher.

Enter and Gain Access.Entering and gaining

access to a field site requires commonsense judg-

ment and social skills. Field sites usually have dif-

ferent levels or areas, and entry to each is an issue.

Entry is more analogous to peeling the layers of an

onion than to opening a door. Moreover, bargains

and promises of entry may not remain stable over

time. You need fallback plans or may have to return

later for renegotiation. Because the specific focus

of research may not emerge until later in the

research process or may change, it is best to avoid

being locked into specifics by gatekeepers.

EXAMPLE BOX 2

Gatekeepers and Access

In his study of a crack-dealing gang, the Black Kings,
in Chicago’s low-income housing projects, Venkatesh
(2008) had difficulty in gaining access. He describes
in detail how he gained access and luckily came upon
the sympathetic gang leader, J.T., who was the criti-
cal gatekeeper for both the gang’s activities and the
housing project. A graduate student of South Asian
ancestry from middle-class California suburbs,
Venkatesh naïvely entered the projects with a pile of
survey questionnaires. He was not prepared for the
extreme poverty, perils, and everyday reality of life in
the dilapidated high-rise housing projects. Soon after
he entered a building, a gang of menacing young
men accosted him in a dark, dirty, urine-smelling
stairwell. They mistook him for a Mexican-American
(and member of rival gang, Latin Kings) and appeared
ready to harm him, until J.T. arrived. As Venkatesh
(2008:17-19) reports,

J.T. shot the young man a look, then turned to me.

“You’re not from Chicago,” he said. “You should

really not be walking through the projects. People

get hurt.” J.T. started tossing questions at me....

I spent most of the night sitting on the cold steps,

trying to avoid protruding shards of metal. I would

have liked to sleep also, but I was too nervous.

The next afternoon Venkatesh returned with a six-

pack of beer.

“Beer?” I said, tossing him a bottle. “You said I should

hang out with folks if I want to know what their life

was like.” J.T. didn’t answer. A few of the guys burst

out laughing in disbelief. “He’s crazy, I told you!”

said one. “Nigger thinks he’s going to hang out with

us! I still think he’s a Latin King.” Finally J.T. spoke up.

“All right, the brother wants to hang out,” he said,

unfazed. “Let him hang out.” (p. 23)

In gaining access to the site, Venkatesh made

many missteps and mistakes, confronted serious

physical danger, overcame uncertainty and fear, and

had some fantastic good luck, particularly with the

gatekeeper.