Gatekeeping is an ever-present feature in the distribution of and access to educational resources in many aspects of our lives. In high performance domains, a gatekeeping process determines acceptance into elite training programs, invitations to perform, drafting onto elite sports teams, and matriculation into graduate school. Gatekeeping can be defined as the process by which an arbiter influences high performers’ transitions between and ascension within developmental stages and can culminate with outstanding performance in a field. In this article, we briefly review the history of the research of gatekeeping. Next, we consider criteria that are specifically related to the role of gatekeeping in high performance and, then, we explore gatekeeping in the domains of the performing arts, sport, and academics. The final section discusses future directions for investigation and enhancement of the practice.
AlamarB. C. (2013). Sports analytics: A guide for coaches, managers, and other decision makers. Columbia University Press.
2.
Barzilai-NahonK. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493–1512.
BiancoM. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285–293.
5.
BlofeldH. (2017a, December). My life in sport. Lecture conducted from Cunard, South Hampton, UK.
6.
BlofeldH. (2017b). Over and out: My innings of a lifetime with test match special. Hodder & Stoughton.
7.
BloomG. A. (2013). Mentoring for sport coaches. In PotracP.GilbertW.DenisonJ. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 476–485). Routledge.
8.
BloomG. A.Durand-BushN.SchinkeR. J.SalmelaJ. H. (1998). The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267–281.
9.
BodnerK. E. (2012). Ethical principles and standards that inform educational gatekeeping practices in psychology. Ethics & Behavior, 22(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.638827
10.
BrearP.DorrianJ.LuscriG. (2008). Preparing our future counselling professionals: Gatekeeping and the implications for research. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 8(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140802007855
11.
CallahanC. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 98–104.
12.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2014). Does gifted education work? For which students? (Working Paper No. 20453). National Bureau of Economic Research.
13.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (Working Paper No. 21519). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21519
CollyerF. M.WillisK. F.LewisS. (2017). Gatekeepers in the healthcare sector: Knowledge and Bourdieu’s concept of field. Social Science and Medicine, 186, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.004
16.
CorraM.WillerD. (2002). The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory, 20(2), 180–207.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1988). Society, culture, person: A systems view of creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). Cambridge University Press.
ElhowerisH.MutuaK.AlsheikhN.HollowayP. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25–31.
23.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
24.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute Publication# 231). The National Implementation Research Network, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
25.
FurleyP.MemmertD. (2016). Coaches’ implicit associations between size and giftedness: Implications for the relative age effect. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(5), 459–466.
26.
Gaztambide-FernándezR. A.SaiferA.DesaiC. (2013). “Talent” and the misrecognition of social advantage in specialized arts education. Roeper Review, 35(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.766964
27.
GershensonS.HoltS. B.PapageorgeN. W. (2015). Who believes in me? The effect of student-teacher demographic match on teacher expectations (Upjohn Institute Working Paper 15-231). W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
28.
GiancolaJ.KahlenbergR. D. (2016). True merit. Ensuring our brightest students have access to our best colleges and universities. The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED569948
29.
GrissomJ. A.KernE. C.RodriguezL. A. (2015). The “representative bureaucracy” in education: Educator workforce diversity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(3), 185–192.
30.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
31.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson Education.
32.
HambrickD. Z.CampitelliG.MacnamaraB. (Eds.). (2017). The science of expertise: Behavioral, neural, and genetic approaches to complex skill. Routledge.
33.
HardinM. (2005). Stopped at the gate: Women’s sports,” reader interest,” and decision making by editors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 62–77.
34.
JarvinL.SubotnikR. F. (2010). Wisdom from conservatory faculty: Insights on success in music performance. Roeper Review, 32, 78–87.
35.
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116.
36.
KlugeE. H. W. (2007). Resource allocation in healthcare: Implications of models of medicine as a profession. Medscape General Medicine, 9(1), 57.
37.
KnowltonD.JohnsonL.ThomeczekM.LiuY.LumsdenJ. (2016). Juries as innovation in an instructional design and technology program: A saga of continuous improvement efforts. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i3.19856
38.
KozbeltA. (2019). Interview with Stephen Pier. In SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance: Developing human potential into domain specific talent (pp. 257–260). American Psychological Association.
39.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper.
40.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111.
41.
McBeeM. T. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297.
42.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 258–278.
43.
MerrellK. W.ErvinR. A.PeacockG. G. (2011). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices. Guilford Press.
44.
MichieS.FixsenD.GrimshawJ. M.EcclesM. P. (2009). Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science, 4, Article 40.
45.
NeumeisterK. L. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499.
46.
NoiceT.NoiceH. (2019). The development of acting talent: Possibilities and approaches. In SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (Eds.), The handbook of high performance: Developing human potential into domain specific talent (pp. 238–256). American Psychological Association.
47.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 37–55.
48.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2015). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195–210.
PendarvisE.WoodE. W. (2009). Eligibility of historically underrepresented students referred for gifted education in a rural school district: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903200403
52.
SimontonD. K. (2019). Talent development in the domain of academic psychology. In SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (Eds.), The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent (pp. 201–218). American Psychological Association.
SubotnikR. F. (2000). Developing young adolescent performers at Juilliard: An education prototype for elite level talent development in the arts and sciences. In Van LieshoutC. F.HeymansP. (Eds.), Talent, resilience, and wisdom across the lifespan (pp. 249–276). Psychology Press.
55.
SubotnikR. F. (2004). Transforming elite musicians into professional artists: A view of the talent development process at The Juilliard School. In ShavininaL.FerrariM. (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extra cognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 137–166). Erlbaum Publishers.
56.
SubotnikR. F.JarvinL.MogaE.SternbergR. J. (2003). Wisdom from gatekeepers: Secrets of success in music performance. Bulletin of Psychology in the Arts, 4, 5–9.
57.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological science in the public interest, 12(1), 3–54.
58.
SullivanB. (2009). Supervision as gatekeeping: Managing professional competence problems in student supervisees. In PellingN.BarlettaJ.ArmstrongP. (Eds.), The practice of clinical supervision (pp. 236–251). Australian Academic Press.
WaiJ. (2014). Investigating the world’s rich and powerful: Education, cognitive ability, and sex differences. Intelligence, 46, 54–72.
63.
WorrellF. C.KnotekS. E.PluckerJ. A.PortengaS.SimontonD. K.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F. (2016). Competition’s role in developing psychological strength and outstanding performance. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 259–271.
