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

Abstract

Social work research often requires the exploration of sensitive topics that concern hard-to-reach populations. In order to gain access to these groups, researchers are often forced to rely on gatekeepers during the research process. Gatekeepers become intermediaries who help the researchers to establish this access. In this article, we focus on institutional gatekeepers and the circumstances under which they deny access to research participants. And how the researchers themselves react to this situation in the context of Czech social work research. We used qualitative research, in particular semi-structured interviews with researchers. Based on the research, we identified three main practices of researchers when gatekeepers refuse access. These are conducting research despite denial, making changes to methodology and conducting covert research. The identified procedures bring with them a number of ethical questions that need to be addressed.

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.

The gatekeeper: Barrier or catalyst to research?

Gatekeepers and researchers are equipped with different forms of power. As a result, one group can, relative to the other, produce both inclusive and exclusive strategies of control over research (Lund et al., 2016). Whether the gatekeeper will be a barrier or a catalyst to research cannot always be easily predicted and identified. Research has shown different approaches of resistance and vigilance towards outside observers who may reveal what should remain hidden to the public (e.g. Holgersson and Wieslander, 2019). A protectionist approach can also be encountered in relation to the group under study, as there may be gatekeepers’ and participants’ concerns about people being used as ‘objects’ who are repeatedly researched and their problems negatively publicised (Sanghera and Thopar-Björkert, 2008).

Contemporary literature in the social sciences thematises the ethics of gatekeeping in relation to hard-to-reach populations. According to Shier (2023) or Fecke (2022), gatekeeping is an ethical problem if these groups are excluded from research and their voices are thus silenced.

These hard-to-reach populations are subgroups of the population that may be difficult to reach or engage in research due to their age, physical and geographical location and/or their socioeconomic situation etc. (Shaghaghi et al., 2011). These may be vulnerable populations that may be stigmatised, but they may also include low-incidence (McAreavey and Das, 2013) or institutionalised individuals (Abrams, 2010). Obtaining data from members of hard-to-reach populations can be costly and beyond the capacity of most researchers, but social work often cannot do without this data. To facilitate access, researchers typically recruit hard-to-reach participants through institutions (Taylor, 2009).

Institutional gatekeepers

Institutional gatekeepers are hereto considered to be gatekeepers defined by Emmel et al. (2007) as formal and comprehensive. The main activities of formal gatekeepers include working on goals, control, supervision and rehabilitation of clients. Their involvement in the community is limited to repressive relationships with those they work with. Formal gatekeepers primarily include authorities, courts and prisons. Comprehensive gatekeepers work in health and social care. They have long-term relationships with individuals and groups in the community. We mainly place social service organisations in this category.

All institutions and organisations have autonomy in granting or denying access to their information, space, staff and/or service users for research purposes, unless such information is already publicly available (Singh and Wassenaar, 2016). In practice, gatekeepers’ right to grant or withhold access is often connected with the right to grant or withhold consent, even though gatekeepers have no legal authority to grant or withhold consent on behalf of their clients or staff (Heath et al., 2007).

If the research is to be implemented in an institutional setting rather than in a public place or in private, permission must be obtained from the legitimate authorities in charge of the institution to conduct research in such a setting (Singh and Wassenaar, 2016). Institutional gatekeepers can control who has access and when to a target population based on their personal or professional relationship with the target population (Keesling, 2008). Participant recruitment through gatekeepers requires great negotiation skills as well as the researcher’s awareness of power dynamics (Gřundělová et al., 2024; Weis, 2019).

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

Current barriers to involving a gatekeeper

It has shown that researchers have very limited access to hierarchically-managed organisations and institutions. Our informants discussed several such barriers of gatekeeping in institutional settings.

Difficulty in identifying the real gatekeeper

The gatekeeper decision-making process often remains hidden and non-transparent to researchers. Researchers enter the field with certain ideas (often idealistic) about who they need to address in order to get to their target group. However, within gatekeeping, they often encounter non-transparency of the context of negotiation and decision-making, especially in hierarchical bureaucratic organisations of the state such as courts, prisons and authorities. These processes often take place behind the scenes, beyond the reach of the researcher’s attention and ability to intervene. Even if, thanks to preparation, the researcher manages to identify the system of the highest formal institution, which usually has formal decision-making power, all informal hierarchical relationships, decision-making authority and the power to issue a final decision on whether or not to engage in research remain hidden to the researcher. Thus, the researcher often does not know who is the real gatekeeper (‘shadow gatekeeper’) who has enabled or rejected the research:

. . .it’s also an issue of power in the end, isn’t it . . . that the employment office at the ministerial level probably has somehow more power which can override the decisions of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which is fascinating, because the Ministry, as I mentioned before, basically sets up the employment office, manages and funds it, so there seems to be a strange clique operating there. . . (R9)

Researchers emphasised the influence of pre-determined systemic conditions that condition research cooperation with gatekeepers. Research constraints may be rooted in the systemic conditions of a particular organisation, in its culture, structure and dynamics. The hierarchical relationships between individual research actors generate inevitable pressures that affect the process of collaborative negotiations. This is the case particularly if there are rather formal and hierarchical power relations between gatekeepers and the hard-to-reach population (Emmel et al., 2007).

The need to obtain management approval

As a consequence of such approach, there is very limited access for researchers to closed hierarchical institutions unless they get the approval of the highest authority, or at least a person who holds real decision-making power. If this step is missed, there is a risk of interrupting the research or risk to staff or clients. The more significant the hierarchy, the greater the risk when rank-and-file employees or clients express their own approach towards collaboration. This is often an automatically accepted command that is often hard-to-read a researcher the way it has been communicated. Gatekeeping thus entails power and inequality that in many ways remains hidden:

. . .it would get to the management of an employment office, and they would just stop it and those employees would need to respect it, because if they found out that somebody had accidentally filled it out (the questionnaire) and it came out they would be in trouble. . . (R9)

At the same time, there is no evidence that, in the case when a ban on providing information to researchers was granted, if this is systematically controlled by the management. It is not even clear how employees or clients (the target group of the research) are informed about such a ban and whether the matter is discussed with them at all.

Tendency to refuse or offer limited access

Gatekeepers may explicitly refuse to engage, or they may only open the gate slightly, thus exercising covert control by purposeful disclosure of only certain information, data and perspectives that are not potentially risky to the institution or organisation. The researchers stated that they often accepted the boundaries set by the gatekeeper and settled for what was offered.

. . .that I had some space at least, right, so I worked with what was there. That actually during those negotiations the gatekeepers offered less but then actually opened the ‘gate’. And then you’re like thinking for yourself ‘how much more can you actually do, right, but you’re like you’re not questioning it anymore because you’ve received something extra’ . . . you’re actually happy for that. (R6)

Gatekeepers’ concerns and sense of danger

The researchers in our study also reflected on gatekeepers’ perceived concern about revealing something that should remain hidden from outside view, interpreted the gatekeepers’ fear of losing control over what would be said, or their fear of deteriorated public image of the institution or organisation in which they worked:

. . .it always depends on what position the gatekeeper is in, whether he or she’s a headteacher of the school, who is very much dependent on public opinion and political representation, or he or she’s for a relatively independent person in some organisation, or a rank-and-file worker who may just not care. (R11)

The researchers also described that the gatekeepers’ sense of danger, in their view, stemmed from, for example, a sensitive or publicised topic. If it is a closely monitored topic in a public space at a given time and context, it is quite likely that gatekeepers will be very vigilant towards researchers.

So, they don’t always necessarily do it well this way. . .but when they, for example, learn that the media has started talking about a topic, it puts some pressure on them as they don’t want some kind of an affair afterwards. . .because that’s what they most fear. . . that there’s some kind of a negative affair. (R5)

Enabling research within an organisation carries its own risks for specific employees. Hierarchised relationships and high levels of accountability within organisations can act negatively regarding ‘gate-opening’.

Because really, today people are afraid in those organisations, I’m not surprised . . . myself, I worked for many years for a municipal authority . . . and I know they’re under a lot of fear and they’re afraid there, so it’s always risky for them to ‘bet on some horse’, yeah. Because if something were to happen, they know that all this negativity or criticism is going to land on their head, and they don’t want to take the risk. . . (R5)

Similarly, gatekeepers’ willingness to enable a research access is negatively affected by the fact that there may be some breach of regulation in the organisation, which is linked to fear of sanctions or judgement and criticism of their work.

So, actually the chairwoman said to me that ‘that’s interesting’ and then she said, ‘well what if you actually find out that so the participation is not happening as it should, according to the law’. And I was like ‘well, it’s going to be published in a scientific paper’ and she was like, ‘then nothing, that’s it’. (R3)

Own interests

In addition to the protection of the organisation and its reputation, the motive for rejecting a researcher may be a gatekeeper’s self-interest, implicit or explicit.

. . .First, I came into contact with a social worker who actually didn’t allow me to enter the environment, and there I think it was because she had some hidden interest in it, which I think manifested itself in the fact that she stopped working there afterwards, in one locality, and I think that her interest wasn’t completely honest, yeah. (R7)

Many gatekeepers, according to the researchers’ accounts, were ill-disposed to reflect critically on their own work and, if in the course of negotiation they found out that there might be in-depth analysis that went beneath the surface of official structures they might, for example, seek to change the research problem and the research sample, request details of the research and scrutinise the interview questions, demand reciprocal compliance, etc. The question for researchers then is sometimes what is really meant by the requests, and what is just testing the researchers’ influence or seeking ways to reject researchers.

I’ve experienced extremes where we’ve been completely denied access . . . as the negotiation progressed, they realised that there was going to be some reflection . . ., they assessed it they didn’t want it . . . even though we had met the demands that they were putting on us . . . that was within the official structures. (R6)

In some cases, it is essential for the gatekeeper to maintain the status quo, which he or she perceives as adequate and legitimate, and to avoid potential criticism. A different logic of critical science that seeks immersion into the depth of the problem and construct knowledge about the phenomenon encounters resistance rooted in the cultural system of the organisation itself. Researchers then have no real guarantee or instruments to agree to collaboration.

. . .with those social workers, I felt like there might be a problem that they were not able to control and that they just sort of got rid of a potential problem. . . (R7)

Justification for refusal of cooperation

It was a common practice that our informants experienced a number of ways of rejection by gatekeepers. Research access may be denied for a variety of reasons, ranging from time pressure and institutional discomfort to an unwillingness to expose the institution and its staff to public scrutiny, or it may be the actual or perceived inappropriateness of the proposed research topic and/or its methods.

. . .she (gatekeeper) didn’t forget to add that, according to her statistics, social work in employment offices is now performed more often than it was in the past, yeah. Like sort of like a flimsy justification that basically, why would I want to research social work there. . . (R9)

The researcher’s statement points out that, gatekeeping may also apply to the application of research results in practice. If there is no demand for research results on part of the stakeholders for which the research results are intended, for example, new methods and techniques of working with clients, research results remain unused or are not financially supported.

Some reasons for access denial often stay uncommunicated to researchers or researchers are rejected entirely, without any explanation. It is also often the case that there is no response at all to researchers’ requests for access. Researchers have no real way of verifying the actual capacities of gatekeepers.

. . .that they don’t have the space, or . . . they’ve got really quite a lot of power in this . . . you don’t really know how much space they’ve got. . . (R6)

Researchers’ practices after gate closure

As indicated in the introduction, one way to respond to a gatekeeper’s rejection is to contact other potential gatekeepers. This strategy has limitations in that sometimes there are simply no ‘next in line’. At other times, a gatekeeper from management may extend his or her rejection to the entire target population (e.g. a rejection from the General Directorate of the Employment Office applying to all of their employees). Alternatively, even if ‘next in line’ are approached, it is not an endless list and once the list reaches the end, access may still not be gained.

. . .they rejected us, so we tried other schools, but when we were rejected at all those schools, we decided that we’d carry out the interviews despite the disapproval of those principals. (R11)

Conducting research despite denial

Sometimes, for various reasons, researchers choose to disregard the gatekeeper's rejection decision. However, they must be able to reflect well on what such a decision can bring, both for the researcher and the informants. This is quite difficult, especially in cases where the reason for the refusal is not entirely clear. In some cases, refusal from the gatekeeper tent is ethically acceptable, because they are trying to protect sensitive target groups from its damage, or research is rejected due to research fatigue, lack of resources, etc.

. . .Today, everyone is overwhelmed with requests to participate in some research, and now I mean, for example, within the framework of bachelor’s and diploma theses, and which I understand, because the primary goal of social services is to provide social services, and this is something above standard (R2).

However, if there is a need to examine some toxic forms of interaction between institutions and individuals, such as the functioning of bureaucratic and power systems to prevent the marginalisation and oppression of certain populations, bypassing the gatekeeper’s decision may be acceptable from a critical theory point of view (Fook, 2016).

Gatekeeper does not grant consent on behalf of informants, they are mostly individually able to assess their participation in the research. But they must be made aware by the researcher of the risks that this can potentially bring. Such a situation usually requires a high degree of vigilance and time for negotiation. According to our informant’s description, approaching participants in these cases is done through informal channels and usually takes place on neutral ground. The researcher further described that potential informants were always informed that management had not given consent and the terms of their participation in the research were negotiated with them.

. . .she (informant and also gatekeeper to other informants) would then negotiate with her colleagues that she could probably trust that they wouldn’t tell and then she still asks what types of questions we were going to ask and some more specific things. . .and based on some negotiation of those terms that it was going to be anonymous and that it was going to be off the school premises and outside working hours. (R11)

The negotiated terms of cooperation with this secondary gatekeeper are then based on personal ties and mutual trust between all involved, as the risks of would be serious for all.

I think that’s the only way to get to some data from there . . . to make a personal contact with some rank-and-file workers who refer you to other workers who are willing and not afraid to provide you with the data. . . (R9)

Our research further demonstrated that in addition to friendly help, an important prerequisite for the implementation of the strategy of ‘conducting research despite denial’ is a personal motivation of informants who perceive the topic under study to be serious, are frustrated with the unresolved situation and think that the research will bring some change or at least draw attention to the situation or allow them to vent their dissatisfaction. However, a certain degree of annoyance or critical attitude towards management also entails a bias in the data collected.

. . .the main motivation for all of those participants was that they were like angry, they wanted to talk about it . . . about a school policy that it’s not working very inclusively, yeah . . . And it was probably a rebellious group of the teachers, so it wasn’t representative of all the staff in that school, right. (R11)

The data bias can also be supported by the fact that informants know the researcher and know his/her opinions as well. This poses a risk that they present themselves to the researcher accordingly. At the same time, the researcher is grateful to the informants for the risk they have taken and may lower his or her research objectives and requirements.

you’re happy that people are talking to you at all, so maybe you skip some difficult topics . . . or you’re actually grateful that they’re talking to you, so you try to make it pleasant for them. . . (R11)

Simultaneously, the implementation of covert meetings with informants involves a great responsibility, which raises many ethical questions, fear of disclosure and future consequences.

During a data collection period, I was actually just dealing with the fact if it was ethically okay to approach them and how. . ., I was kind of scared, or kind of feeling bad about it, that it could have some consequences for them, somebody might have heard them . . . I was wondering to what extent it is about my role in it and how much is it my responsibility if somebody heard or saw them there, and then they could have some problems from it maybe. (R11)

Fear of disclosure is also reflected in the later stages of research when it can turn into paranoid feelings caused by insufficient data anonymisation. As a result, verification of the outputs by informants becomes more important.

I think I even sent them the anonymised report afterwards, before we published it. . . so, I also remember that I actually anonymised the whole report later. . .like completely . . . I was paranoid – I even changed e.g., gender, age. . . (R11)

Changes in methodology

Some informants felt that the sense of responsibility, fear of disclosure, and the belief that the organisation’s management would find out everything were greater than the complications associated with methodological change. This then led them to change a target group and research objectives, and possibly research methods and techniques.

Yes, in those contact points, sooner or later, but more likely sooner it would get passed up to the employment office management and they would just stop it and the staff would have to respect it because if they found out that someone had filled it out and it came out, they’d be in trouble, yeah. . . (R9)

Changing a target population and having to do without gatekeepers also brings with it many complications and risks. For example, one of our informants described the problem as being that the newly selected population was very difficult to identify, and their contacts were hard to reach. This then led to problems with data generalisation.

. . .basically, there wasn’t much to proceed other than calling all those municipal authorities, but there were a few hundred municipal authorities, so that wasn’t realistic . . . essentially, I was sending mass emails yeah . . . as part of reaching out to that population I sent some emails to some kindergarten, I apologized for that, but you just couldn’t tell from the organisational structure of the municipality who was or wasn’t doing the social work in fact. (R9)

In some cases, problems with gatekeepers led to changes in the whole methodology. For example, one of our informants completely resigned to a qualitative research strategy.

. . .I gave up on qualitative research . . . getting to the files was difficult . . . getting to the judges would be another issue. (R3)

The literature also describes (e.g. Shier, 2023) how gatekeeping led to abandoning the original research plan and restarting the project in a new form, leading to increased costs.

Covert research

Another strategy possible when the gatekeeper denies access to the target population is covert research. In particular, if researchers want to conduct critically engaged research in closed institutions and address controversial issues, the question arises under what conditions covert research is legitimate.

I don’t have any problems with covert research . . . covert research in many ways can find out really interesting things . . . basically no research other than some guerrilla qualitative research behind the back of the office management is currently not possible I have come to that conclusion based on my and other experiences. (R9)

Hidden research has a contradictory, rather negative reputation in the scientific community (Calvey, 2017). For some, it is the only viable way to penetrate the terrain and the strategy of staying in it (Iphofen and O'Mathúna, 2021), others consider it extremely ethically and morally dubious, for others it is completely taboo. We found that covert research today is a method that is used with some difficulty by a significantly limited number of researchers (Calvey, 2017). Our participants did not agree on whether covered research is the way to go, but rather some thought about the conditions under which it is possible, while reflecting on its challenges and risks. However, this topic deserves further research.

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.