The Gatekeeper

Abstract

Gatekeepers control access to benefits that they do not own. When granted access, their clients incur obligations that take the form of fees owed to the gatekeeper. This paper examines a variety of forms that gatekeeping has historically taken, looking closely at the network positions that gatekeepers have occupied. Not previously resolved is what determines the size of the client's obligation. The theory presented here predicts 1) the size of that obligation from the value to the client of the access sought. It also predicts that 2) to benefit, gatekeepers must monopolize their positions, or, failing monopolization, 3) must organize to form a shared monopoly. In exchange networks, gatekeeping takes the form of “ordering,” a new structural power condition. Resistance equations generate exact quantitative values for hypotheses expressing the three predictions above. Experimental tests in the well-understood context of exchange networks offer strong support for the hypotheses.

“It’s a case of access.” The problematics of accessing research participants

“…Sometimes access is unable to be gained, necessitating a change in direction of the initially intended research. The misconnections between the processes of gaining access as submitted during ethics application processes with what occurs in practice is largely ignored by the literature, yet are commonly faced by research practitioners (Corra & Willer, 2002;Hoyland et al, 2015;Reeves, 2010). As a consequence, education researchers who negotiate the power relationship with kaiārahi, gatekeepers and participants need to communicate their experiences about the process of access with other researchers.…”

“…The process of accessing the research site and participants is paramount to the successful achievement of educational research outcomes, yet may be less under a researcher's control. More recently, over the past 15 years, researchers have carefully considered and analysed encounters related to accessing a research site and participants (Cheah & Parker, 2014;Clark, 2010;Corra & Willer, 2002;Emmel, Hughes, Greenhalgh, & Sales, 2007;Horwood & Moon, 2003;Hoyland, Hollund, & Olsen, 2015;Lund, Panda, & Dhal, 2016;Reeves, 2010;Roguski & Tauri, 2013). In this body of research, the relationships and power dynamics between the researcher and the researched comes to the fore, demanding careful consideration.…”

Some lessons learned in conducting software engineering surveys in china

“…We approached the designated contact person of each company by email or telephone. These people act as the so-called "gatekeeper" in social science terminology [6].…”

Votes, Favors, Toys, and Ideas: The Effect of Resource Characteristics on Power in Exchange Networks

“…Ordering can emerge in positively connected relations when an actor must exchange in one relation before exchanging in a second relation (Corra and Wilier 2002). This would occur in the A-B-C network if B were required to exchange with A before exchanging with C. An example is a father who can dine with colleagues only if he first hires a babysitter.…”

“…If the father has multiple babysitters to choose from, then the first exchange could occur in any of those relations. This creates a negative connection between the father-babysitter relations, which not only makes power due to ordering impossible but gives the father a power advantage over the babysitters (Corra and Wilier 2002). Only when a sole supplier of the necessary resource exists can power emerge.…”