What is ‘access’ in the context of qualitative research?

Abstract

In this article, I reflect upon access in the context of qualitative research, which I define as the process by which a researcher and the sites and/or individuals he or she studies relate to each other, through which the research in question is enabled. Access is a dynamic and multidirectional process, which depends on the researcher’s ability to access and to develop a ‘multiple vision’, and on the researcher’s and the research’s accessibility. Access influences the research process and results, and is shaped by power dynamics. Awareness of the complexity of access will help qualitative researchers to make more conscious and deliberate decisions, for example on which vantage points to include or exclude, or on how to protect participants and themselves. I illustrate my points of reflection with the help of vignettes from my research on the organizational dynamics behind the Greenpeace campaign against Norwegian whaling. I discuss implications for practice, and argue that perceiving of qualitative research as craftwork can help researchers to sustain complex notions of access.

The challenge of recruiting and engaging reluctant non-expert representatives

“…The literature on survey non-response is well-developed (for a recent overview, see Bach et al, 2020), and many studies have analysed the processes of selection and recruitment, and reluctance, in ethnographic research, especially focusing on the complex issue of access (Bengry-Howell and Griffin, 2012; Riese, 2019). With some relevant exception, instead, methodological literature often overlooks the problems arising in the process of recruiting participants for interview-based research (Adler and Adler, 2003; Anthony and Danaher, 2016; Clark, 2010; Emmel, 2014; Kristensen and Ravn, 2015; Levine, 2017; McCormack et al, 2012; Reybold et al, 2012).…”

“…Personal characteristics – such as shyness (Scott, 2004), strong opinions or willingness to tell a story can be influential too (Kristensen and Ravn, 2015). Also, some specific groups and organizations may refuse to take part in social research, because of previous experiences (Clark, 2010), contextual reasons (Adler and Adler, 2003) or political considerations (Giorgi and Piazza, 2010; Riese, 2019). Gender can play a role too, especially with specific topics (Butera, 2006).…”

Reflections on accessing indigenous research settings: Encounters with traditional health practitioners and leaders in Vhembe district, South Africa

“…When gaining access to indigenous settings, many researchers do not follow or consider certain protocols that are important for acceptance by indigenous communities (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016) such as dress code, tone and local spoken languages, conduct and behaviour, or fail to familiarise themselves with the setting. Various studies have highlighted gaps in explaining the process to obtain access to indigenous research settings (Miller & Gibler, 2011;Riese, 2019). Failing to describe how to gain access to the research setting may be viewed as a mechanism to silence the voices of participants, especially of disadvantaged indigenous people (Oates & Riaz, 2016).…”

A Scoping Review of Practitioner Research on Sensitive Topics

“…Additionally, being part of a research project in one's own organization may also raise some ethical concerns, such as the power dynamics between the researcher and potential participants (Riese, 2019). However, this may also constitute a beneficial flipside-of-the-coin situation; if the researcher is well known to participants, those participants might open up more and experience the process as safer.…”