The fallacy of the instrumental gate? Contextualising the process of gaining access through gatekeepers

References

• Ahmed, S. (2004). Close encounter. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arber, S. (1993). Designing samples. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 68–92). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (2012). Introduction to second edition. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Blaxter, L., Tight, M., & Hughes, C. (2010). How to research. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Brannen, J. (1988). Research note: The study of sensitive subjects: Notes on interviewing. Sociological Review, 36, 552–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Meletis, Z. A., Abbott, J. G., & Silver, J. J. (2006). Gatekeepers and keymasters: Dynamic relationships of access in geographical fieldwork. Geographical Review, 96, 97–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, T. (2011). Gaining and maintaining access. Exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationships between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work, 10, 485–502.
   Google Scholar
• Crowhurst, I. (2007). The ‘foreign prostitute’ in contemporary Italy: Gender, sexuality and migration in policy and practice (PhD thesis). University of London, London.
   Google Scholar
• Crowhurst, I. (2012). Caught in the victim/criminal paradigm: Female migrant prostitution in contemporary Italy. Modern Italy, 17, 493–506.
   Google Scholar
• Crowhurst, I., Roseneil, S., Hellesund, T., Santos, A. C., & Stoilova, M. (2013). Close encounters: Researching intimate lives in Europe. International Journal of Social Research Methodology.
   Google Scholar
• Cusick, L. (1999). Female prostitution in Glasgow: Drug use and occupation sector. Addiction Research, 6, 115–130.
   Google Scholar
• Denscombe, M. (2009). Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, R. (1990). Connecting method and epistemology. A white woman interviewing black women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13, 477–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emmel, N., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J., & Sales, A. (2007). Accessing socially excluded people – Trust and the gatekeeper in the researcher-participant relationship. Sociological Research Online. 12. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/emmel.html
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, G. (2001). Researching social life. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• kennedy-macfoy, M. (2013). It’s important for the students to meet someone like you. What is seen and what goes unseen in gatekeeper perceptions of the researcher in school-based research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology.
   Google Scholar
• Magolda, P. M. (2000). Assessing, waiting, plunging in, wondering, and writing: Retrospective sense-making of fieldwork. Field Methods, 12, 209–234.
   Google Scholar
• May, T. (2011). Social research issues, methods and process. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, M., & Purvis, J. (1994). Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• McGivern, Y. (2006). The practice of market and social research: An introduction. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2012). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ consent. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell Davidson, J. (1998). Prostitution, power, and freedom. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, M. (2001). Prostitution & feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parpart, J. (2010). Choosing silence rethinking voice, agency and women’s empowerment. In R. Ryan-Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 15–29). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., & Earle, R. (2010). Reading difference differently. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 360–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribbens, J., & Edwards, R. (Eds.). (1998). Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., O’Neill, M., & Pitcher, J. (2009). Prostitution: Sex work, policy and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., O’Neill, M., & Pitcher, J. (2009). Prostitution: Sex work, policy and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanghera, G. S., & Thapar-Björkert, S. (2008). Methodological dilemmas: Gatekeepers and positionality in Bradford. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 543–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders, N. (2006). Gatekeepers. In V. Jupp (Ed.), SAGE dictionary of social research methods (p. 126). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting past the gatekeepers: Differences between access and cooperation in public school research. Field Notes, 20, 191–208.
   Google Scholar