References
- Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. L., Meletis, Z. A., Abbott, J. G., & Silver, J. J. (2006). Gatekeepers and keymasters: Dynamic relationships of access in geographical fieldwork. The Geographical Review, 96, 97–121.
- Cortese, D. (2006). Are we thinking straight? The politics of straightness in a lesbian and gay social movement organization. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1996). Can we research the private sphere? methodological and ethical problems in the study of the role of intimate emotion in personal relationships. In L. Morris, & E. S. Lyon (Eds.), Gender relations in public and private (pp. 141–155). London: Macmillan.
- Edwards, R., & Ribbens, J. with Gillies V. (1999). Shifting boundaries and power in the research process: The example of researching ‘step-families. In J. Seymour, & P. Bagguley (Eds.), Relating intimacies: Power and resistance (pp. 13–42). London: Macmillan.
- Engel, S. M. (2001). The unfinished revolution. Social movement theory and the gay and lesbian movement. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
- Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., & Berger, M. T. (2003). Gaining access: A practical and theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
- Gabb, J. (2008). Researching intimacy in families. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Gilgun, J., Daly, K., & Handel, G. (1992). Qualitative methods in family research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Horwood, J., & Moon, G. (2003). Accessing the research setting: The politics of research and the limits to enquiry. Area, 35, 106–109.
- Kawulich, B. B. (2011). Gatekeeping: An Ongoing Adventure in Research. Field Methods, 23, 57–76.
- Kuumba, M. B. (2001). Gender and Social Movements. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
- Magolda, P. (2000). Accessing, waiting, plunging in, wondering, and writing: Retrospective sense-making of fieldwork. Field Methods, 12, 209–234.
- Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2012). Consenting to what? issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ consent. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 53–69). London: Sage.
- Reeves, C. L. (2010). A difficult negotiation: Fieldwork relations with gatekeepers. Qualitative Research, 10, 315–331.
- Roseneil, S. (2012). Using biographical narrative and life story methods to research women’s movements: FEMCIT. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 129–131.
- Sanghera, G. S., & Thapar-Bjorkert, S. (2008). Methodological dilemmas: Gatekeepers and positionality in Bradford. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 543–562.
- Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting past the gatekeepers: Differences between access and cooperation in public sector research. Field Methods, 20, 191–208.