Gaining Access to the Field of Research First Level Gatekeepers I was sitting with a great proposal but in order

to turn this into a reality I had to gain access to the field of study. The study took place across two Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in Central Scotland. As an employee of LEA 1, I was able to use my insider position by emailing the Director of Education through the internal mail system with my proposal. However, in LEA 2, where I was not an employee, I had to write to the Director of Education. The Director responded by sending me a standard pro forma for research within that particular LEA and on completion access was granted. In LEA 1, I set about seeking access to the instiutions where I could possibly carry out my research. I did this in consultation with my own Head Teacher who knew the schools and their politics. I also consulted the Speech and Language Therapist who had an overview of the distribution of the autism population within the authority. The Head Teacher was the gatekeeper in each school and was in control of access to the institution and its community members including the groups I was interested in this included children, teachers, support staff and parents. In LEA 1, I was grateful that my Head Teacher wrote a cover letter to go with my letter and let me use the LEA headed note paper and internal mail system to give it more credibility. Of the 8 schools that I wrote to within LEA 1, two accepted the invitation to take part in the research and invited me in for an initial meeting that made three in total within this authority including my own school. One of the schools passed this responsibility to the Deputy Head and subsequently the Principal Teacher when she wasnt in school to act as the gatekeeper. It was all of these Head Teachers at the initial stage that dictated my sample and which voices would be heard in LEA 1. The gatekeepers were very accommodating in helping me to gain access to the sites of research. Ironically, the most challenging part was working around my own teaching commitments and each institutions commitments. Interestingly, I found my own institution the most challenging to work within this will be explored in greater depth later. In LEA 2, I was fortunate enough to have had a verbal agreement from a Head Teacher (a fellow EdD student) prior to contacting the Director. Following permission from LEA 2 I sent a formal letter to this Head Teacher to formalise the arrangement and start the process of gaining access to a potential sample.

Second Level Gatekeepers Parents A big challenge in the planning stage was how to approach parents in my own institution as I was attached to the Support Base for pupils identified as being on the autism spectrum. I was conscious that any invitation for participation in research for mainstream pupils who were not on the autism spectrum may be met by suspicion from their parents/carers due to my remit in the school. Given that pupils on the autism spectrum were also being invited to take part, I wanted to avoid the possibility

that parents thought I had invited their child to take part because I thought they were on the autism spectrum which was not the case at all. My way around this dilemma was to position the study as a general study on pupil voice with one aspect of it looking specifically at the voices of those on the autism spectrum. This resulted in me creating two separate letters, one for the pupil who were identified as being on the autism spectrum and one for those who were not (see appendix for comparison). This served the purpose of letting all parents know that I was interested in their childs voice at school but also making the parents of the pupils identified as being on the autism spectrum aware that I was interested in their voice because of their diagnosis. If I had only written to them to say that I was interested in their childs voice and had not been specific about the fact that it was because they were identified as autistic, then I would have been in breach of the BERA 2004 guidance on deception (BERA 2004, page 6). I could have also set myself up for a negative response at a later date had I used any of the information in publications without parents being fully aware of my motives. The same methods for gaining parental consent for both groups taking part in the research were used in the other schools within the project. I was happy that the same letters were appropriate here but did provide the gatekeepers with the opportunity to ask for changes in keeping with my Transformative Framework. As Oliver points out, researchers have an ethical obligation to seek informed consent of gatekeepers as they have much more to lose than the researcher. Once the research is complete the researcher simply packs up and moves on whereas the gatekeeper has to live with the daily consequence of any impact the research has (Oliver 2003, p. 39 cited in Cohen and Manion 2011, p. 79). I was also explicit with these gatekeepers about the reasons for two separate letters and they were happy with my justification. Only two parents decided that their children should not take part in the study both of whom were in my own institution. One replied saying not to consent and the other form was never returned despite a reminder being issued. I have not followed up on their reasons for saying no. Teachers

This is a piece that was scribed for the child by an adult. The important fact here was that this was adapted from original data collection methods by teacher herself. Teachers were vitally important gatekeepers as they controlled the childrens daily routines through their class time-tables and agendas. In my own institution they controlled my access to pupils and this dynamic was further complicated as these teachers were also my colleagues. In other institutions, this was managed by the first level gatekeepers discussed above and in practice was a much easier dynamic to manage. The main task that teachers had control over was the daily diary task. It was apparent that time to complete the diary was dependent on the teachers attitude towards the research coupled with other pressures they were faced with. There were two examples of teachers who went over and above the call of duty to ensure that the voices of pupils in their care were shared. One teacher constantly adapted and tweaked the resources I had provided for one young person to ensure that he was able to access the research. After experimenting with a number of methods, he settled on the teacher scribing for him (see above) this particular community developed a real ownership over the project. This pocket of excellent practice was replicated by another teacher and child for whom my intial data collection method for diary did not suit them. Instead they made use of the class handheld video camera and produced some fantastic video diaries. Access to all children in this project within my own insitution was controlled by class teachers as their gatekeeper. However, I was Daniels class teacher and therefore his gatekeeper within the research. Homan (2002) argues that in insider research, gatekeepers should avoid acting exclusively in their own professional interests. I was very much aware that I was in a position to exceed the rights offered to me by my position (Fraser 2007). In my own classroom I had to manage the boundary between researcher and class teacher. As Alderson warns, researchers who are also doctors, teachers, early years staff or students, for example, should therefore be clear about when they are providing a service and when they are doing research (WHO 2000 and Alderson 1999). However, all I could do was be aware of this issue and try to

respond reflexively in my practice. This was achieved by sticking to the principles of assent before any research activities and by explaining that this was not class work and he didnt have to do it.