RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

122 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
the nature of those who respond, in terms of
representativeness or suitability.
Networking: thisisakintosnowballsampling,
wherein one set of contacts puts the researcher
in touch with more contacts, who puts the
researcher in touch with yet more contacts
and so on. This is a widely used technique,
though Lee (1993: 66) reports that it is not
always easy for contacts to be passed on,
as initial informants may be unwilling to
divulge members of a close-knit community.
On the other hand, Morrison (2006) reports
that networking is a popular technique where
it is difficult to penetrate a formal organization
such as a school, if the gatekeepers (those
who can grant or prevent access to others,
e.g. the headteacher or senior staff) refuse
access. He reports the extensive use of informal
networks by researchers, in order to contact
friends and professional associates, and, in
turn, their friends and professional associates,
thereby sidestepping the formal lines of contact
through schools.
Walford (2001: 36–47) sets out a four-step
process of gaining access:
1 Approach (gaining entry, perhaps through a
mutual friend or colleague – a link person). In
this context Walford (2001) cautions that an
initial letter should be used only to gain an
initial interview or an appointment, or even
to arrange to telephone the headteacher in
order to arrange an interview, not to conduct
the research or to gain access.
2 Interest (using a telephone call to arrange
an initial interview). In this respect Walford
(2001: 43) notes that headteachers like to
talk, and so it is important to let them talk,
even on the telephone when arranging an
interview to discuss the research.
3 Desire (overcoming objections and stressing
the benefits of the research). As Walford
(2001: 44) wisely comments: ‘after all, schools
have purposes other than to act as research
sites’. He makes the telling point that the
research may actually benefit the school, but
that the school may not realize this until it is
pointed out. For example, a headteacher may
wish to confide in a researcher, teachers may
benefit from discussions with a researcher,
students may benefit from being asked about
their learning.
4 Sale (where the participants agree to the
research).
Whitty and Edwards (1994: 22) argue that in
order to overcome problems of access, ingenuity
and even the temptation to use subterfuge could
be considered: ‘denied co-operation initially by
an independent school, we occasionally contacted
some parents through their child’s primary school
and then told the independent schools we already
were getting some information about their pupils’.
They also add that it is sometimes necessary
for researchers to indicate that they are ‘on the
same side’ as those being researched. 1 Indeed they
report that ‘we were questioned often about our
own views, and there were times when to be
viewed suspiciously from one side proved helpful in
gaining access to the other’ (Whitty and Edwards
1994: 22). This harks back to Becker’s (1968)
advice to researchers to decide whose side they
are on.
The use of snowball sampling builds in
‘security’ (Lee 1993), as the contacts are those
who are known and trusted by the members of
the ‘snowball’. That said, this itself can lead to
bias, as relationships between participants in the
sample may consist of ‘reciprocity and transitivity’
(Lee 1993: 67), i.e. participants may have close
relationships with one another and may not wish
to break these. Thus homogeneity of the sample’s
attributes may result.
Such snowball sampling may alter the
research, for example changing random, stratified
or proportionate sampling into convenience
sampling, thereby compromising generalizability
or generating the need to gain generalizability
by synthesizing many case studies. Nevertheless,
it often comes to a choice between accepting
non-probability strategies or doing nothing.
The issues of access to people in order to
conduct sensitive research may require researchers
to demonstrate a great deal of ingenuity and