Using gatekeepers to access learners for my sample

I originally intended to use of the support of the Equality and Diversity officer in ‘Unite the union’ to help gain access to a diverse sample of learners, with the required characteristics mentioned above. However in 2013 there was a change of leadership because of the previous merger between Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union in 2007 that created ‘Unite the union’. The leadership change also resulted in restructuring in the organisation and key union officers whom I originally contacted were not reinstated in the same jobs. I therefore had to start again contacting their new Head of Education, Jim Mowett. I had to introduce my research, and myself and convince him of the value of the study to the trade union.

Ultimately I had to negotiate my way through several layers of ‘gatekeepers’ to access the interviewees. Gatekeepers are people who had to agree that my research could happen in order for me to access potential participants. Bryman (2012) suggests gatekeepers are often concerned about the researchers’ motives and what the organisation can gain, or lose, by taking part in the research (p. 85), for example the cost of staff time or potential risks to the company’s or trade union’s image.

I had worked with trade unions in the past and was aware of their teaching and learning programmes, so was interested to find out more about the way they supported people to learn. But in order to gain the trust of the key gatekeepers, I had to contact people I already knew through my previous political and education activity, and use those contacts to

(NIACE) and ‘Unite the union’, who in turn could help me gain access to Regional Officers and Union Learning Reps who worked with learners.

I had to send e-mails explaining my intentions for the research and attend interviews to explain how I intended to carry it out, to gain formal permission to interview trade union members. Below I describe the different contacts and routes I used to access learners and in Appendices 5.2.1 include copies of some of the email correspondence sent to key gatekeepers.

From July 2012 to June 2014 I took the following steps:

• I used a contact within NIACE, to approach key people in ‘unionlearn’ the learning and skills organisation of the TUC. Through this approach I was able to access the first ULR I interviewed and three of his learners.

• In 2012 I contacted the Head of Education of Unite. I had worked with the union previously to help them develop quality assurance procedures in the development of their trainers and I therefore had established contacts in the organisation. Later that year, at a Labour Party Conference in Manchester, I met the new Head of Education and explained my research to him. I then met him early the following year and he introduced me to the Head of Lifelong Learning in Unite, who in turn, arranged to have me invited to a UNITE Union Learning Reps (ULR) conference attended by Regional Organisers and ULRs. This group of people were key in organising

courses and learning in the workplace and instrumental in identifying and recruiting people for me to interview.

• At the ULR conference I spoke about my research at the end of a workshop run by NIACE aimed at encouraging adults to improve their maths skills. Over 20 ULRs attended the workshop and at the end of the session I spoke briefly about my research, the type of people I wanted to interview and asked for help to access the learners. I asked those who were interested, and had access to people learning

• Twelve people showed interest and gave me their contact e-mails. I contacted them all the following week and three people replied, who were willing and able to help set me up with potential interviewees.

• The ULRs had to then negotiate with their managers in the workplace to allow me to access people on the company premises and give me the time to interview them. They also had to identify union members with the characteristics I listed to ask if they would be interested in me interviewing them. The interviews happened later in 2013.

• By 2014 it became apparent that using this method had introduced a bias into my sample, that that was representative of mainly white, British males. I therefore had to return to NIACE, and later TUC unionlearn, to help me access more female

learners. Through unionlearn I re-contacted a ULR who had been helpful early in my data collection and he successfully identified another female participant for me to interview. I contacted a Prison ULR through a NIACE-run training programme on developing mathematics skills and I contacted three more women through the TUC, who were learning mathematics through Health and Safety training programmes.

I wrote criteria of learner characteristics I needed for the research, to assist the officers and ULRs in deciding and contacting which learners were appropriate for the study. By acting as ‘gatekeepers and recruiters’ they were using their personal judgements in the selection process. This may have meant that some members of the trade union population were more likely to be selected than others and indeed the people I interviewed had all achieved a qualification notwithstanding my request that I wanted to recruit participants studying maths at work. This might have been because the officers and ULRs may have been engaged in impression management (Atkinson, 1986, p. 66), hoping, quite naturally, to give a good impression of the success of the work they did.