Nuevas tendencias de integración regional

After consulting a selection of literature on negotiating access, it became apparent that the best possibility of navigating access would be via gatekeepers, key community members and taking a snowballing approach. Similarly, previous FGC studies, which adopted this approach served as a useful and effective guide for my own recruitment methods.

This section will discuss the benefits and challenges of recruiting via gatekeepers, Twitter and online forums, Community recruitment strategies and snowballing. A table of how every participant was recruited is demonstrated in the table below, it can also be located in appendix Five.

Recruitment method Number of participants

Gatekeeper 15

Twitter 5

Community recruitment strategy 5

Snowball method 5

Table one: recruitment method

5.3.1 Benefits and challenges of recruiting via gatekeepers

Miller and Bell (2012) describe gatekeepers as those who can ‘permit’ access to others because of their superior inside position, this suggests a potential power relationship

between gatekeepers and those we access. These power dynamics, alongside gender and ethnicity, can be ethically problematic when considering how voluntary informed consent is. Gatekeepers may, for example, make resistance more difficult as participants may feel more pressured (see ethics section below 5.8). McFadyen and Rankin (2016) also highlight that gatekeepers can limit or delay access despite ethical approval. They do however note how gatekeepers can have an invaluable influence on research such as facilitating the smooth running of the research (McFadyen and Rankin, 2016).

I identified possible gatekeepers by attending community centres and contacting local groups that focused on FGC and other health initiatives in affected communities. I made initial contact with potential gatekeepers or key community members via phone calls, emails and meetings. Many organisations, including council or Government funded projects, stated they could not facilitate my research due to its sensitive nature. Some however such as a local HIV clinic, children’s nursery and skills development centres were more accommodating. This did not always come without its difficulties as negotiating access involved presenting on FGC, becoming a support worker for women with FGC, being asked to write academic papers and set up support groups. This questioned my position as a researcher, which is discussed below (Section 5.11). In total 15 participants were recruited via gatekeepers.

5.3.2 Twitter and online forums

The number of researchers recruiting through social media sites such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, is on the rise and well recognised within social research as a valid method of recruitment (Finzel, 2013). There are many advantages to this type of recruitment including time and cost effectiveness and being able to reach niche groups. However, questions have been raised about its credibility regarding the way people

present themselves online (Finzel, 2013). There is a growing presence of FGC campaigns on Twitter which can be found under the hashtag FGM (#FGM). This made Twitter an effective tool for recruitment and I recruited five participants via this method. It was important that this was not the only form of recruitment as it would only reach specific people, such as those active on Twitter and those that engaged with the hashtags. I also created a website with information about my study (appendix Six) and posted the link on Twitter.

Furthermore, due to the increased anonymity of being online, I posted details of the study on a number of forums such as; Somali Spot, Somali net, Somali online, Mereja and topix.com-mugadisho. There was no communication through these sites despite there being other posts in English and on sensitive topics; no participants were recruited through this strategy.

5.3.3 Community recruitment strategies and challenges in Leicester

In order to cover all possible avenues of recruitment in Leicester I created a list of relevant organisations and charities (see appendix Seven). The criteria included organisations which had contact with women and children, for example Sure Start centres and nurseries; culturally specific to affected communities; community centres, schools and mosques. Whilst it was often difficult to gain access to these places and my identity and purpose for being there was questioned; this often manifested in questions such as “Where are you from?” “Are you a social worker?” or “Are you Muslim?”. It was apparent that some organisations were more welcoming in offering to advertise my research or let me speak to people within their facility than others. This was often those which were culturally specific and provided English lessons, or those which raised awareness of FGC or other

health issues such as HIV and sensitive topics such as Domestic Violence. This method allowed me to recruit five participants.

5.3.4 Snowball sampling

My main recruitment strategy for interviews was snowball sampling; a term used to describe when one participant directly recruits other participants. This technique is often used when researching ‘minority’ groups because it can be difficult to identify them in the wider population (Miner and Jayaratne, 2014 cited in Hesse-Biber, 2014). Sadler et

al (2010) suggest one advantage is the cultural competence in how to approach potential

participants, however a disadvantage can be an over-representation of people with similar characteristics. In total I recruited five participants via snowballing. I had anticipated a greater response via snowballing, however, due to the sensitive and political nature of the topic, this recruitment strategy proved less effective than expected. This could be due to people not wanting to raise suspicion of their own participation.