Regular Article
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume 20: 1–10
Negotiating Organizational Access as a ª The Author(s) 2021DOI: 10.1177/16094069211012593
Multifaceted Process: Comparative journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Research Experiences With Three
Advocacy NGOs in Kenya
Tara Saharan1,2 , Maaike Matelski2,3, and Emmanuel Kumi4
Abstract
Although research with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has become an established practice, the process and politics
of gaining access to such organizations often remains implicit in methodological literature on qualitative research. Drawing on a
systematic comparison of research experiences with advocacy NGOs in Kenya, this article discusses organizational access as a
multifaceted process. Based on three case studies that were comparable in set-up and context but yielded different outcomes, we
argue that the process of obtaining and maintaining access to NGOs is influenced and shaped by researcher positionality, internal
and external gatekeepers, organizational characteristics and research topic, and that these factors should be studied in interaction
rather than in isolation. Taken together, these factors determine the process of obtaining and maintaining research access, and
consequently the outcome of ethnographic fieldwork with NGOs.
Keywords
NGO research, access, gatekeeping, positionality, trust building, Kenya
Introduction gatekeepers within NGOs play an increasingly important role
in establishing initial access within research, as they are
The process of establishing and maintaining research access in
uniquely concerned with impression management, and wary
various types of organizations is increasingly getting attention
that a tarnished reputation may directly influence future fund-
from qualitative researchers (Clark, 2010; Grant, 2017; Riese,
ing opportunities (Bell, 1999; Clark, 2010; Marland &
2018; Siwale, 2015). Organizations differ from everyday life
Esselment, 2018; Reeves, 2010).
due to their structured environment that details certain rules,
Fieldwork access to organizations that operate within the aid
strategies and meanings (Bell, 1999). Access to organizations
chain2 can be particularly challenging, due to the donor depen-
is characterized by uncertainties and complexities of research
dency culture which makes NGOs mindful of potential conse-
sites that are subject to changing circumstances and repeated
quences of “bad exposure” for future funding (Siwale, 2015,
negotiations (Adu-Ampong & Adams, 2020; Bondy, 2013;
p. 9), and more prone to “filtering and regulating the flow of
Cunliffe & Alcadipani, 2016). Gaining and maintaining access
is a non-linear process which involves responding to political
and ethical dilemmas that often depend on the type and nature
1
of relationships between the researcher and research partici- Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
2
pants (Cunliffe & Alcadipani, 2016). Organizational politics Department of Cultural Anthropology and Development Studies, Radboud
University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
and the nature of the research influence the type of access as 3 Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Vrije Universiteit
well as knowledge generated in the form of research outcomes Amsterdam, the Netherlands
(Siwale, 2015). Non-Governmental Organizations1 (NGOs) 4 Centre for Social Policy Studies, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana
have additional concerns due to their intention of “doing good”
Corresponding Author:
and their inherent entanglement with and dependency on the
Tara Saharan, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, Delft 2628 CN,
support of other stakeholders such as states, donors, and the Netherlands.
intended beneficiaries (Sampson, 2017). Furthermore, Email: tsaharan@gmail.com
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
information and stabilising representations” (Mosse, 2005, ill-equipped for capturing and comparing context-specific
p. 12). The outcome of qualitative research with NGOs is experiences of negotiating access, particularly in non-
inherently uncertain for the research subjects, and researchers Western settings which have been underrepresented in the
may be viewed as intruders with the power to misrepresent or methodological literature on organizations.
expose undesirable information about the research subjects; While a range of studies have explored organizational char-
alternatively, they may be viewed as welcome amplifiers of acteristics, gatekeepers and researcher positionality as indepen-
their concerns. In the case of Greenpeace in Norway, for exam- dent factors influencing research access, this article aims to
ple, public criticism of its anti-whaling campaign caused some of understand how the interaction between them influences and
the (former) employees to react with suspicion to the researcher, shapes access negotiation in NGO research from a comparative
denying her interview requests and checking her background perspective. This study aims to guide future researchers in
with colleagues before participating (Riese, 2018). Similarly, setting up their research design and also proposes some
in the case of Rural Power, an NGO in India, the organization’s suggestions for negotiating the processes of access within
response to research dissemination constituted criticism and NGO research. This is done by drawing on the experiences
denial by the NGO staff, highlighting their interest in controlling of three researchers who took part in a large study on CSOs’
narratives of project success (O’Reilly & Dhanju, 2010). Partic- advocacy strategies commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry
ular attention therefore needs to be paid to processes of gate- of Foreign Affairs (MFA), but who conducted research in dif-
keeping and impression management employed by ferent organizations in Kenya. Despite the similar research
organizational representatives (Grant, 2017). This article dis- framework, context and entry to the field, the three researchers
cusses how these factors influence the research process in three had vastly different experiences in terms of the access they
comparative research projects with advocacy NGOs in Kenya. obtained to the organizations and individual NGO representa-
Negotiating organizational access goes beyond the process tives. This article therefore seeks to explore the underlying
of gaining entry to the research site, and these negotiations factors that accounted for the differences in experiences of
include consideration of relationships between the researcher access to advocacy NGOs in Kenya.
and the researched (Reeves, 2010). Additionally, access to In doing so, this article makes two contributions to the meth-
advocacy NGOs is a “multidirectional” process involving dif- odological literature on NGO research. First, based on three
ferent actors that is dependent on the researcher’s abilities and different but related case studies, this article shows how four
capacity to manage relationships with the research participants factors namely gatekeepers, researcher characteristics, organiza-
(Riese, 2018, p. 12). Within an international setting, access is tional characteristics, and research topic intersect to influence
also contingent on how the researcher’s identity is constructed how research access is obtained and maintained. Our findings
based on her or his positionality as an “outsider” or “insider” clearly demonstrate the complexity involved in obtaining and
(Bell, 1999; Siwale, 2015; Sultana, 2007). Researchers’ aware- maintaining research access to NGOs. For this reason, access
ness of their positionality and reflexivity in understanding the should not be conceived of as a linear process, but rather as
power dynamics of the environment in which they operate can dependent on the interactions between researcher positionality,
enhance the validity of the research outcomes (Kwak, 2019; organizational characteristics, research topic, and the role played
Noh, 2019). With regard to negotiating and establishing access, by gatekeepers. Second, by adopting a comparative lens in
this study explores researcher positionality and reflexivity as studying access to NGOs, we highlight a broad range of factors
additional intersecting factors. that would be nearly impossible to understand by studying a
Research on Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), most nota- single case. Our findings therefore show the significance of
bly NGOs, has become a significant field of study, as they qualitative comparative study on access to NGOs which is rel-
voice the views and represent the interests of a sizable section atively limited in the methodological literature.
of the population, particularly those on the lower end of the The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
power spectrum (see for example, Banks et al., 2015; Lewis & The next section details the context of the research project and
Opoku-Mensah, 2006). Yet, the processes ethnographic the methodology adopted. We then discuss a number of orga-
researchers undergo in order to gain access to such organiza- nizational and individual characteristics that determine how
tions often remain implicit, as most existing studies delve researchers negotiate and obtain access and establish relation-
straight into the researchers’ interpretation of the field, or stay ships in the field. The conclusion presents the need for looking
very close to the organizations’ “self-legitimating discourse” at the intersection of different factors in understanding how
without exploring the power dynamics they engage in (Demars, access is determined, and suggests future methodological
2005 as cited in Lewis & Opoku-Mensah, 2006, p. 670). The directions for research on advocacy NGOs.
majority of methodological literature on access in NGO
research has highlighted either the role of gatekeepers or
Research Context and Methodology
researcher positionality (see for example, Noh, 2019; Riese,
2018). Additionally, most of the existing studies draw on a Qualitative research methodology was adopted by the three
single case study (e.g., Markowitz, 2001; Noh, 2019; O’Reilly researchers who took part in a larger project which aimed to
& Dhanju, 2010; Riese, 2018). While these studies are appro- scrutinize the assumptions behind the Netherlands MFA’s The-
priate for studying individual NGO cases, they are typically ory of Change for “Dialogue and Dissent,” a funding program
Saharan et al. 3
that aims to strengthen the lobby and advocacy capacities of Gaining Research Access to Advocacy NGOs
NGOs in low and lower-middle income countries, and enhance
In this article, we will look at the process of obtaining and
their political roles. In 2017, six research projects were
maintaining access to three Kenyan advocacy NGOs with ref-
awarded funding in this program, of which three were situated
3 erence to a number of factors that influence this process: inter-in Kenya.
nal or external gatekeepers, characteristics of the individual
The three researchers were part of two research projects that
researchers, the organizations under study, and the research
focused on civic engagement and on the aid chain, respectively.
topic (see Figure 1). Of course, no research outcome depends
For these projects, extensive fieldwork took place in Kenya
on one of these factors alone, as they inevitably interact with
between April and December 2018, with some further research
each other in the field. Yet, for analytical purposes, we intro-
activities conducted in the Netherlands as well. Researcher 1
duce them here as separate categories in order to highlight the
conducted fieldwork with a local organization (Organization
way each of them influences and shapes the research access
A) based in a small village in Eastern Kenya.4 Data collection
process. The empirical discussions are structured around the
consisted of participant observation at the organization’s office
differences and similarities as experienced by the three
and during field visits, and the researcher held interviews and
researchers for obtaining access in the entry phase and main-
focus group discussions with NGO staff, board members, com-
taining access in the fieldwork phase of the research process.
munity members (i.e., intended beneficiaries), local authorities,
We explore access as a multifaceted process resulting from
and donor representatives.
interaction between the gatekeepers, researcher characteristics,
Contrary to Researcher 1, Researchers 2 and 3 were primar-
research topic, and the NGOs under study.
ily based in Nairobi, where the head offices of the two organi-
zations were located. In addition, both researchers made
regular field visits to the counties where the organizations were Research Topic Influencing Access and Dissemination
implementing their advocacy initiatives under the “Dialogue
Processes
and Dissent” program. Data was collected through informal
discussions, participant observation, focus group discussions, Our comparative research showed that the nature of the
and semi-structured interviews with the NGO staff, govern- research topic had a direct impact on gaining and maintaining
ment officials, consultants, donor representatives and research access with the three NGOs. Researcher 1 took part in
Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) by Researcher 2. a project on civil society engagement with land rights advo-
Similarly, for Researcher 3, semi-structured interviews, parti- cacy, while Researchers 2 and 3 took part in a project studying
cipant observation and focus group discussions were conducted NGOs in the aid chain (see Table 1). Project 1 on land rights
with donor organizations (i.e., the MFA and the Royal Nether- advocacy in the context of large-scale corporate land invest-
lands Embassy, hereafter Embassy), international and local ments was conducted in partnership with an international NGO
NGOs, and government officials. (INGO) with offices in Kenya and the Netherlands. Projects
As the three researchers operated in similar research envir- 2 and 3 were part of a larger study that examined how the
onments in the Netherlands and in Kenya, they started exchan- institutional design of aid chains influences and shapes the
ging experiences on gaining access and participating in offices advocacy work of CSOs in the Global South.
and field-based activities of the respective organizations. Dur- Within the broad framework of the aid chain, Project 2 was
ing these conversations, significant differences started to based in a national-level feminist NGO (Organization B) and
emerge which the researchers decided to explore further after focused on improved protection of women and girls against
their return from fieldwork. To this end, tables were drawn in gender-based violence in Kenya. Project 3 focused on CSOs’
which each researcher shared their experience on a particular participation in improving the labor conditions of workers in
phase of the fieldwork access process. Based on this exercise, the Kenyan cut-flower sector through a collaborative partner-
four main factors emerged that the researchers felt influenced ship between a Dutch INGO and seven local NGOs in Kenya.
their organizational access in different ways, which will be Because of the sensitivity associated with the aid chain project
elaborated on below. (i.e., NGO funding and their relationship with donors), both
The four factors identified in this article as influencing orga- Researchers 2 and 3 experienced considerable unease among
nizational research access are thus based on explicit reflexivity staff members of participating NGOs. They were often per-
regarding research access from our individual experiences in ceived as someone doing an evaluation exercise, despite
the field, and the joint process of viewing these experiences repeated clarifications about the goals and rationale of the
through a comparative lens. The comparative lens not only research project. The combination of the research topic with
aided in highlighting the similarity and variance across the researchers’ introduction by representatives of donor agencies
cases under study, but also revealed unique as well as common (i.e., the Embassy and INGO) resulted in additional barriers to
characteristics that would have gone unnoticed when studying research access. These factors inadvertently positioned both
a single case (Eisenhardt, 1991; Mills et al., 2006). The result- researchers as outsiders despite several measures they took to
ing analysis therefore went beyond “self-reflexivity” and build rapport and trust. For instance, Researcher 2 frequently
explored the consequences of variations in research access joined the NGO staff members during lunch and coffee breaks,
comparatively. and actively participated in the advocacy campaign that was
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Figure 1. Factors influencing organizational access to advocacy NGOs.
Table 1. Organizational Details Where the Research Was Conducted in Kenya.
Researcher Organizational Focus Thematic Focus of the Research Project
Organization A Researcher 1 Civic education and advocacy on land rights’ Civic engagement
Organization B Researcher 2 Women’s rights advocacy Aid chain
Organization C Researcher 3 Rights-based development Aid chain
organized by the NGO during her stay in Nairobi. Similarly, Researchers 2 and 3 approached the NGO staff members to
Researcher 3 also joined the NGO staff members for lunch and actively discuss critical findings that were not received well.
office birthday celebrations, and participated in staff drink ups. These backstage negotiations show the influence of the research
In comparison, Researcher 1 had the advantage of working on a topic and the significant role of gatekeepers in the research pro-
topic (land rights) that was not only welcomed by the organi- cess which is discussed in depth in the following section.
zation, but also formed a part of their own advocacy agenda.
These factors made the participants enthusiastic and keen to
engage in discussions, which facilitated access to the organi- The Influence of Gatekeepers on Entry to and Exit
zation and ensured that the staff made sufficient time for the From Research Sites
researcher. Before any field research can take place, connections
The research topics also influenced the dissemination process, between the researcher and the organization must be estab-
which was received differently in the three organizations. In con- lished. This is usually achieved with the assistance of one or
trast to Organization A, the staff members of both Organizations more gatekeepers, who may be located either inside or out-
B and C feared backlash in light of the critical findings that side the organization. However, such intermediaries should
emerged from the research. They were worried that any negative not only be viewed as instrumental in the initial access phase,
findings would have consequences for their future funding but are also likely to influence the data collection phase, and
opportunities, their image, reputation, and relationship with the even the research outcomes (Siwale, 2015; Stamm, 2019). In
donor. Presumably, the focus of the research project on under- all three case studies described in this article, initial access to
standing the influence of the institutional design of aid chains on the organizations was established with the help of interme-
NGOs’ abilities to undertake advocacy framed the research as an diaries, all of whom were initially contacted in the Nether-
evaluation exercise and further contributed to the defensive atti- lands. Despite this similarity, all three researchers adopted
tude of the NGO staff about their advocacy work as well as the unique strategies for establishing primary access as per their
role played by the funding agencies. Informed by these concerns, context.
Saharan et al. 5
For Organization A, access was established through repre- comments took mostly the form of additions or clarifications.
sentatives of one of its donor organizations (i.e., an INGO) with Both the researcher and the NGO representatives considered
offices both in the Netherlands and in Kenya, and formalized the research activities successful, and expressed interest in
through a written Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). future collaborations.
The INGO aided in establishing contact with Organization A, In contrast to Organization A, the dissemination process was
after which a starting date for the fieldwork was agreed on. received differently by the gatekeepers in Organizations B and
The organization had earlier worked with European volunteers C. Though the staff members of Organization B were critical of
and with a Master’s student from the Netherlands working on the research findings, the Embassy representative viewed the
land rights, and clearly valued such external involvement. dissemination exercise in a positive light, and treated it as an
Throughout the fieldwork period, the researcher was able to opportunity for exchange with the implementing partners of the
accompany the representatives of the NGO working on land advocacy program. In a similar stance, although the findings
rights to all community (and other) meetings, and she was told from Researcher 3 were discredited by the INGO staff in
repeatedly that researchers like herself provided an important Nairobi, the same findings were well received by the staff
“mirror” for the organization. members in The Hague (The Netherlands) for Organization
For Organization B, the primary contacts for access were C. The staff in Nairobi were more defensive in their approach
made through the Embassy in Kenya. The agreement was based because of the need to protect their job compared to those in
on emails, Skype and verbal communication with the policy The Hague who saw it as an opportunity for self-reflection and
officer at the Embassy as well as the NGO staff, and no MoU organizational learning. For instance, a local NGO staff mem-
was signed between the researcher and the NGO. Being intro- ber stated that “I find your findings troubling when you talk
duced to the NGO through the policy officer aided in establish- about upward accountability in the manner that you did” (Inter-
ing primary access. It facilitated easy access to the NGO under view with NGO staff, October 29, 2018). On the other hand, a
study and to consultants as well as CBOs who formed a key senior staff of the INGO in The Hague had this to say about the
part of the project funded by the Embassy in Kenya. In addi- same research findings: “As a matter of fact, we want to learn
tion, the NGO staff also introduced the researcher to staff as an organization. The local NGOs must speak out and tell us
members of other local NGOs advocating for women’s rights when they feel that our rules or whatever we’re doing is oppres-
in Kenya, which helped to gain access in a short period of time. sive to them and we are not giving them a voice. We don’t want
For Researcher 3, primary access was agreed on through an to be a defensive organization because the research has been an
MoU between the research team and the Dutch INGO. eye opener” (Interview with INGO staff, June 25, 2019).
The Dutch INGO staff introduced Researcher 3 to their East The staff in The Hague argued that the findings helped them
Africa Regional Office in Nairobi. The staff in Nairobi served to reflect on their future engagements with donors and local
as gatekeepers who in turn introduced the researcher to their NGOs. While management at the headquarters of Organization
seven local NGO partners in Kenya. Within the INGO office in C and the Embassy saw the research findings as an opportunity
Nairobi, the Manager of the project under study (i.e., labor for organizational learning, INGO staff in Nairobi perceived
conditions of workers in the Kenyan cut-flower sector) served these negatively because of their potential to affect their job
as the main gatekeeper, as she had to arrange and consent to all security and organizational survival. We now turn to the influ-
meetings the researcher had with other staff members. Conse- ence of the researchers’ own characteristics and behavior in the
quently, while the top managers at the headquarters in the field on the access obtained to NGOs.
Netherlands had granted access, it did not mean that all staff
in the Nairobi Office welcomed the researcher into the organi- Researcher Positionality and Strategies for Negotiating
zation, as he had to negotiate access to sections of the organi-
Access
zation with the manager on an individual basis.
In all three cases, as part of the research dissemination, We identify researcher-related factors affecting access to
learning events were organized at the end of the fieldwork NGOs as two inter-related components: researcher positional-
phase to validate the findings from the three projects. Gate- ity, and researcher strategies in the field. Positionality includes
keepers of the three organizations influenced and reacted dif- aspects such as the role one takes on in the field, or what Bell
ferently to the dissemination process. While Organization (1999) calls “working roles” (e.g., as observer, participant, or
A proved very open to mild criticism regarding its focus and expert), and personal characteristics that may or may not
blind spots, representatives of its “gatekeeper” INGO were a bit resemble the researched population, such as personality and
more defensive of these practices, which they explained as demographics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, class). In this case,
being in line with the overall advocacy objectives. each of the three researchers came from different countries
The researcher attributed this difference in perspective to per- (i.e., The Netherlands, India and Ghana), and being a European,
sonal characters, as well as to the INGO’s focus on strategic Asian and African contributed differently to the way they
goals and its staff’s less direct engagement in the field, which established access. For example, the African identity of
might have obscured certain nuances or contradictions. How- Researcher 3 created opportunities for him to establish relation-
ever, at no point did any of the NGO representatives voice ships with NGO staff because they perceived him as one of
serious concerns or objections to the researcher’s analysis, and them, or at least as an insider who understood the African
6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
context. However, at the same time, the researcher’s identity as activities organized by NGO staff members, but definitely not
a West African undertaking research in an East African country in all of them.
for the first time made navigating initial access a challenge. For Researcher 1, her identity as a white woman was reflec-
While the researcher identified broadly as an “African” tive of the perceived unequal relations between researchers in
(insider), marked differences between Eastern and Western the Global North and their research subjects in the Global
Africans (e.g., language) and his status as a non-Kenyan made South Moreover, her European identity raised immediate asso-
him an outsider, which influenced how the NGO staff related to ciations with Western donor representatives who periodically
him. As noted in previous research (see for example, Ergun & visited the field. This was especially confusing to the rural
Erdemir, 2010; Mwangi, 2019; Siwale, 2015), African communities she visited as part of her research with the NGO,
researchers studying in the West who subsequently return to with community members initially resorting to a seemingly
the African continent can feel like an “insider-outsider,” as rehearsed promotional talk regarding the important work con-
their identities partly overlap with their research subjects ducted by the NGO in their area. Western researchers are often
(e.g., ethnicity and language), and partly with the researchers confronted with “over-researched” populations in Southern
in their study environment (e.g., education, class and income countries (Clark, 2008 cited in Siwale, 2015), who fail to see
level). Furthermore, they may conduct research in their home concrete outcomes of completed studies. Wary of this back-
country but outside their home area. In the case of Researcher ground and potential neo-colonial associations of Western
3, although he visibly resembled the research subjects, he was researchers in Africa, Researcher 1 tried to adapt as much as
in fact from a very different part of the continent. possible to the NGO office atmosphere by learning some of the
Similar to the experience of Researcher 3, the Indian iden- local language, adopting a local name and participating in
tity of Researcher 2 was instrumental in establishing primary office lunches, coffee breaks and other social events, joining
access in the initial stages of the research process because of office staff to field visits and other meetings, and giving them
the familiarity with Indian-Kenyans living in the country. the lead in the sharing of relevant information for the project
Likewise, the gender identity of Researcher 2 served as an (i.e., not insisting on formal interviews early on in the research
advantage in breaking the ice with Organization B during the phase). She was complimented by the NGO staff for visiting
initial days of fieldwork, as the researcher was able to build a local communities extensively, blending in with their daily
close relationship with several staff members working in the lives and staying over in local residences, something that most
NGO, who were mostly women. In addition, the researcher’s visiting researchers and donor representatives had apparently
identity as a female put her in immediate solidarity with refused to do. This led various staff members to conclude that
women’s rights issues. As a result, she could sympathize with she had become “one of them”, despite her evidently different
structural constraints that the respondents faced by the patriar- background and appearance.
chal system in which they operated that surfaced often during While for all three researchers in this project their doctoral
the interviews. While the Indian identity and gender of degree and affiliation with a European university was useful in
Researcher 2 made the initial access possible, being non- establishing access to officials in the public and private sector
Kenyan and working in the capacity of a researcher rather than (in some cases being referred to respectfully as “doctora”—i.e.,
a staff member positioned her as an outsider in some instances. doctoral holder), it also created a certain distance from those
The NGO staff did not have any experience with a researcher, with a lower educational status, such as rural community mem-
and her proximity to the donor organization often made them bers and manual laborers who showed concern about giving
suspicious of her goals. Moreover, affiliation with a European “right” or “useful” answers. When in the field, the researchers
University contributed to the researcher’s position as an out- also noted that their privileged socio-economic status elicited
sider in the eyes of the NGO staff. These shifts from the posi- frequent requests for financial assistance as well as access to
tion of insider to suddenly being an outsider, made Researcher relevant donors. For instance, Researcher 3 was asked by
2 realize that she was often treated as “inbetweener” (Grant, flower workers to provide financial assistance for their com-
2017; Milligan, 2016) who is neither entirely inside nor com- munity football team, and Researcher 1 was repeatedly asked
pletely outside in terms of positionality. In order to build trust by marginalized community members to contribute to the
with the staff members, Researcher 2 made formal presenta- school fees for their children or provide access to education
tions of her research project, discussed issues of confidentiality funds.
and anonymity, and organized meetings with the senior project Despite similarities in qualitative research methods and
leaders from her university when they visited Nairobi. Addi- tools adopted for data collection, the three researchers
tionally, Researcher 2 regularly met staff members for coffee as employed different strategies for conducting participant obser-
well as dinner outside the office and traveled with them to the vation suited to their unique circumstances. Researcher 2 based
counties where the project was implemented, sharing the same in Organization B functioned as “an expert” by closely colla-
transport and staying in the same hotel. These informal inter- borating with NGO staff members in several day-to-day tasks
actions provided important opportunities to build trust relations including working with the communication team, fundraising
with the NGO staff. However, these engagements did not guar- through proposal writing and participating in advocacy cam-
antee access as Researcher 2 had to continuously negotiate paigns, staff meetings, project reviews and strategic planning
access as she was welcome to participate in most of the discussions. Researcher 1 in Organization A played the role of
Saharan et al. 7
Table 2. Organizational Characteristics of the Three Advocacy NGOs.
Development Work
Number of Staff Scale of Organization’s Work Partner Environment
Organization 1 10 Regional Community members and CBOs Informal and movement based
Organization 2 14 National CBOs Semi-formal and professional
Organization 3 35 International NGOs Formal and professional
“participant” by spending time in the office and observing implementing partners for the project under study. All three
interactions among staff members and with visitors, conducting organizations facilitated initial access to their local NGO and
informal conversations, and visiting board members in the vici- CBO partners for the researchers. While the introductions by
nity, as well as joining staff to community field visits. In con- the organizations ensured quick access and goodwill with con-
trast to Organizations A and B, Researcher 3 had limited stituents who might not otherwise be easily accessible, the
interactions with the staff members of Organization C, and researchers were inevitably associated with the organizations
collected data mainly as an “observer” during the fieldwork during field visits, and were often confused with staff, consul-
period. This was largely due to the formalized nature of inter- tants or donor representatives. In some cases, this resulted in
actions between the staff of Organization C and Researcher 3. slight interference in the type of questions asked and the
These different roles indicate that organizational characteristics emphasis on certain answers that were received. For example,
influence and shape how researchers interact with their while Researcher 1 had intended to start with general questions
research participants. This implies that, while researcher posi- to see what issues community members would bring up first,
tionality plays an important role in access to NGOs, the whenever an NGO representative was present, (s)he would
researchers’ characteristics and behavior in the field are largely immediately steer the answer to what was perceived to be the
qualified by a fourth main factor, namely the characteristics of interest of the researcher (i.e., women’s land rights). To counter
the organization under study. such biases, all three researchers made attempts to build trust
independent of their organizational affiliations. For instance,
after first visiting the field with NGO staff members,
Organizational Characteristics and Access Researcher 1 was later able to conduct independent discussions
Although all three organizations functioned as advocacy to inquire further into the relations between the NGO and com-
NGOs, they differed in their organizational characteristics in munity members, which provided additional valuable data.
terms of size (i.e., number of staff), scale of operations (i.e., Organization A also facilitated access to some of its donors
international, national and regional), work environment (for- and to regional politicians, with whom the researcher held
mal, semi-formal and informal) and partnerships (see Table 2). separate interviews. Similarly, Organization B introduced
These differences in organizational characteristics contributed Researcher 2 to CBOs that were implementing the project
to variations in how the researchers negotiated access. Estab- along with other stakeholders including government officials
lishing and maintaining access in Organization C was the most and other NGOs advocating for women’s rights issues. Follow-
difficult due to its formalized and professionalized nature com- ing the initial introductions, Researcher 2 conducted focus
pared to Organization B which was semi-formalized, and Orga- group discussions as well as interviews independently without
nization A which was informal in nature. For example, access the presence of NGO staff. For Researcher 3, although the
to the director in Organization A was simply established by INGO staff introduced him to the seven local NGOs, he con-
walking into her office whenever Researcher 1 found her car ducted interviews in the absence of the INGO staff. This pro-
parked outside. Researcher 1 was also invited repeatedly to the vided enough opportunity for the local NGO staff to express
homes, churches and dinner parties of various staff members, their views. However, many of the local NGOs were reluctant
including the director. Access to all the staff in Organization B, to critique the INGO because of its implications for future
including management staff, was easily established, however, funding opportunities. This demonstrates how the entangle-
participation in meetings and workshops was discussed in ment of different actors within the aid chain can influence the
advance through email. For Organization C, Researcher 3 was research findings (cf. Sampson, 2017).
unable to have any direct discussions or meetings with the In addition to organizational characteristics, the three NGOs
director because all appointments had to follow strict chains also showed variance in their respective daily work environ-
of command. For this reason, it was not easy getting access to ments. The informal, non-hierarchical and collaborative atmo-
the director. sphere in the office of Organization A created a situation which
Organization A laid strong emphasis on being close to com- was relatively easy for Researcher 1 to navigate, as no one ever
munity members in the field and being community-led, in com- questioned her intentions or her presence in the office. The fact
parison to Organizations B and C that relied mostly on other that all but one staff member were from the same ethnic group
local organizations for implementing the project activities; and spoke the same language may also have contributed to this
for instance, Organization C had seven local NGOs as cooperative atmosphere, as staff members regularly referred to
8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
their ethnic group as “easy going.” The informal and non- office in the Netherlands and regional offices across the world,
hierarchical atmosphere was reflected in the director’s attitude, including Kenya. The organizational characteristics of three
who served as the first contact person for international donors NGOs directly influenced the nature and degree of access
and other high-profile visitors, but usually included other staff obtained by the researchers.
members (and even the researcher) in such meetings. When
staff forgot to invite the researcher to meetings or to provide
Discussion
her with relevant documents they were even inclined to
apologize, indicating a sense of obligation or, more likely, Obtaining and maintaining research access is a dynamic pro-
willingness to accommodate her. During a focus group discus- cess that does not stop once entry into organizations is
sion, the staff members commented that: “research on our obtained, but needs to be frequently re-negotiated over time
strategy will benefit the community . . . and you can make (Grant, 2017; Riese, 2018). This study shows that negotiating
recommendations . . . If we look at the research that was access not only depends on managing the relationship between
done by [a Master student from the same university] . . .we are the researcher and the researched (Reeves, 2010; Riese, 2018)
basing most of our arguments on that research . . .When we do but also on the research topic under study. While all three
fundraising, we can also look at the research and the conclu- researchers were funded under the same project, research topics
sions on our work, it is already done and it can be seen” (Focus that were likely to contribute to the cause of the organization
Group Discussion with NGO staff members, August 6, 2018). (e.g., exposing the role of large investors in land rights viola-
Organization A, in short, clearly valued the involvement of tions) were met with more goodwill than topics that were a bit
academic researchers, and staff members did not show concern further removed from beneficiaries’ everyday realities (e.g., the
about their job security as a consequence of this involvement. workings of the aid chain). Moreover, research access was not
On the contrary, they viewed the prospective research out- linearly linked to the topic under study, as two researchers who
comes as useful for their fundraising efforts. both studied implications of the aid chain on advocacy NGOs
In contrast to the informal atmosphere of Organization A, had to negotiate access differently in the organizations where
Organizations B and C were formal in nature with higher levels they were based. Thus, research access also depended on the
of professionalization across the management and project staff. characteristics of the individual NGOs, including the scale of
Yet, in terms of level of professionalization and structure of the organization, and whether they had any prior experience
operation, the two organizations differed considerably. For hosting researchers or not. In addition, advocacy NGOs that are
instance, in Organization C, each staff was assigned to specific prone to reputation management were particularly sensitive to
grants projects and given responsibilities and tasks as stated by research topics and processes that may affect their organiza-
one staff: “I am the quality manager and I am responsible for tional survival (cf. Siwale, 2015), such as inquiries into their
the availability of procedures and instructions, the ISO certifi- role in the aid chain, and involvement of donors. Although
cation and quality objectives within the organization” (Inter- researchers can only mitigate such sensitivities to a certain
view with INGO staff, December 7, 2018). This clear division extent, having prior awareness of them can help to adapt one’s
of labor was evident in the sitting arrangement of staff mem- research methods and behavior in the field.
bers that was based on their specific roles under each project in Gatekeepers at different positions play diverse roles in facil-
the organization. This formality and hierarchy were not so itating access in organizational research, which Grant (2017)
evident in Organization B, as some staff had a defined role in refers to as macro, meso and microlevels. The initial access for
the form of duties that were project-specific, while others all three projects in our research was established through donor
worked thematically on issues of finance, monitoring and eva- organizations at the international level. This association caused
luation, communication and media, and fundraising across confusion regarding our independent role as researchers and
project lines. indicated implicit power for all of us as a result of this associ-
The degree of informality in the work environment of the ation. Moreover, staff members of local organizations acted as
three organizations was closely associated with the extent of gatekeepers with whom access had to be continuously negoti-
access that could be maintained over the research period. Small ated during the research process. This access negotiation
staff-sized Organization A with a regional focus and an infor- depended not only on respective staff members in the three
mal work environment echoed ease in maintaining access all NGOs, but also on researcher positionality, and characteristics
through the research process. In mid-size Organization B with a of the organization where the research was conducted. Addi-
semi-formal atmosphere of management and operation, navi- tionally, the exit process marked by dissemination of the
gating access was a chequered process, with the researcher research findings highlighted shifts in the power dynamics that
having both easy and challenging times. The fact that access are reflected in the fieldwork relationships (Cf. Barnes et al.,
needed to be negotiated on a regular basis in Organization C 2003; Bloor & Wood, 2006; Feldman et al., 2003; O’Reilly &
can be partly explained by its scale of operation, staff size and Dhanju, 2010). INGO staff, donor representatives and other
hierarchical work environment. In contrast to both Organiza- intermediaries with a more powerful or financially stable posi-
tions A and B, which were only indirectly involved in tion (e.g., based in the donor country or other headquarters,
global advocacy campaigns through their foreign donors, Orga- or having multiple funding sources) value reflexivity and orga-
nization C had an international advocacy agenda with a global nizational learning more than staff members whose position can
Saharan et al. 9
be threatened by critical research findings. The different reac- we aimed to also describe some limitations and constraints that
tions observed among the three Kenyan organizations show that one may encounter, and how reflection and comparative
the influence of gatekeepers can vary widely depending on their exchange may help to overcome these.
own position in relation to the organization under study.
The findings demonstrate that access to the research site
should be viewed as an ongoing, inherently political process. Conclusion
In this ongoing process, the researcher performs “identity In this article, we addressed the question of how research
work” by selectively emphasizing one’s insider or outsider access to NGOs is obtained and maintained. To answer this
status. The educational status of the three researchers served question, we explored the interaction between organizational
as a strategic entry point in the field, but it also posed limita- characteristics, researcher positionality, the role of gatekeepers
tions for research access. Similarly, the power differential who may be from inside or outside the organization, and the
between the researchers and the research participants often research topic. Despite the similar set-up of the three research
positioned us as outsiders, due to our privileged socio- projects, we had vastly different experiences in terms of secur-
economic status and urban background. Additionally, a com- ing access and negotiating the outcomes of our research. Based
bination of ethnicity, gender and linguistic skills determined to on comparative analysis of these factors, this research confirms
what extent we could present ourselves as insiders. For the that negotiating research access should be viewed as an inher-
researchers of African and Indian origins, acceptance was high ently political process that is dynamic in nature.
in the initial period of the research process, while the Dutch Finally, by comparing multiple cases, we highlight the pro-
researcher had to make additional efforts to overcome stereo- cess of establishing and maintaining access to advocacy NGOs
types linked to her background. Nevertheless, the dynamic in a developing country context. Future research can enhance
nature of access makes researcher positionality a fluid experi- the scope of this analysis by comparing experiences across
ence, often resulting in a position that lies in between being an global South and North, and the implications on research meth-
insider or an outsider (Grant, 2017; Milligan, 2016). Being odology related to organizational literature. By bringing
European, African or Indian posed opportunities and con- together the experiences of three researchers in a comparative
straints for the three researchers; however, being aware and frame of analysis, this article aims to distinguish factors that
reflective about their own positions aided them to navigate have direct implications for access beyond a single case study
through existing barriers. Their approach toward the NGOs and or a theoretical exploration of research access. Furthermore, by
the method of data collection influenced their relationships comparing three cases, we highlight not only the successful
with the organizations involved and also impacted on the practices but also the challenges that we faced, thereby
degree and type of access granted by the organizations. attempting to contribute to a body of literature that is “real
Building on literature that discusses access to organizations rather than sanitized” (Riese, 2018, p. 13). Among the multiple
and NGOs in particular (see for example, Riese, 2018; Samp- facets we identify as influencing research access, our analysis
son, 2017), we highlight additional challenges that come with in this article is limited to the role of gatekeepers, researchers,
power dynamics of advocacy NGOs in non-Western contexts NGOs’ organizational characteristics and research topic.
that operate as part of the aid chain. The comparative discus- Including other factors that influence research access to NGOs
sion of three NGOs further revealed how institutions that have (e.g., a systematic study of the way the research topic impacts
more resources at their disposal exerted more power in denying reception within the organization) will add to the growing lit-
or granting research access. We recommend that researchers erature that focuses on the complexity inherent in the process of
who intend to do ethnographic fieldwork with NGOs take into access in qualitative research, and to NGOs in particular.
account not only the intersecting factors we have identified, but
also characteristics of the organization such as scale of opera- Acknowledgments
tion and consequently, its likely openness to critical insights. We are grateful to Federico Savini, Lau Schulpen and Marja Spieren-
Such a perspective does justice to the entanglement and depen- burg for their comments on the earlier drafts of this article. We also
dency on various actors that previous research has identified as thank the three advocacy NGOs that hosted us during the fieldwork
characteristic of NGOs (Sampson, 2017). period in Kenya. The authors wish to sincerely thank two anonymous
This article confirms that research access is a dynamic and reviewers for their critical and insightful comments.
multi-faceted process, with particular implications for research
with advocacy NGOs (cf. Riese, 2018). The comparative anal- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
ysis has highlighted that the strategies for establishing and The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
maintaining access that can work for one researcher might not the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
work for others. It is important to be aware of this complexity
and translate it into one’s own research context because navi- Funding
gating access even in the same research project would require The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
different strategies, which need to be aligned with who is doing research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was
the research, on what topic, where and how. While previous supported by NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development pro-
literature has predominantly highlighted successful strategies, grammes [Grant number W 08.311.103 and W 08.311.108].
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
ORCID iD Grant, A. (2017). “I don’t want you sitting next to me”: The macro,
Tara Saharan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8042-6348 meso and micro of gaining and maintaining access to government
organizations during ethnographic fieldwork. International Jour-
nal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–11.
Notes Kwak, Y. (2019). Challenges and negotiations of a young, female, and
1. Following the definition of Salamon and Anheier (1992), NGOs unmarried researcher: Reflections on fieldwork in South Korea.
are considered to be formalized, self-governed, non-governmental, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–9.
non-profit distributing and at least partly voluntary organizations. Lewis, D., & Opoku-Mensah, P. (2006). Moving forward research
In this article, we will refer to the three organizations we studied as agendas on international NGOs: Theory, agency and context.
NGOs, although they are of different sizes and work on different Journal of International Development, 18(5), 665–675.
scales (local, national and international). Markowitz, L. (2001). Finding the field: Notes on the ethnography of
2. By aid chain, we mean the chain of funding from the Global North NGOs. Human Organization, 60(1), 40–46.
to the Global South where institutional donors give funding to
Marland, A., & Esselment, A. L. (2018). Negotiating with gatekeepers to
international NGOs and then to local NGOs.
get interviews with politicians: Qualitative research recruitment in a
3. The three other projects were situated in Ethiopia, India and
digital media environment. Qualitative Research, 19(6), 685–702.
Ukraine. In 2018, two further projects were awarded funding for
Milligan, L. (2016). Insider-outsider-inbetweener? Researcher posi-
research in Bangladesh, Palestine, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. For an
overview, see https://includeplatform.net/theme/new-roles-for- tioning, participative methods and cross-cultural educational
csos-for-inclusive-development/ research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
4. We have anonymized all the three NGOs that were a part of this Education, 46(2), 235–250.
research to ensure confidentiality. Mills, M., Van de Bunt, G. G., & De Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative
research: Persistent problems and promising solutions. Interna-
tional Sociology, 21(5), 619–631.
References Mosse, D. (2005). Global governance and the ethnography of inter-
Adu-Ampong, E. A., & Adams, E. A. (2020). “But you are also national aid. In D. Mosse & D. Lewis (Eds.), The aid effect:
Ghanaian, you should know”: Negotiating the insider–outsider Giving and governing in international development (pp. 1–36).
research positionality in the fieldwork encounter. Qualitative Pluto Press.
Inquiry, 26(6), 583–592. Mwangi, N. (2019). ‘Good that you are one of us’: Positionality and
Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and reciprocity in conducting fieldwork in Kenya’s Flower Industry.
donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, In L. Johnstone (Ed.), The politics of conducting research in Africa
66, 707–718. (pp. 13–33). Palgrave Macmillan.
Barnes, V., Clouder, D. L., Pritchard, J., Hughes, C., & Purkis, J. Noh, J. E. (2019). Negotiating positions through reflexivity in inter-
(2003). Deconstructing dissemination: Dissemination as qualita- national fieldwork. International Social Work, 62(1), 330–336.
tive research. Qualitative Research, 3(2), 147–164. O’Reilly, K., & Dhanju, R. (2010). “Your report is completely wrong!”
Bell, E. (1999). The negotiation of a working role in organizational (aapkii report ek dum galat hai!): Locating spaces inside NGOs for
ethnography. International Journal of Social Research Methodol- feedback and dissemination. Human Organization, 6(3), 285–294.
ogy, 2(1), 17–37. Reeves, C. L. (2010). A difficult negotiation: Fieldwork relations with
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Leaving the field. In M. Bloor & F. gatekeepers. Qualitative Research, 10(3), 315–331.
Wood (Eds.), Keywords in qualitative methods (pp. 111–112). Riese, J. (2018). What is ‘access’ in the context of qualitative
Sage. research? Qualitative Research, 19(6), 669–684.
Bondy, C. (2013). How did I get here? The social process of accessing Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit
field sites. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 578–590. sector: The question of definitions. VOLUNTAS: International
Clark, T. (2010). Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 125–151.
mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between Sampson, S. (2017). Introduction: Engagements and entanglements in
gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work, 10, the anthropology of NGOs. In A. Lashaw, C. Vannier, & S. Samp-
485–502. son (Eds.), Cultures of doing good. Anthropologists and NGOs (pp.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Alcadipani, R. (2016). The politics of access in 1–18). The University of Alabama Press.
fieldwork: Immersion, backstage dramas, and deception. Organi- Siwale, J. (2015). Why did I not prepare for this? The politics of
zational Research Methods, 19(4), 535–561. negotiating fieldwork access, identity, and methodology in
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The researching microfinance institutions. Sage Open, 5(2), 1–12.
case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Stamm, C. H. (2019). Gatekeeping success in the Namibian CBNRM
Review, 16(3), 620–627. program. In L. Johnstone (Ed.), The politics of conducting research
Ergun, A., & Erdemir, A. (2010). Negotiating insider and outsider in Africa (pp. 133–151). Palgrave Macmillan.
identities in the field: “Insider” in a foreign land; “outsider” in Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics:
one’s own land. Field Methods, 22, 16–38. Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME:
Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., & Berger, M. T. (2003). A practical and An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3),
theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. Altamira Press. 374–385.