Gaining Entrée to a Setting
Jorgensen
Selecting a setting
The decision to participate in a setting sometimes is based on opportunity and convenience.
The researcher already may be a participant before deciding formally to conduct research in
the setting. Also, you may decide that in spite of convenience and opportunity the setting is
not sufficiently interesting or appropriate for research.
The selection of a setting for participant observation, furthermore, is contingent on (1)
whether or not you can obtain access to the setting, (2) the range of possible participant
roles you might assume, and (3) whether or not this role (or roles) will provide sufficient
access to phenomena of interest. Here again, the more you know about possible settings,
the easier it will be to make informed choices. The decisions ultimately require action by the
researcher in concrete situations.
Features of settings
Access to a field setting depends on features of these human arenas. A field setting may be
visible or invisible from the standpoint of the general public, and it may be more or less open
or more or less closed to outsiders.
The visibility of particular aspects of human life depends on where you are located, as well
as on your previous knowledge and experience. A setting is visible when information about it
is available to a general public.
A human setting is more or less open if access to it requires little negotiation. A setting is
more or less closed if access requires considerable negotiation. Simple because a setting is
highly visible, certainly does not mean that it is open to public inspection. Likewise, because
a setting is only partly visible to outsiders does not mean that it is closed to participant
observation.
Goffman, likening collective existence to a drama, distinguishes between ‘frontstage’ as
opposed to ‘backstage’ regions of human settings. While some settings, such as public dining
rooms, are almost entirely front stage, other settings, such as nonpublic bathrooms or the
bedroom of a home, largely are backstage regions. However, most human settings are
nether entirely visible and open (frontstage), nor entirely invisible and closed (backstage).
Most human settings are to some extent political. In other words, they involve the use of
power by people. In human settings, furthermore, people are ranked by values associated
with the positions they occupy and the roles they perform. Human settings generally are
stratified: differential amounts of prestige are attacked to people based on their status and
role.
Human life tends to be political and stratified. These features of human life may influence
gaining access to settings of interest as well as other aspects of the research. The participant
observer should be alert to the possible consequences of politics and stratification within
, human settings and should be prepared to adjust strategies of entrée and participation on
this basis.
Entrée strategies
There are two basic strategies for gaining access to human settings. When the researcher
openly requests permission to observe, the strategy is called overt. This direct approach to
entrée is preferred because it raises few ethical problems, is less difficult than other
approaches and when granted tends to provide adequate access to phenomena of interest.
The other basic strategy for gaining entrée – especially to settings closed to outsiders – is
covert. In this case, the researcher assumes some participant role without informing people
in the setting that research is under way.
The decision to employ an overt or a covert strategy for gaining entrée is a delicate one. If
the researcher employs a direct approach and is denied access, it may not then be possible
to enter the setting covertly. This decision requires that the researcher have some
knowledge of the politics of the setting and an ability to judge tentatively the likelihood of
success using a direct approach. Covert observation is ethically controversial, and it contains
the very real possibility that participant observation in the setting will be terminated if the
investigative interest is discovered.
Under most circumstances, overt access is gained by seeking permission from the highest
possible authority, and gradually convincing them, as well as other people in the setting, that
the researcher can be trusted.
To some participant observers, covert tactics absolutely are unethical and thereby
unacceptable under any circumstances. In this view, covert participant observation involves
deceiving insiders because they are not informed of the research. Aside from being
dishonest, covert strategies violate the norm of informed consent because people are
unable to agree to participate in the research.
Participant observation, unlike survey research or experiments, does not have human
‘subjects’. Rather, situations in which human beings are involved are observed under
otherwise natural conditions.
Not everyone is informed of the research interest, even when an overt strategy is employed.
Conversely, even when a setting is approached covertly, it is likely that at least a few people
eventually will be provided with information pertinent to the research aims.
Comprehensive and selective observation
Theoretical or judgemental sampling is a form of nonprobability sampling that depends on
the researcher’s ability to make decisions about what to observe based on constraints such
as opportunity, personal interest, resources, and, most important, the problem to be
investigated. The logic or strategy for sampling theoretically necessarily depends on the
problem of study and the settings appropriate for observation.
‘Snowball’ sampling is especially useful when the phenomenon of interest is obscured,
hidden, or concealed from the viewpoint of an outsider. The basic idea of snowball sampling
Jorgensen
Selecting a setting
The decision to participate in a setting sometimes is based on opportunity and convenience.
The researcher already may be a participant before deciding formally to conduct research in
the setting. Also, you may decide that in spite of convenience and opportunity the setting is
not sufficiently interesting or appropriate for research.
The selection of a setting for participant observation, furthermore, is contingent on (1)
whether or not you can obtain access to the setting, (2) the range of possible participant
roles you might assume, and (3) whether or not this role (or roles) will provide sufficient
access to phenomena of interest. Here again, the more you know about possible settings,
the easier it will be to make informed choices. The decisions ultimately require action by the
researcher in concrete situations.
Features of settings
Access to a field setting depends on features of these human arenas. A field setting may be
visible or invisible from the standpoint of the general public, and it may be more or less open
or more or less closed to outsiders.
The visibility of particular aspects of human life depends on where you are located, as well
as on your previous knowledge and experience. A setting is visible when information about it
is available to a general public.
A human setting is more or less open if access to it requires little negotiation. A setting is
more or less closed if access requires considerable negotiation. Simple because a setting is
highly visible, certainly does not mean that it is open to public inspection. Likewise, because
a setting is only partly visible to outsiders does not mean that it is closed to participant
observation.
Goffman, likening collective existence to a drama, distinguishes between ‘frontstage’ as
opposed to ‘backstage’ regions of human settings. While some settings, such as public dining
rooms, are almost entirely front stage, other settings, such as nonpublic bathrooms or the
bedroom of a home, largely are backstage regions. However, most human settings are
nether entirely visible and open (frontstage), nor entirely invisible and closed (backstage).
Most human settings are to some extent political. In other words, they involve the use of
power by people. In human settings, furthermore, people are ranked by values associated
with the positions they occupy and the roles they perform. Human settings generally are
stratified: differential amounts of prestige are attacked to people based on their status and
role.
Human life tends to be political and stratified. These features of human life may influence
gaining access to settings of interest as well as other aspects of the research. The participant
observer should be alert to the possible consequences of politics and stratification within
, human settings and should be prepared to adjust strategies of entrée and participation on
this basis.
Entrée strategies
There are two basic strategies for gaining access to human settings. When the researcher
openly requests permission to observe, the strategy is called overt. This direct approach to
entrée is preferred because it raises few ethical problems, is less difficult than other
approaches and when granted tends to provide adequate access to phenomena of interest.
The other basic strategy for gaining entrée – especially to settings closed to outsiders – is
covert. In this case, the researcher assumes some participant role without informing people
in the setting that research is under way.
The decision to employ an overt or a covert strategy for gaining entrée is a delicate one. If
the researcher employs a direct approach and is denied access, it may not then be possible
to enter the setting covertly. This decision requires that the researcher have some
knowledge of the politics of the setting and an ability to judge tentatively the likelihood of
success using a direct approach. Covert observation is ethically controversial, and it contains
the very real possibility that participant observation in the setting will be terminated if the
investigative interest is discovered.
Under most circumstances, overt access is gained by seeking permission from the highest
possible authority, and gradually convincing them, as well as other people in the setting, that
the researcher can be trusted.
To some participant observers, covert tactics absolutely are unethical and thereby
unacceptable under any circumstances. In this view, covert participant observation involves
deceiving insiders because they are not informed of the research. Aside from being
dishonest, covert strategies violate the norm of informed consent because people are
unable to agree to participate in the research.
Participant observation, unlike survey research or experiments, does not have human
‘subjects’. Rather, situations in which human beings are involved are observed under
otherwise natural conditions.
Not everyone is informed of the research interest, even when an overt strategy is employed.
Conversely, even when a setting is approached covertly, it is likely that at least a few people
eventually will be provided with information pertinent to the research aims.
Comprehensive and selective observation
Theoretical or judgemental sampling is a form of nonprobability sampling that depends on
the researcher’s ability to make decisions about what to observe based on constraints such
as opportunity, personal interest, resources, and, most important, the problem to be
investigated. The logic or strategy for sampling theoretically necessarily depends on the
problem of study and the settings appropriate for observation.
‘Snowball’ sampling is especially useful when the phenomenon of interest is obscured,
hidden, or concealed from the viewpoint of an outsider. The basic idea of snowball sampling
