In recruitment, gatekeepers are chosen because they have some kind of relationship with the target community and are capable of recruiting from their communities. Nonetheless, researchers should plan and set the stage for successful participant recruitment. The current research required gatekeepers to be members of the immigrant community. Depending upon the type of research and data collection requirements, gatekeepers may need to meet additional qualifications in addition to membership. Therefore, prior to going to the field, the researcher must clearly define the requirements for gatekeeper participation, expectations, objectives, and desired outcomes.
Key performance indicators must be outlined to help gatekeepers know what to aim at and measure their own progress. In my fieldwork, several gatekeepers wanted to know whether “they are doing things right,” “going about it the way you want it,” or “recruiting enough people for you.” I gave them regular updates about the total number of interviews completed. I also informed them when I contacted potential participants whom they had referred to me. I do not tell them whether the person did the interview or not because I did not want them to put any “undue pressure” on any participant who chose not to complete the survey. My regular updates gave gatekeepers a feeling of involvement in the fieldwork and provided a picture of their impact on the recruitment activities. I believe the updates gave them a sense of their contribution to the total participant count and made them committed and inspired to recruit more participants.
Another thing researchers should consider is the definition of recruitment deliverables. For instance, how many participants should be recruited and who should be recruited. I used a snowball sample, which is fairly simple and straightforward. However, sophisticated research designs may require equally sophisticated sampling and recruitment techniques. For example, should recruitment target certain subgroups in the community? How many people would be needed from each subpopulation? These questions are especially critical for research that aims at selecting representative samples that reflect the characteristics of their targeted immigrant community.
Current and earlier studies have noted the ability of gatekeepers to provide researchers access to immigrant communities (Olukotun, Mkandawire-Valhmu & Kako, 2020; Commodore-Mensah, et al., 2019; Hanza, et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the current study suggested that insider immigrant gatekeepers’ existing relationships are restricted to subpopulations in the community. For instance, all my core gatekeepers who actively recruited participants were from the Akan ethnic groups in Ghana, and the majority of my eventual research participants were from the same ethnic groups. While it is possible that there were fewer members of other Ghanaian ethnic groups living in the study area, it is equally possible that my core gatekeepers recruited mainly from the Ghanaian ethnic groups they are associated with. It is important that immigration researchers who need representative samples based on ethnicity or national origin find ways to select gatekeepers across different subpopulation groups.
Furthermore, researchers must pay careful attention to the relationships between gatekeepers and community members. Good social and interpersonal relationships will undoubtedly ensure access to potential participants, but poor relationships may restrict access to certain people or subgroups within the community. In such situations, the validity of the study’s results can be negatively affected. For studies designed with the aim of generalizing results, limiting access to sections of the population will prevent the study from achieving its objective (Sorokin & Böhm, 2018).
Immigrant researchers must anticipate, identify, and prepare for social, political and other factors that may hinder recruitment. For instance, during my fieldwork, immigration reform became a major national political topic. The media discourse and immigration matches and rallies in cities across the nation generated some fear among some people in immigrant communities. Some of my discussions with gatekeepers revealed that their “association” with the research was not enough to allay some people’s fear of meeting an unfamiliar person for an interview. As members of the community, the gatekeepers had first-hand knowledge of people’s sentiments about the issue. We discussed and suggested ways to address this issue during recruitment.
Another issue that hindered the participation of some people was time. According to the gatekeepers, some of the potential participants whom they contacted said they had no free time during the day because of work schedules and other family obligations. Consequently, some interviews were conducted in late evenings. The current study used a cross-sectional survey design. The study participants completed the survey instrument one time; they had no requirement for any future commitment. The factors that influence gatekeepers to participate in one-time cross-sectional research may differ from those in other studies, such as case‒control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled studies (see Moser, Dracup & Doering, 2000; Patel et al., 2003). Researchers must evaluate the assistance they need based on the time requirement, complexity of research, etc., and then assign gatekeepers responsibilities that would allow them to provide the best support they can.
After the definition of the requirements and specifications of the deliverables, the researcher must break down the recruitment activities and actions. For instance, where (e.g., door to door and visit churches) and how (e.g., make phone calls, text messages, and contact group leaders) would participants be contacted? Resources, including budgets and time, must be allocated to activities. How much would gatekeepers be paid and for how many hours/days? One of the primary challenges for the current research was the lack of funds. I self-sponsored my fieldwork and did not have enough funds. Therefore, I needed people willing to volunteer for free. In any case, financial inducement for research participant recruitment and research participation is limited for ethical reasons. Researchers must therefore find out the intrinsic factors that motivate gatekeepers and use them as the basis to recruit and sustain their interest in the research.
Another thing the researcher must do is decide the timeline for recruitment activities and how to monitor and review the activities. One thing is certain: field data collection never goes exactly as planned. For the current study, two of the gatekeepers could not recruit participants as much as they had hoped. One gatekeeper fell sick and was hospitalized for a couple to weeks. Another gatekeeper took a new job that required more time than his earlier job and could not recruit on a regular basis. Several factors could delay recruitment activities; therefore, there should be some flexibility in the researcher’s timelines.
Finally, the researcher must designate roles and responsibilities. Several attributes and skills are critical for gatekeepers to recruit participants for research. Which roles could be played by gatekeepers, and what “knowledge and skills” are required for those roles? In most cases, gatekeepers have sustainable relationships with community members through trust and credibility. However, they may need good communication skills to draw on these attributes to persuade community members to participate in research. Would it be necessary to train the gatekeepers? If so, what type of training may be necessary?