See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352799470

Community Entry and Exit Behaviour in Social Research

Chapter · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 304

3 authors, including:

Adetayo Olorunlana
Caleb University Lagos
23 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fourth Industrial Revolution View project

Sustainable Development Goals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adetayo Olorunlana on 28 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contemporary Issues in Social Research. edited by A.S. Jegede and U.C.
Isiugo-Abanihe. ISBN: 978-978-8529-23-0. Ibadan University Press.

Community Entry and Exit Behaviour in

13 Social Research
Oluwabamide Abiodun J., Olorunlana Adetayo and Adegoke Olufunke Olufunsho

Introduction
Scientific research is the cornerstone of every academic discipline. In fact,
no academic discipline can survive without it. This is because it is
scholars’ involvement in constant and/or frequent research that sustains
every academic discipline, therefore, research cuts across all academic
disciplines worldwide, whether in the physical and natural sciences or the
social sciences and humanities. The purpose of research is to discover
answers to questions through the application of scientific procedures
(Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch & Cook, 1971; Creswell, 2013; Adom, Hussein
& Agyem, 2018). The extent to which the procedures are strictly adhered
to determine how result-oriented research would be.
However, it is pertinent to quickly note that research cannot be
conducted without anchoring it on a theoretical framework (Bendassolli,
2013; Adom, et al. 2018). Theories have both explanatory and predictive
power (Alland, 1980; Eastwell, 2014; Watts, 2017). They affect the choice
of data and their organization. Usually, theories make sense out of the
data and allow one to predict what will happen under a set of stated
conditions. Thus, Isiugo-Abanihe and Alonge (2002:91) have observed.
Theory suggests potential problems for
empirical inquiry; empirical findings are
then incorporated into the theoretical
system, the theory itself stands validated,
revised or rejected according to the findings
uncovered by research; and theory
establishes a meaningful relation between
discrete facts and suggests a new
hypothesis for further inquiry.

It can be seen from the above that there is a symbiotic relationship

between theory and research to the extent that one would be useless
without the other. No theory can be relevant if researches are not
conducted to test and re-test it while no research can be meaningful if there
is no theory on which it is anchored. Be that as it may, every research be
it social research or not, should be meaningful.
This chapter discusses an issue that concerns data collection which
is one of the major steps in social research. Specifically, the chapter
examines community entry and exit behaviours in social research.

195
Readers would be introduced to social sciences and social research, stages
of social research, researcher’s community entry behaviour and
maintenance, conceptualizing community entry, contact with gatekeepers.
Also, advantages and disadvantages of contact persons, gaining access to
the target population in the community, building relationship, the use of
community guide to access study population, who is, what is the quality,
the importance, recruitment and challenges of a community guide, were
discussed. Finally, the discussion dovetailed to community exit and the
need for feedback.
Social Sciences and Social Research
Social sciences are scientific and humanistic disciplines (Frankfort-
Nachmias & Nachmias, 2009). They include Sociology, Anthropology,
Political Science, Economics, Mass Communication, Psychology,
Geography and any other discipline in the humanities that may be
considered as such. Scholars in these disciplines are constantly conducting
scientific researches which are practical problem solving (Oluwabamide,
2011; Watts, 2017). They interact with a complex and demanding socio-
political environment that influences their research decisions both
formally and informally. These researches are social in nature.
Social research which is also known as social science research is
the investigation research into various aspects of the network of human
social interactions and culture with a view to solving societal problems.
There are almost infinite social problems of practical and/or intellectual
interest that social scientists can investigate. Stacey (1970) has identified
five types of social research which according to her, are not mutually
exclusive. Firstly, the investigation of a particular social problem.
Secondly, studies which are made of a particular social institution or
process such as the family. Thirdly, where the people living in a particular
place or belonging to a particular social system are defined as the subject
of study. Fourthly, a combination of the second and the third, i.e the study
of a particular institution or process in one locality. Fifthly, that which is
undertaken to test a particular theory. However, it is pertinent to note that
these five types of research clearly overlap and do not form a logically
consistent pattern.
Generally, social phenomena are complex and social scientists
apply different techniques in trying to unravel this complexity
(Iheriohanma, 2002). This is because social phenomena arise out of human
behaviour and social interaction, they are, therefore, less predictable than
the phenomena the physical and natural scientists deal with. Hence, social
researches may be more rigorous than researches in the physical and
natural sciences, because the subject matter, unlike matters, cannot be
easily predicted. Consequently, special kinds of techniques are adopted by
social scientists in describing and establishing the causes and explanation
of social phenomena under study.

196
 Scholars from the field of social sciences assert in the literature the
hegemony of social sciences research and the complexity involved.
According to Oluwabamide (2011), the general scientific method requires
the use of a systematic collection of data and the adoption of laid down
rules of investigation which is what social researchers strictly adhered to
in social science research. Iheriohanma (2002), asserted that social
researchers persistently attempt to apply scientific curiosity to the
understanding of social life. While, Isiugo-Abanihe and Alonge, (2002)
argued that social research seeks to generate new information or
knowledge that, in turn, can be applied to solve problems, improve quality
of life, and provide a better understanding of certain conditions. Watts
(2017), questioned, should social science research be more solution-
oriented? A question that had been attempted by Babbie (2010), when he
tried to explain the purpose of social research.
In addition, social researches are usually carried out for certain
purposes. Babbie, (2010) identified three purposes of social research.
Firstly, social research is a vehicle for mapping out a topic that may
warrant further study later. This according to Babbie is an exploratory
social research which can help dispel some misconceptions and help focus
future research. Usually, the conclusions of such research are suggestive
rather than definitive. Secondly, social research meant for the purpose of
describing the state of social affairs. According to Babbie (2010), in this
case, a careful empirical description should be done rather than
speculation and unnecessary impressions. Thirdly, some social researches
are for explanatory purpose. In this case, the research is done for the
purpose of providing reasons for phenomena in the form of casual
relationships.
Though the major concern of the chapter is community entry and
exit behaviour in social research there is the need to describe the stages
and/or steps in social research in order to situate our discussion within the
context of the appropriate stage. To this end, we shall now discuss the
stages of social research.
Stages of Social Research
Social research involves a process which consists of specific steps or
stages. Social researchers are scientific researcher, hence, the processes
are mainly those of general scientific research. The research process,
therefore, refers to the overall scheme of activities in which scientists
engage in order to produce knowledge (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias,
2009:20). In the words of Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, it is the
“paradigm of scientific inquiry”. They are a number of closely related
activities that overlap continuously (Selltiz et al, 1971).
There are seven steps or stages in the social research process.
These are, selecting a topic, stating the research problem, formulating the
hypotheses, creating a research design, collecting data, data analysis and

197
interpretation, and generalization (Alland, 1980; Gelles & Levine, 1999;
Schaefer, 2004; Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2009; Giddens, 2010).
Stage One: This is the selection of a topic. Here the researcher identifies
a specific topic on which the research would be focused on.
Stage Two: This is stating the research problem. Here the researcher
clearly identifies and defines the problem to be researched. There should
be no ambiguity of any sort. This is because the clarity of the statement of
the research problem determines how successful the research would be.
The choice of a problem affects the methods used for gathering and
analysing data (Alland, 1980).
Stage Three: This is the formulation of hypotheses. Here hypotheses are
formulated and tested in order to make a prediction (Alland, 1980). In the
formulation of hypotheses, it is always simple to deal with imaginary
idealized phenomena rather than with events as they occur in the real
world (Selltiz, et al, 1971).
Stage Four: This is creating research design. This involves choosing a
research method, sampling procedure and measurements (Gelles &
Levine, 1999).
Stage Five: This is the collection of data. Data collection is the stage
where the researcher engages in fieldwork (Alland, 1980). At this stage,
the researcher visits the study population, interacts with them for a
specified period of time to collect all the necessary data for the research
using different social research methods ranging from qualitative to
quantitative methods.
Stage Six: This is data analysis and interpretation. Here the researcher
uncovers and explains patterns in the data, confirming, rejecting or
modifying hypotheses (Gelles & Levine, 1999). He interprets his results
and works out the implication of the data he had collected. The data
collected are collated, interpreted and compared at this stage. Data are
categorized based on similarities, differences, and inter-relationships
between phenomena (Iheriohanma, 2002).
Stage Seven: This is generalization based on observed facts. In doing this
the researcher is aided by the identification of peculiarities and differences
from the observed phenomena (Iherohanma, 2002).
It is pertinent to note that the stages discussed above are not rigid.
According to Frankfort –Nachmias and Nachmias (2009), they are an
idealized reconstruction of the research process which is not intended to
be rigid but rather to convey the underlying themes of social science
research. Furthermore, the stages are interdependent. In fact, they are so
interdependent that the first step of a research project largely determines
the nature of the last (Selltiz et al, 1971). If subsequent procedures have
not been taken into account in the early stages, serious difficulties may
arise and prevent the completion of a study.

198
 The major focus of this paper is situated within the fifth stage of
the research process, which is the data collection stage. The main
objective of this paper which is to examine community entry and exit
behaviour in social research occurs only at the stage of data collection.
This is because it is at this stage that the researcher visits the community
under investigation to collect the required data. In order to understand the
research process in this stage, we have to buttress the stage with what a
social anthropologist may face in the fieldwork as we consider the
researcher’s community entry and maintenance.
Researcher’s Community Entry Behaviour and Maintenance
Data collection (fieldwork) in the social sciences is a rigorous exercise if
sincerely done. This is particularly so in social anthropology where it
entails a great deal of preparation, high cost as well as intimate and
prolonged stay in the study community. A budget – including such items
as travel cost, fees to informants, living expenses, price of equipment and
medical supplies – is usually worked up, with a justification for each of
them (Alland, 1980).
During data collection, the researcher must meet his study
population (respondents, interviewees) face to face. This is because at this
stage of the research s/he must be physically present in the community
where the research is to be conducted. His success in data collection is not
determined only by the methods he uses but more importantly the nature
of his rapport with people while in that community.
A researcher’s contact with his study population is essentially at
two periods – during a pilot study and during the main data collection. In
the former, which is often brief, the researcher does not interact much with
the study population while in the later, he patiently engages in some
detailed interactions with the people to collect relevant information from
them. During the pilot study, the researcher makes all the necessary
contacts and arrange for accommodation in preparation for the full-scale
data collection.
Knowledge and the ability to speak the language of the community
where data is to be collected is an essential requirement. The researcher
should be able to speak the language being spoken in that community or
he arranged with someone in the community who would interpret the
language to him during data collection. However, unlike other social
sciences in anthropological fieldwork, language competence is a must.
When possible, before embarking on fieldwork an anthropologist becomes
competent in the local language (Alland, 1980). If the language is not
offered by any university around the researcher, then he may have to go
elsewhere, or he makes a private arrangement with native speakers of the
language to teach him/her. It is quite obvious that language competence
is of immense value in data collection especially in creating a good rapport
and good relations with the study population. A researcher who speaks the

199
language of his host community may be accepted quickly by the people
rather than the others who cannot communicate properly with them. Apart
from understanding the local language, there are other attributes and
behaviours which the researcher must demonstrate to established and
maintain a good relationship with his host community.
First, the researcher should be respectful. Generally, in African
societies, anyone who respect people or shows some cultural courtesy
usually meets favour and are easily accommodated. This is because the
African culture places a high premium on respect. A researcher should
demonstrate respect for all, both young and old, throughout the period of
his fieldwork.
Second, for a researcher to enjoy the full cooperation of his host
community, he should appreciate their culture. While in the community,
he should show the people that he appreciates their culture through
positive discussions, dressing in local attires, eating native foods,
sometimes associating with the people during traditional ceremonies such
as festivals, traditional marriage ceremonies etc. The researcher should
not condemn any aspect of the people’s culture throughout the duration of
his fieldwork.
Third, the researcher should not be stingy to his 'local' assistant.
That is, where necessary he should willingly give some gifts (cash or
others items) to local persons who volunteered to assist him throughout
the data collection exercise. Here we are talking of persons who would
voluntarily take the researcher to places he desires, help him to contact
some natives and introduce him to key informants who are prominent
persons in the community.
Fourth, the researcher should not hide his identity. From the onset,
he should introduce himself as a researcher. Doing so will not only
enhance the completeness and accuracy of the data collected but also make
the study population to trust the researcher. Consequently, they will
cooperate with him and give him all the information he may request. If he
needs to revisit the community after the research, the people would
welcome him because he did not deceive them, during his first visit.
Fifth, the researcher should not exhibit ethnocentrism as he
interacts with people in the community where he is carrying out his
research. Ethnocentrism refers to the attitude of judging another culture
by the standard of one’s culture (Alland, 1980). It is the tendency to apply
one’s cultural values in defining the behaviours and attitudes of people
raised in other cultural or ethnic traditions (Abdullahi, 2009). Although,
Anthropologists study ethnocentrism with respect to a model, known as
“cultural relativism”- which states that the values of all people are a
function of their ways of life and that they cannot be understood out of
context-. In the long run, cultural relativism (not ethnocentrism) enhances
objectivity in research, for example, during data collection it enhances
cordiality between the researcher and the studied population.

200
 Sixth, the researcher should not intrude into anybody’s privacy
throughout the fieldwork. If he intrudes into people’s privacy they would
develop a negative perception of him and the research. If they have been
cooperating with him earlier on, they would stop cooperating with him.
This would definitely ruin the success of the data collection exercise.
Seventh, while collecting his data, the researcher should not
behave as if he is forcing words out of the mouth of any of his interviewees
or respondents. Any attempt to do so would create some disaffection
towards him. He should avoid forcing them to speak on issues they do not
want to speak on. Interviewees and respondents should not be made to
feel as if they are under any pressure. This is because pressurising
respondents will make them say either want you want to hear or say a
different thing not related to the subject matter. The cooperation and
cordiality of the relationship may be marred.
Eighth, the researcher should not do anything that contradicts the
values and norms of the community where he is collecting data. It is
expected that the researcher should have some knowledge of the basic
aspects of the culture of the community such as issues relating to morality
and religion. In anthropology for example, before a researcher proceeds
on fieldwork, he is expected to have read the relevant available literature
on the community he wants to study or their neighbours and interview
natives of either the community or nearby community who reside where
the researcher is domiciled. Such background knowledge can be improved
upon when the researcher commences the fieldwork. This information
would assist the researcher in knowing what behaviours the community
frowns at and avoid them throughout the duration of the data collection
exercise.
Ninth, the researcher should restrict himself to only the
information, which the culture of the community allows a non-member to
have access to. This is necessary if the researcher hopes to have a good
relationship with the study population throughout his data collection
exercise. A notable area in this respect is on religion wherein certain
aspects such as cults, observing sacred places and so on, there is an extent
to which an outsider is allowed to have access to information or view some
locations and objects considered as sacred. The researcher should not go
beyond the limit he is allowed to go and access information in those
aspects of the people’s culture. Studies have shown that anthropologists’
use of the participant observation method of data collection has helped in
gathering information on issues relating to secrecy. Nevertheless, it has
some limitation. Though its use can help the researcher to go deeper into
some secrecy there is still some information he would not be given access
to and objects or activities he would not be allowed to observe. The
researcher may not make any attempt to go beyond any limit set for him
by his study population with respect to some information. However, in
some studies, some researcher had been able to break beyond this

201
limitation by observing the cultural limitation of the community members.
For instance, in a community where people can do anything for money, it
could be amazing how with a little ‘tip’, some researcher had their ways
into sacred places originally forbidden for strangers. This dovetail into the
conceptual definition of community entry.
The Conceptualization of Community Entry
The conceptualization of community in sociology is dated back to the 19th
century. The concept of community concerns a particularly constituted set
of social relationships based on something which is common- usually a
common sense of identity (Jegede, 2012). Sociologist equally realized that
community transient geographical boundaries. This assertion is made
clearer by the cybernetic relationship among people that go beyond a
geographical location. However, when we think about community,
scholars have used ideas that we can better adapt. For example, National
Institute of Health (NIH) (2011) on the principle of community
engagement identified four concepts of the community they are system
perspective, social perspective, virtual perspective and individual
perspective.
They noted that from a systems perspective, a community is
similar to a living creature, comprising different parts that represent
specialized functions, activities, or interests, each operating within
specific boundaries to meet community needs. Henry (2011) cited a classic
example, of schools, focus on education, the transportation sector focuses
on moving people and products, economic entities focus on enterprise and
employment, faith organizations focus on the spiritual and physical well-
being of people, and health care agencies focus on the prevention and
treatment of diseases and injuries. For the community to function well,
each part has to effectively carry out its role. A healthy community has
well-connected, interdependent sectors that share responsibility for
recognizing and resolving problems and enhancing its well-being;
successfully addressing a community’s complex problems requires
integration, collaboration, and coordination of resources from all parts
(Thompson & Kinne, 1990). Community entry from a systems
perspective, then, means understanding the various part, their specialised
function, how they collaborate logically to meet the community need and
building relationship with these parts.
Community classification from social perspectives can also be
defined by describing the social and political networks that link individual,
community organizations, and leaders (NIH, 2011). Understanding these
networks is critical to planning efforts in research. As Minkler and Pies
(1997) noted that, researchers may be able to trace social ties among
individuals, help to identify a community’s leadership, understand their
behaviour patterns, identify community high-risk groups, and strengthen
research networks. Community entry, therefore, from a social perspective,

202
then, means understanding the social network that links individual,
community, organization, community leaders and planning a research
activity by tracing such social ties to identify issues and also network
together.
Virtual perspectives community transient geographically defined
areas. Just like Kozinets (2002) affirmed that today individuals rely more
and more on computer-mediated communications to access information,
meet people, and make decisions that affect their lives. Flavian and
Guinaliu (2005), identify computer-mediated forms of communication to
include email, text messaging, e-chat rooms, and social networking sites
such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter among others. These social
group(s) with a common interest that interact in an organized fashion on
the Internet are considered as “virtual communities” (Rheingold, 2000;
Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002) or cyber community. These cyber
communities are potential partners in certain research. Bacon (2009) noted
that social media venues have undergone a significant shift to greater
bidirectional or multidirectional communication in recent years, and thus
these venues represent opportunities for health messaging that have yet to
be fully realized. In addition, they provide new forums to raise issues,
facilitate the exchange of ideas, and engage a larger community. Virtual
perspectives in community entry, then reflect the use of electronic social
media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to track, support, create, and
mobilize social networks in research; these tools are significantly
changing our view of the community (Fine, 2006).
Individual perspectives relate to how individuals have their own
sense of community members that is beyond the definitions of community
applied by researchers (NIH, 2011). Moreover, they may have a sense of
belonging to more than one community. In addition, their sense of
membership can change over time and may affect their participation in
community activities (Minkler, 2004). Today, the multiple communities
that might be relevant for any individual (including families, workplace,
and social, religious, and political associations) suggest that individuals
are thinking about themselves in more complex ways than was the norm
in years past.
The eligibility criteria that scientists, policy makers, and others
develop for social programs and research projects reflect one way that
people perceive a group of proposed participants, but how much those
criteria reflect the participants’ actual view of themselves is uncertain.
Investigators sometimes are entangled in their communities but this
should be an advantage rather than a disadvantage in the fieldwork.
Community entry here is to employ a common ground between the
researcher and the individuals to be able to access the community. As
researcher needs to learn how individuals understand their identity and
connections, enter into relationships, and form communities.

203
 From the foregoing, community entry may be seen as the process
of initiating, nurturing and sustaining a desirable relationship with the
purpose of securing and sustaining the community’s interest in all aspect
of research. Community entry also may be referred to as the process,
principles and techniques of community mobilization and participation.
This involves recognizing the community, its leadership, people and
adopting the most appropriate process in the meeting, interacting and
working with them. This is more like what we called contact with the
gatekeepers.
Contact with Gatekeepers
To access a closed community, researchers need contact with gatekeepers.
Gatekeepers are individuals or institutions that are vested with the
authority of decision making in any community. To identify who the
gatekeepers are you may need to ask the question, who made the decision?
The answer to that singular question is a pointer to whom you needed to
access as the gatekeepers. However, Gatekeeper has been defined as
anyone who stands between you and the person (Wells, 2013) whom you
want to research. In this segment our examples, maybe drawn largely from
public health-related issues. In public health-related research and health
sociology, gatekeepers may be divided into two: one, the ethical
committee and two, the community leaders.
Successful medical related research with a human subject cannot
pass to the stage of gaining access to the community without passing
through the protocol of ethical approval. If such bypass the ethical
approval, the research may be subjected to litigation if any harm is caused
(Miller & Bell, 2012). The role of research committee according to Adams
et al, (2013) includes: response to investigator complaints, improvements
in relationships, not as draconian “ethics police”, but acting as a facilitator
and promoter of valuable and ethical research involving human subjects.
The process of obtaining ethical approval from an established committee.
The committee had a standard by which the application will be filling
these include but not limited to the resume of the principal investigator or
researcher(s), stipulated copies of the proposal of the research, a fee where
it is necessary, and a stipulated time to wait for reviewer’s comment.
Adams et al. (2013) gave a better explanation when they explain the
backstage of approval in their work on ethical approval on committee
comment:
Based on … guidelines and the standard review
form, Committee members decide on the review
outcomes as follows: approval (affirmative
decision that the submitted protocol may be
conducted as per plan); approval after amendment
(affirmative decision with the requirement that
amendment(s) be incorporated, as recommended);

204
 approval with clarification (affirmative decision
after satisfactory clarification(s) have been made),
deferment (protocol is not recommended for
approval as submitted, but can be reassessed after
revision); disapproval (protocol is not
recommended for the reasons specified by the
Committee).
Once this has been accomplished the comment may be a rejection, the
need to rework certain aspect of the proposal or an acceptance.
Methodological difficulties especially account for the gatekeepers'
disapproval for the fieldwork (Satzewich, 2014; Tomkinson, 2015). Most
often the research will be asked to rework certain aspect of the work more
especially the areas of methodology either the instrument or analysis or
areas of investigative deficiencies as the case may be. The ethical
committee consequently gives a page document of approval with the name
of the investigator, the topic under consideration, the duration of the
project and other exigency written.
Community leaders in community-based research also stand as
gatekeepers. They keep the mental profile of people who access their
community. To have an inch free access to these second gatekeepers, the
approval of the first gatekeepers may be of utmost importance. The
approval copy will be read to the community leader or summarised to gain
a proper understanding of the effect of the benefit of the research to their
community. However, Broadhead and Rist (1976), noted that gatekeepers
may influence the research endeavour in a number of ways and these
include limiting conditions of entry, defining the problem area of study,
limiting access to data and respondents, restricting the scope of analysis,
and retaining prerogatives with respect to publication. For example, Gallo
et al, (2012:4) in a study of the role and authority of the gatekeepers noted
that:
Gatekeepers have undertaken a number of
roles that may be understood as primarily
protecting individual interests. In the context of
health research, both the autonomy and
welfare interests of prospective study
participants may be involved. Autonomy
interests include a right to decide freely and on
the basis of adequate information whether to
participate in a study. Welfare interests include
the receipt of appropriate medical care for
illness and protection from undue research
risks. Gatekeepers have given permission for
randomization, provided proxy consent for
cluster members, given permission to approach

205
 cluster members, and identified cluster
members for researchers.
Consequently, the acceptance and the approval of the community leader
lead the investigator to the contact persons who properly pilot him through
the unknown terrain of the community. Some other time the reverse is the
case where the contact person was the one who leads the investigator to
the community leaders. It should be noted, however, that all investigator
does not necessarily pass through the same gatekeepers. In fact, some
probably may not even be in need of the gatekeepers because of
methodological reason. For example, in a study of in-group, where a
researcher is understudying the activities of the people he belongs to.
Advantages and disadvantages of contact persons
Contact person connects the investigator to the respondents in a research
endeavour. It is more like you using a snowball technique, where one
respondent leads you to another respondent with the same issue of the
investigation. For example, Okeke, Eneobong, Uzuegbunam, Ozioko and
Kuhnlein (2008:366) in their articles titled Igbo traditional food system:
documentation, uses and research needs, employed the services of a
contact person, this was recorded in the methodological section thus:

Contact persons were identified for each of the

towns visited. They were intimated with the
aims and objectives of the project and their
cooperation sought and obtained. The contact
persons were then the links between the
researchers and the chiefs and leaders of the
communities. Preliminary visits were arranged
by the contact persons for the researchers,
chiefs and community leaders. These meetings
enabled the researchers to explain in detail the
purpose of the project and to solicit maximum
support and cooperation. During these
meetings, the research protocols were outlined.

A different research need will employ different contact person and may
have a different result. Community entry in most time needs contact
persons, for example, to access the community of People Living with AID
(PLWA). The stigma of tagging a person as being HIV positive in Africa
setting may be worse than the disease. In such a case, the support group
can access through a contact person, this will save all the time and energy
that would have been expense looking for PLWA in the community.
Having stated one possible advantage, there are although numerous
disadvantages in the use of contact person.

206
 Anybody can stand in the position of a contact person; this makes
the character of the contact person a duo. A contact person can be an
advantage or a disadvantage to any study. If the position of the contact
person is not respected such a person will lack the ability to access the
people that needed to show up for the research. In fact, they may because
of his personality turn down the researcher. In order hand if the person
position is too respected they may because of him show up for the meeting
but refused to make any contribution or meaningful contribution because
of the fear of his persons.
Other advantages of using a contact person includes: one, they
could be a good organizer to help you access your participants; two, their
presence may help people see the need and importance in participation in
the research; three, if the people trusted the contact person is a repository
trust in the investigator; and four, if the contact person is deemed credible,
is to the advantage of the research process. These copious advantages
disallow the researcher to quickly dismiss the relevance of contact person
to gain access to community irrespective of the inherent weaknesses.

Gaining access to the target population in the community

Having explored the dichotomy of the community, it is clear that different
strategies are needed to access different community. Snowballing is a
methodological tool for social research, and could be used as a means to
gain access and entrance to any community. Research with a human
subject needs a community for proper operationalisation. In the bid to
access the community, the actual targets are the target population in the
community. In a study design of cross-sectional or longitudinal
application, the investigators must keep in mind the target populations
irrespective of the different contact to navigate the study population.
Concisely, the target populations are readily available both in the
developed and developing country depending on the research that is being
embarked on. For example, in a health study relating to tropical disease, it
is expected that such study is located based on literature in an endemic
area (Olorunlana, et al. 2016). Here students and investigators should
avoid accidental and convenient sample. Studies to a great extent have
relevance to the people and seek to explain a social situation.
There are times when a study becomes too ambitious and try to
sample a targeted population which probably are not available or
accessible. One way out of this net for any investigator is to do a pilot
study. In a pilot study, ten percent of the target population will be sampled
in a similar but different community. This reliability tool helps to untangle
investigator from future damage (Mohajan, 2017). The result from a pilot
study can help to re-design certain aspect of the proposal including the
objectives. Objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measurable,

207
Accessible, Researchable, and Timeframe). SMART acronyms are not
restricted to study objectives alone. They could be applicable to every
aspect of the research activities.

Building Relationship
Sociology and other social sciences are disciplines based on relationship.
The social researcher needs to build trust in the entered community.
Nothing that some community are hostile other are hospitable, building a
relationship is the key to sustaining the research enterprise. All seasoned
researchers should know that they should keep and build a relationship
with at least three sets of people. The figure 1: shows an investigator
relationship with gatekeepers, contact persons and target population as
conceived by the authors.

Gatekeepers

investigator

Targeted
Contact person population

Figure 1: Cycle of triune relationship. Source: Authors 2018

Significantly, the investigator needs to build relationship both personal
and interpersonal relationship. While approval is sought for the proposed
study, the relationship with gatekeepers is in place. Without this approval
a highly scientific paper more especially health-related will not get to the
stage of publication in high impact journals. Such relation is important to
keep the investigator focus on the set objective.
Similarly, the relationship with a contact person cannot be
overemphasis. Since the contact person provides the link between the
investigator and the targeted population. The contact person, therefore, is
seen as the second most important person in the relationship building. One
reason why the relationship with the contact person is necessary is to gain
the trust of the audience, whom the contact person will consequently
provide for an interview or otherwise.

208
 Moreover, the whole essence of research endeavour will be
jeopardized if the targeted population is neglected in the relationship
scheme. The investigator appearance and look should be of friendliness to
the targeted population in order to gain their trust. People are solution
driven, so, when a population perception about a researcher is raised,
meaning they may derive benefit from interaction with such investigator,
there is more likelihood for a high level of participation. If the revised is
the case, then apathy may result. This was confirmed by Jegede
(2007:419) in his article titled what led to the Nigerian boycott of the polio
vaccination campaign? He alluded to a previous study done which had
caused more harm than good, in that article:
BMJ reports that in 1996 Pfizer sent a team to
Kano during an epidemic of meningococcal
meningitis. To test the efficacy of its new
antibiotic trovafloxacin (Trovan), the team
conducted an open-label trial in 200 children—
half were given the gold standard treatment for
meningitis, ceftriaxone, and half received
trovafloxacin. Five of the children given
trovafloxacin died, together with six who were
given ceftriaxone. The BMJ reported: “The
Washington Post has been investigating the
trial and alleges that at least one child was not
taken off the experimental drug and given the
standard drug when it was clear that her
condition was not improving—which is against
ethical guidelines.” The BMJ reported that the
Nigerian health minister appointed a federal
investigative panel to determine whether the
trial was conducted legally, and if so, whether
it was morally right.
Kamuya, Marsh, Njuguna, Munywoki, Parker and Molyneux (2014),
asserted that fieldworkers play an important intermediary role in research;
a role imbued with multiple challenges and ethical dilemmas for which
they required appropriate support. Furthermore, specific empirical
research is needed to inform the development of guidance for researchers
on benefits sharing, and on responding to emergency humanitarian needs
for this and other similar settings.
Consequently, when a healthy relationship is built between the
investigator and triune human exigency in the research world, it creates a
future platform for further research. Hostility is sometimes experienced by
some researcher because the respondents feel his or her right was not
protected in the previous study or that they did not adequately benefit from
the study. This position had earlier been debated by Molyneux, Mulupi,

209
Mbaabu and Marsh (2012) that research staff differed in their views on
how benefits should be approached. Echoing elements of international
benefit sharing and auxiliary care debates, some research staff saw
research as based on goodwill and partnership, therefore, the researcher
should avoid commercial relationship because it will lead to certain costs
to the participants. However, others sought to maximise participant
benefits given the relative wealth of the institution and the multiple
community needs. This means that certain research may result to cost,
therefore, an emerging middle position is necessary to bear such cost. By
this, it will strengthen collateral or indirect medical benefits to
communities through collaborations with organs such as the Ministry of
Health that may give such support to sustain credibility.
Another, key elements in our research endeavour is the use of
community guide, they are similar to gatekeepers and sometimes used
interchangeably. However, they are not the same in function. While some
community guide can serve or do the work of a gatekeeper, not all
gatekeepers are capable or suitable for the activities of a community guide.
We, therefore, further explain the activities of community Guide in order
to underscore their importance more especially to ethnographic study.

Use of Community Guide to Access Study Population

Most sociological research involves ethnography, or “field work”
designed to depict the characteristics of a population as fully as possible.
When the research is closely related to people’s everyday lives these issues
become more significant, in what we call Community-Based Participatory
Research (CBPR) which is/are research that is grounded in the lived
experiences of communities (Mohajan, 2018). Such research provides
insight into the lives of the people being studied. Community‐based
participatory research (CBPR) is an approach meant to increase the value
of studies for both researchers and the community being studied. It is an
applied collaborative approach that enables communities to more actively
participate in research. However, there is the need of the Community
Guides who are meant to serve as the entry point into the studied
community.
Who is a Community Guide?
Community Guide who can also be referred to as Research Guides,
Community Informants and Gatekeepers are persons who serve as a
linkage between the researcher and the proposed studied community or
the populace. Researchers conducting studies rely on them in order to gain
access to participants. They are seen as people who are in the position to
permit access to others for the purpose of interviewing.
Why Community Guide

210
Over the years, research has been a very controversial issue in
communities resulting in rejection of researchers. Access to research
participants requires the presence of a familiar person or who is known by
the community members in the status of a CG. However, it should be noted
that the recruitment of a CG can aid the success or failure of a research
study
Qualities of a Community Guide
There are qualities which a CG needs to possess. These qualities are
essential in any social research. It is of importance that a CG should be
familiar with the study community. This, of course, entails understanding
the culture of the populace in the study community. For this to be
achieved, the CG must be an indigene or a member of that community and
also a resident of the community. The CG should have integrity which
spells out confidentiality and trustworthiness. He or she should not share
their opinion with others. Transparency is a virtue expected of a CG. There
should not be an iota of bias in any way for instance in the selection of the
research participants. In addition, CG needs to be a good communicator,
a good listener and be patient not only with the research but the research
participants. Also, they should be friendly with community members.

Importance of Recruiting CG in Social Research

Having access to research participants in a community is seen as crucial
to the success of any study. This is so most especially in a situation where
the researcher needs to gain the trust of the community. Gaining access to
a study community and having their consent is of primary importance.
However, there are situations in which the researcher could face a
dilemma in deciding how much information to make available to a
participant in different socio-cultural settings. Such an act can
superimpose on the temptation to waive informed consent which may arise
due to the following reasons: the difficulties in explaining some of the
details of a study, the fear that this disclosure will influence the decision
of the research participant on whether or not to give consent, then there is
the question about how much should be disclosed in such a setting?,
should it be full disclosure?, and should a researcher continue to recruit
when he or she is certain that the people do not understand the study? In
such an instance, the opinion may be divided on these issues, thus the need
to recruit a CG who could play a significant role in resolving them.
It is assumed that through active and meaningful engagement of
CG, community benefits are maximized and a range of potential harms to
individuals and communities can be minimized. In a study carried out in a
selected rural community in Akinyele Local Government Area, Oyo State,
Nigeria, most of the respondents were of the view that CG is a good

211
practice giving the following reasons security, tradition, trust and
translation. Security was observed to top the list of reasons by the
respondents. According to a respondent:
“It is important to send people to go out with them so that
people will know that they are genuine people. Nowadays,
you see all sort of people going around to pretend as if they
mean good.” [Male community leader, Illiterate]
Similarly, the tradition was another reason mentioned by a majority of the
respondents on the need for a CG in social research:
“A visitor is a visitor. There is a need for a visitor to be
guided, if not he/she may step on toes. When somebody is
a visitor he/she must seek for guidance to avoid trouble
with the tradition.” [Elderly male, Illiterate]
As indicated earlier, translation and trust is yet another crucial reason seen
for the need for CG:
“using a guide solves the problem of the language barrier.
Many people do not understand another language apart
from Yoruba in this language. So, if there is nobody from
the community who can help it will be difficult to relate
with the researcher” [Young male, Literate].
And on trust, the researcher on the said project iterated thus on the need
for a CG:
“As a researcher in community, having a guide is the only
way that guarantees you access to the people. This is
because they may not trust you as a visitor. Bust when they
see one of their own they will relax and will want to do
business with you” [Male Researcher].
Increasing recognition of the use of CG in international CBPR is critical
to understanding and addressing pressing health concerns is observed by
national and international organizations, funding agencies, researchers,
and communities (Israel, Schulz, Parker & Becker, 1998).
Processes involved in recruiting a CG in Social Research
The starting point in a CBPR when the researcher is to embark on data
collection is gaining entry into the study community. The researcher needs
to meet with the community leader whom the agenda of the research will
be discussed with. It is the said person that the research will obtain
permission to conduct the study. Having received permission for the study,

212
the researcher needs to identify areas of need and how the study
community can be of assistance. Such is the request for a CG who will
assist the researcher in the conduct of the study.

Challenges of Recruiting a CG in Social Research

In social research, CGs are said to influence the research process in a
number of ways. These vary from defining the problem area of study,
limitation of entry to participate in research, limiting access to data and
respondents, by restricting the scope of analysis, and by retaining
prerogatives with respect to publication. In line with the earlier itemized
problem, the recruitment of research participants in a study could result
due to the ways in which the researcher and the CG do their recruitment.
There is always the problem of power relation in which the CG do exert
their influence over the participants in the study. Instances are seen in
studies which are sensitive and has a cultural undertone. The interplay on
issues bordering on gender, power and ethnicity are observed during
interview sessions in which participants are said to be influenced by the
presence of the CG. This is accrued to the fact of their familiarity which
such person (CG). Intrinsically, it can be said that coercion is not exerted
on the research participants since their participation in the study is
voluntary and their consent was sought before the onset of the data
collection. However, studies have documented that despite consent being
given by the participants, the issue of coercion, compulsion or even
intimidation should not be ignored because there are power dynamics or
interplay which do exist in the conduct of some studies earlier mentioned
such as gender and ethnicity (Calvey, 2008; Mattingly, 2005).
Respondents mentioned two critical problems that may arise from the use
of CG namely, coercion and translation problem. Using research
conducted in a selected rural community in Akinyele Local Government
Area, Oyo State, Nigeria as a case study, coercion according to most of
the respondents was viewed to be used by the CG sometimes to force
people to participate in research when they do not want to do so.
“Sometimes, the researcher may pay somebody who is
influential in the community to play that role after seeing
the Baale (village head) and he gives approval but without
him sending his representative. Researchers who are well
connected in the community like that may use their contacts
and deceive the people” (Youth Female, literate).
As indicated earlier, there is also the problem of translation. A CG could
misinterpret when they are needed in the capacity to serve as a translator.
It is noted that the power of translation resides with the translator and who

213
may decide to interpret in his/her own way. It all depends on how the CG
wants to use the opportunity that presents itself. Another pressing
challenge in the recruitment of CG is transparency. The issue of equity
and justice challenges unfolds at a stage where even the participants will
query the integrity of whom the researcher would include in to participate
in the study. Is there any form of fairness in the selection procedure which
is being coordinated by the CG? Could it be that the researcher is not
working with the right category of people since it was the CG that handled
the selection of the participants? At times CGs may decide to do things the
way they want. This also depends on the sincerity of the researcher.
Researchers may collude with CGs to interview participants they know
that would not give them a problem.
Confidentiality of data collected as well as the stigmatisation of
the respondents is a threat which could be ignited by the presence of a CG
in the research. When a CG is used in research involving an interview of
their fellow community members, confidentiality and data quality might
be jeopardized. People (participants) do have secrets that they do not want
to divulge. Having a CG who is also a community member will implicate
the information that will be given by a research participant. This is most
prominent when discussions are on sensitive issues. It should be
mentioned that CGs are not professionals and they do not have training in
ethics. Their inclusion in a study is to assist researchers in the communities
to get access to the study participants. Thus, the need for extra care while
working with them to avoid information leakage. However, there is the
question of ethical standard which borders on the CG adhering to the
standard operating procedure when conducting research. Aside from this,
in small communities, it may be unrealistic to promise absolute
confidentiality and anonymity. Furthermore, community guide may hold
several roles within their community, (e.g., community leader, program
manager, Elder, research team member).
In one project, an Elder had chosen to be a community guide and
was present at every interview and supported the participants. It
was discovered through the team review of several early
transcripts. The Elder was serving as both a researcher and a
resource for the participants. The conflict between these roles was
influencing the responses of participants, and biasing the data.
Interviews had been influenced both directly and indirectly by the
Elder’s presence and confidentiality had been compromised
(Anonymous, no date).
In relation to confidentiality is the subject of stigmatisation of the
participants. There is the general consensus among participants that using

214
CG for research may create a problem for some people if members of the
community get to know about his/her problem. The community member
may disintegrate relations with such participant having to be privy to the
information given during the research.
Gender identity (masculinity/feminism) is yet another challenge
that is encountered during the recruitment of CG in social research. The
CG is viewed most of the time as men and there is the argument that
women are not seen as CG. This does have a cultural undertone most
especially in an environment which is male-dominated. There is the
exponent of women subjugation: In some cultures, women are not allowed
to play a leading role in the society and hence cannot be a CG. For
instance, in Yoruba culture which operates a patriarchal system, male CGs
are highly respected and are seen as representative of authority.
“In Yoruba culture, men occupy the public space and
therefore they are better used for CG because the guide
represents the authority of the community head. This may
be difficult to understand with a woman playing the role”
[Female Researcher].
There are situations in which CG are seen to occupy a more powerful and
respectful position in the society which surpasses that of the participants
nominated by the CG to partake in the research. In such instances, the
question of who gives consent for the interviews becomes questionable
between the CG and the participants.
Generally, Community-Based Participatory Research is inherently
political because it promotes change within the community. The
nomination/selection of community guide unknowingly to the researcher
can be politically influenced (Gibson, Gibson & Macaulay, 2001). The
Community Guide may be used to further factional political aims that
affect the research process and/or potential outcomes. This scenario had
to be well managed by the researcher because of the importance of
community exit and the need for feedback.
Community Exit
Community exit is as important as community entry in any giving social
research. Exit should be well planned just as entry was planned. When
exiting the community leaders visited or revisited as the case may be and
the targeted population appreciated. C-Safe (2005:7), developed practical
guidance for exit strategies in the field and noted that exit strategies should
be planned with partners in advance. They draw on the advantages of such
strategies as follows:
Exit strategies, when planned with partners in
advance of closeout, ensure better program

215
 outcomes and encourage commitment to
program sustainability. In addition, good exit
strategies can help resolve the tension that may
arise between the withdrawal of assistance and
commitment to achieve program outcomes.

Exit strategies can help clarify and define a

sponsor’s role to host countries and local
partners as being time-limited, reducing the
potential for misunderstandings and future
dependency. Finally, they are critical to
developmental relief programming as they
inform a program’s sustainability plan or
planning for its next phase. Conversely, without
exit strategies, program transitions and exits
are likely to be more haphazard.

Planning to exit a community is a process, it begins with your entry stage.

The investigator must have an exit plan at the back of its mind at the first
point in time of its entry. From the foregoing, the purpose of the research
should not be compromised. The researcher may be (too many things) in
the real world, i.e single, youthful, from minority or dominant group and
may be religious or having no religion. The fieldwork is not a place to
allow your personal identity to get in the way of the purpose of your
research.
Why the research is ongoing you equally don’t forget the exiting
rout. In most Africa community hospitality can make you forget your
research topic. The reception may be glamorous to the extent that it will
take a great deal of your time. You must be careful to leave with your
research aimed being achieved. Announce your purpose when you are
meeting with an individual or group for survey or interview and be true to
your purpose so that you can lead the discussion. Most often the elderly
people are armed with a lot of stories; they will surely want to lead you
out of your theme. Enjoy the story but be focused on your time frame and
technically bring them back to the subject at hand. C-Safe (2005) had
identified what determine when to exit three criterions was identified: one,
time limit; two, the achievement of program impacts; and three, the
achievement of benchmarks.
Finally, when you are to leave the study area, don’t forget to say
‘thank you’ (see figure 2). Give a compliment to contact person, targeted
population, community leaders and any other person that made your
research a successful in the community. Giving a compliment is not the
same as a monetary reward. From the onset make it clear if the monetary
reward will not be involved while you are seeking for their consent (read
about informed consent). A compliment is satisfactory pleasantries that

216
help you exit without closing the doors against other researchers.
Consequently, you should promise to give feedback as you exit.
Feedback

Entrance into an organization/community

Formal access Informal access

Formal communication (online- Informal ways of

directory, formal telephone call, communication (informal
email, cover letter with official emails, telephone call to
letterhead) familiar people)
Pre fieldwork Fix appointments based on Formal appointments are
interviewees’ availability usually not necessary
Need to emphasis benefits of Benefits of research often
research; issues of anonymity taken for granted by the
and confidentiality assured organization/community
Issues of anonymity and
confidentiality assured

Adapt to the cultural norms of Adapt to the languages

the research site (e.g. dress Comfortable and familiar to
formally, you might need to the interviewees
address interviewees formally Need to obtain permission to
using surnames) tape record interviews
During fieldwork Take into account the
differences in languages and
accent
Need to obtain permission to
tape-record interviews, take
photographs or video record the
interviews, observation, etc,

Send a formal you note Express informal thank you

immediately.
After fieldwork Send a copy of the result
(report) to the respective
organization/community

Exit research site by retaining Familiar with the research

good rapport with the research site, easy to gain access
site for future needs (less again
Getting back obstacles when getting back)

Figure 2: Process of gaining entrance into an organisation/community. Sources: John I

and Renganathan, 2010. (Adapted and modify by authors, 2018).

217
Feedback is the most important but neglected aspect of research activities.
The community has a right to feedback from the researcher; equally,
gatekeepers should be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is a reporting
mechanism. In academics, the report can be made in a form of seminal
presentation, conference proceeding, journal publication, book writing,
advocacy etc
The importance of feedback come to bear because it affords the
research community and the general populace with information. Notably,
feedbacks can also be in form of criticism, comment, and advice among
others. In a seminal presentation, this is done pretty well after the
researcher had made the presentation, feedback comes in a form of
criticism, comment and advice to better the work. Subsequently, when
such feedbacks were incorporated it betters the lot of the researcher if
other avenues will be employed in the future such as conference
proceeding and journal publication.
Figure 2. Summarises the whole idea of the processes of gaining
entrance into an organisation or community. We have engaged all the
possible details (pre fieldwork, during fieldwork, after field work and
getting back) in this chapter. Unfortunately, getting back/feedback is often
neglected or inappropriately utilized by some researcher. Mostly,
undergraduate and graduate students do research with the aim of a degree
in mind. However, the thought of making such finding come to the public
should have been the uppermost priority. African is rich in amazing
discoveries, but most of these discoveries lack publication back-up. The
South African governments are a little better compared to other African
countries, because of the fund devoted to research activities. The other part
of the world like Europe, South and North America, Asia, and Australia
do invest heavily in research activities. Grants are made available for
research works; this, therefore, create enough room for appropriate
feedback.
Taking that feedback is a response based on previous knowledge
or research done. Thus, for community research; advocacy, health
education, intervention may be appropriate feedback based on a previous
study done. Moreover, the government may respond through making and
implementing policies which are another advantage of appropriate
feedback. Similarly, gatekeepers could facilitate the researcher(s) to do the
publication of finding so that participating community and host
community may benefit equally.
From the discussion so far it is quite obvious that a researcher’s
attitude determines whether s/he would have a positive relationship with
the people in the community he studies during his data collection exercise.
It is no gainsaying that at the point of entering a community the researcher
should establish a harmonious relationship with his hosts (the people) who
are the provider of all the information (data) he sought for. He should not
only establish a cordial or harmonious relationship with them but also

218
maintain it throughout the fieldwork. That is, the researcher should ensure
that he leaves the community on a good note.
A researcher should not think that after the fieldwork he would not
have anything to do with the community again. He may have to go back
there in order to update his data. If he discovers that there is some
information he did not collect during the fieldwork, he would go back to
the community to collect them. In such a situation the cordial relationship
he had established during his initial visit would make the people cooperate
with him. Even it could be information he could obtain through
telephoning some of his earlier informants he may have to do so. In that
case, the cordial relationship that had established with the people would
make them assist without any delay.
Another reason why a researcher should create and maintain a
cordial relationship with his study population is that in the future his study
may be replicated. Replicating research refers to a situation where another
researcher is repeating the study perhaps with modification (Gelles and
Levine, 1999). The success of any replicated study depends to a large
extent, on the nature of the relationship that the initial researcher had with
the people while he was collecting his data in the community concerned.
If the initial researcher did not maintain a good relationship with the
people of the community where he had collected data, they would not
cooperate with any other researcher that comes thereafter to them
especially if he is investigating the same issue the initial researcher had
investigated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, data collection (fieldwork) is the core of the research. This
is because it is the practical aspect of research in which the researcher must
interact with his study population to obtain some information (data) from
them. Therefore, the quality of data collected for a study determines the
nature of its outcome. If research fails at the stage of data collection it
cannot proceed to the next stage. It is indeed, crystal clear that for research
to be successful the data collected for it should be of good quality (relevant
and well organized). However, whether any data is of quality or not
depends on the collector of the data – the researcher- on the one hand and
the providers of the data – the study population– on the other. That is the
nature of their interactions and /or relationships during the period of the
data collection.
The relationship between a researcher and his study population
should be cordial during the data collection exercise and thereafter. The
cordiality or otherwise of this relationship rests solely on the researcher
who is a visitor to the community where data are to be collected. His
behaviour and/or attitude to his study population is the only determinant
of the nature of his relationship with them. The researcher should,
therefore, ensure that he establishes a good relationship with his study

219
population and maintain it throughout the duration of his stay in their
community. His attitude should be that which would make the people
accept him and relate well with him. If they accept him at the time of
entry, they would definitely cooperate with him throughout his stay in the
community. He should relate with the people not only with respect for
them but also for their traditions. Researcher capacity to maintain this
cordial relationship keeps the community open for a further research
enterprise, while the inability of the researcher to maintain good rapport
could jeopardise further research engagement in the community.
References
Abdullahi, M. (2009). “Culture” In Salisu A. Abdullahi, Isima’Ila Z. Mohammed
and Conerly Casey (Eds) Studies in cultural sociology. Ibadan: Foludex
printers, P. 22-32.
Adom, D. Hussein, E.K. & Agyem, J.A. (2018). Theoretical and Conceptual
Framework: Mandatory Ingredients of a quality Research. International
Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1),438-441.
Alland, A. (1980). To be Human: An introduction to Anthropology. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Adams, P., Wongwit, W., Pengsaa, K., Khusmith, S., Fungladda, W.,
Chaiyaphan, W., … & Prakobtham, S. (2013). Ethical Issue in research
involving minority population: the process and outcomes of protocol
review by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Tropical medicine,
Mahidol University, Thailand. BMC Medical Ethics 14:33
http//www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/14/33
Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, U.S.A: Wadsworth.
Bacon, J. (2009). The art of community: building the new age of participation
(theory in practice) Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly Media.
Bendassolli, P (2013). Theory Building in Qualitative Research: Reconsidering
the Problem of Induction [50 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(1), Art. 25,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1301258.
Broadhead, R & Rist, R. (1976). Gatekeepers and the social control of social
research. University of California Press on behalf of the society for
study of social Problems. 23(3), 325-336.
Calvey, D. (2008). The Art and Politics of Covert Research. Sociology 42(5),
905-918. DOI: 10.1177/0038038508094569
Creswell, J. (2013). Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Sage Publication incorporated.
C-SAFE. (2005). What We Know About Exit Strategies Practical Guidance for
Developing Exit Strategies in the Field. A product of the C-SAFE
Regional Learning Spaces Initiative. Retrieved from www.c_safe.org.
Eastwell, P. (2014). Understanding Hypotheses, Predictions, Laws, and
Theories. Science Education Review, 13(1), 16-21.
Fine, A. (2006). Igniting social change in the connected age. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass. ISBN: 9780787984441
Flavian, C & Guinaliu, M. (2005). The influence of virtual communities on
distribution strategies in the internet. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management; 33(6), 405-425.

220
Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias D. (2009). Research methods in the social
sciences (5th ed.) Hodder Education, London.
Gallo, A., Weijer, C., White, A., Grimshaw, J., Boruch, R., Brehaut, J., ... &
Taljaar, M. (2012). What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in
cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials, 13(116), 2-14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-116
Gelles, R. & Levin, A. (1999). Sociology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Giddens, A. (2010). Sociology. New Delhi: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Henry, S. (2011). The tyranny of reality JAMA, 305(4)338-339
http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/116
Iheriohanma, E. (2002). Sociology: A practical understanding of social reality.
Owerri: Tropical Publications.
Isiugo-Abanihe, U. & Alonge, S. (2002). Theory and research: The dynamic
duo. In, U, Isiugo – Abanihe., A, Isamah & J, Adesina (Eds.) Currents
and Perspectives in Sociology. Lagos: Malthouse, 91-103.
Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E. & Becker, A. (1998). Review of community-
based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public
health. Annual Review of Public Health. 19,173–202.
Jegede, A. (2007). What Led to the Nigerian Boycott of the Polio Vaccination
Campaign? PLOS Med,4(3), 417-422. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pmed.0040073
Jegede, A. (2012) Introduction. In A. Jegede, O. Olutayo, O. Omololu & B.
Owumi. (Eds.) Peoples and Culture of Nigeria. Department of
Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 2 – 10.
John I, S.K. & Renganathan,S. (2010) Strategies for gaining access in doing
fieldwork reflection of two researchers EJBRM, 8(1), 42-50.
Kamuya, D., Marsh, V., Njuguna, P., Munywoki, P., Parker, M & Molyneux, S.
(2014). “When they see us, it’s like they have seen the benefits!”
experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies
on the Kenyan Coast. BMC Medical Ethics, 15:90
Mattingly, C. (2005). Towards a vulnerable ethics of research practice. Health. 9
(4), 453-471.
Miller, T & Bell, L. (2012). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping
and 'informed' consent. Ethics in qualitative research, (2nd ed.). Sage, London,
ISBN 9781446210888
Minkler, M & Pies, C. (1997). Ethical Issues in community organization and
community participation In M, Minkler (Ed) Community organizing
and community building for health (1st Ed, pp 116-133) Piscataway
(NJ): Rutgers University.
Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in
community-based participatory research Health Education and
Behavior; 31(6),684-697
Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two Criteria for Good Measurements in Research:
Validity and Reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University Economic
Series, 17(3), 58–82.
Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative Research Methodology in the Social Sciences
and Related Subject. Journal of Economic Development, Environment
and People, 7(1), 23-48.

221
 Molyneux, S., Mulupi, S., Mbaabu, L & Marsh, V. (2012). Benefits and
payments for research participants: experiences and views from a
research centre on the Kenyan coast. BMC Med Ethics, 13(13), 2-
15. Doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-13.
National Institute of Health. (2011). Principle of community engagement (second
edition) NIH Publication No. 11-7782
Okeke, E., Eneobong, H., Uzuegbunam, A., Ozioko, A & Kuhnlein, H. (2008).
Igbo Traditional Food System: Documentation, Uses and Research
Needs. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 7 (2): 365-376, Asian Network
for Scientific Information, ISSN 1680-5194
Olorunlana, A. Jegede, A.S. Morenikeji, O. Hassan, A. Nwuba, R. Anumudu,
C…. & Odaibo, A. (2016). Persistent Transmission of Schistosomiasis
in Southwest Nigeria: Contexts of Culture and Contact with infected
River Water. World Health & Population, 16(3), 31-38.
Oluwabamide, A. (2011). “Interdisciplinary research and health care delivery in
Nigeria: The case of social sciences and medicine” International
Journal of Social Sciences,3(3),119 – 123.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic
frontier. MIT Press. Cambridge (MA), Massachusetts Institute of
Technology ISBN 0-262-68121-8
Ridings, C., Gefen, D & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust
in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11(3-
4), 271-295
Satzewich, V. (2014). Canadian visa officers and the social construction of "real"
spousal relationships. Canadian Review of Sociology, 51(1), 1-21.
Schaefer, R. (2004). Sociology: A brief introduction. New York: McGraw Hill.
Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, N & Cook, S. (1971). Research method in social
relations. Kent: Methuen Co. Ltd.
Stacey, M. (1970). Methods of Research, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Thompson, B & Kinne, S. (1990). Social change theory: applications to
community health. In N. Bracht (Ed) Health promotion at the
community level (1st Ed, pp 45-65) Newbury Park (CA): Sage.
Tomkinson, S. 2015. Doing Fieldwork on State Organizations in Democratic
Settings: Ethical Issues of Research in Refugee Decision Making [46
paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), Art.
6,http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs150168.
Watts, D.I. (2017). Should Social Science be more solution-oriented? Nature
Human Behaviour, 1,0015. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0015
Wells, L. (2013). Gatekeepers: The Milwaukee Field Experiment in the
Employment Application Process. SAGE Open DOI: 10.
1177/2158244013503830 sgo.sagepub.com

222

View publication stats