Gatekeeping Success in the Namibian CBNRM Program

  • Carolin H. Stamm


In this chapter, Carolin Stamm illustrates how research that heavily relies on fieldwork is profoundly influenced by the opportunities and constraints encountered during data collection, which often lie in the hands of gatekeepers. Taking a different approach from the usual scholarly discussions that focus on the role of the gatekeeper as a static figure to navigate around, Stamm uses her fieldwork with CBOs and NGOs in rural conservation projects in Namibia to reconceptualize the gatekeeper–researcher relationship. Through a critical evaluation of the role that gatekeepers played in the data collection process, analysis, and formation of her empirical findings, Stamm argues that the manner in which access to knowledge is negotiated should not be divorced from the results it generates.


Namibia Conservation Access Positionality Gatekeepers CBOs 


  1. Bondy, C. (2013). How Did I Get Here? The Social Process of Accessing Field Sites. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brosius, J. P., Lowenhaupt Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 11(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Meletis, Z. A., Abbott, J. G., & Silver, J. J. (2006). Gatekeepers and Keymasters: Dynamic Relationships of Access in Geographical Fieldwork. Geographical Review, 96(1), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, T. (2008). We’re Over-Researched Here!’ Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue Within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology, 42(5), 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, T. (2010). On ‘Being Researched’: Why Do People Engage with Qualitative Research? Qualitative Research, 10(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowhurst, I. (2013). The Fallacy of the Instrumental Gate? Contextualising the Process of Gaining Access Through Gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(6), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (2006). The Relational Foundation of Research: An Underappreciated Dimension of Interesting Research. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Easton, G. (2010). Critical Realism in Case Study Research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Government of the Republic of Namibia. (2015). Poverty and Deprivation in Namibia 2015, Windhoek, Namibia: National Planning Commission. Accessed December 10, 2017.
  11. Grant, A. (2017). “I Don’t Want You Sitting Next to Me”: The Macro, Meso and Micro of Gaining and Maintaining Access to Government Organizations During Ethnographic Fieldwork. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. IRDNC—Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. (2016). About Us/History and Awards. Accessed October 27, 2017.
  14. Jänis, J. (2014). The Tourism-Development Nexus in Namibia: A Study on National Tourism Policy and Local Tourism Enterprises’ Policy Knowledge. Ph.D. thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  15. Jezewski, M. (1993). Culture Brokering as a Model for Advocacy. Nursing and Health Care, 14(2), 78–89.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, B. T. B. (2010). The Evolution of Namibia’s Communal Conservancies. In F. Nelson (Ed.), Community Rights, Conservation and Contested Land: The Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa (pp. 106–120). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  17. Kitchin, R., & Tate, N. (2013). Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Long, N. (2001). Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mandel, J. L. (2003). Negotiating Expectations in the Field: Gatekeepers, Research Fatigue and Cultural Biases. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(2), 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McAreavey, R., & Das, C. (2013). A Delicate Balancing Act: Negotiating with Gatekeepers for Ethical Research When Researching Minority Communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Environment and Tourism Namibia. (2013). National Policy on Community Based Natural Resource Management. Accessed January 10, 2018.
  23. Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mulhall, A. (2003). In the Field: Notes on Observation in Qualitative Research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NACSO—Namibian Association for CBNRM Support Organizations. (2017). Conservancies and Conservancies Overview. Accessed September 27, 2017.
  26. Peace Parks Foundation. (2017). Kavango Zambezi. Accessed October 7, 2017.
  27. Reeves, C. (2010). A Difficult Negotiation: Fieldwork Relations with Gatekeepers. Qualitative Research, 10(3), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation. Washington: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioners-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, S., Miller, F., & Lloyd, K. (2006). Doing Fieldwork in Development Geography: Research Culture and Research Spaces in Vietnam. Geographical Research, 44(1), 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw, I. (2008). Ethics and the Practice of Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work, 7(4), 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Siwale, J. (2015). Why Did I Not Prepare for This? The Politics of Negotiating Fieldwork Access, Identity, and Methodology in Researching Microfinance Institutions. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, S. (2001). Fieldwork as Commitment. The Geographical Review, 91(1–2), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sullivan, S. (2002). How Sustainable is the Communalizing Discourse of ‘New’ Conservation: The Masking of Difference, Inequality and Aspiration in the Fledgling “Conservancies” of Namibia. In D. Chattyand & M. Colchester (Eds.), Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples (pp. 158–197). Oxford: Berghahn Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sullivan, S. (2003). Dissent or Libel in Resistance to a Conservancy in North-West Namibia. In E. Berglund & D. Anderson (Eds.), Ethnographies of Conservation: Environmentalism and the Distribution of Privilege (pp. 69–86). Oxford: Berghahn Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting Past the Gatekeepers: Differences Between Access and Cooperation in Public School Research. Field Methods, 20(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  40. WWF—World Wide Fund For Nature. (2016). Namibia: The Greatest Wildlife Recovery Story Ever Told. Accessed May 31, 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin H. Stamm
    • 1
  1. 1.SRH University of Applied Sciences BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations