What Do We Mean by a 'Hard-to-Reach' Population? Legitimacy versus Precarity as Barriers to Access
Saved in:
| Title: | What Do We Mean by a 'Hard-to-Reach' Population? Legitimacy versus Precarity as Barriers to Access |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Ellis, Rachel (ORCID |
| Source: | Sociological Methods & Research. Aug 2023 52(3):1556-1586. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 31 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | National Science Foundation (NSF) |
| Contract Number: | DGE0822 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Population Groups, Barriers, Institutionalized Persons, Females, Qualitative Research, Research Problems, Ethnography |
| DOI: | 10.1177/0049124121995536 |
| ISSN: | 0049-1241 1552-8294 |
| Abstract: | Numerous articles and textbooks advise qualitative researchers on accessing "hard-to-reach" or "hidden" populations. In this article, I compare two studies that I conducted with justice-involved women in the United States: a yearlong ethnography inside a state women's prison and an interview study with formerly incarcerated women. Although these two populations are interconnected--and both are widely deemed hard-to-reach--the barriers to access differed. In the prison study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of "institutional legitimacy," in which researchers must demonstrate themselves and their proposed study as legible, appropriate, and worthy to organizational gatekeepers. In the reentry study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of "structural precarity," in which researchers must navigate the everyday vulnerabilities of research participants' social position to ensure the study is inclusive and feasible. Juxtaposing these two experiences, I propose greater nuance to the term hard-to-reach such that researchers may proactively address institutional and structural barriers to access. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1390802 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhUQMvs7hfpqjZOoY7jy4eAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPBmrPv91IvsPuKDnwIBEICBmxpmF4L8OABMDnwRo3WqI79TM5M7mCYnQpHqWkc5ziVTPF_V_b2mPWwNFhoomY9h4fF7oP1pBJznJxgdTiAi878H2Rdj_garcg_nIC4T7voXLwuXSgKYZnKSU7J6rlxfD0z16CP5zPnCucnR1Lf65FWY-O1t3Zd80GPStlgEZ3vpaQA0wHWIyzBNx2kMBkupRICIof1cms-pvom4 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0171103998;som01aug.23;2023Sep01.05:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171103998-1">What Do We Mean By a "Hard-to-reach" Population? Legitimacy Versus Precarity as Barriers to Access </title> <p>Numerous articles and textbooks advise qualitative researchers on accessing "hard-to-reach" or "hidden" populations. In this article, I compare two studies that I conducted with justice-involved women in the United States: a yearlong ethnography inside a state women's prison and an interview study with formerly incarcerated women. Although these two populations are interconnected—and both are widely deemed hard-to-reach—the barriers to access differed. In the prison study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of institutional legitimacy, in which researchers must demonstrate themselves and their proposed study as legible, appropriate, and worthy to organizational gatekeepers. In the reentry study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of structural precarity, in which researchers must navigate the everyday vulnerabilities of research participants' social position to ensure the study is inclusive and feasible. Juxtaposing these two experiences, I propose greater nuance to the term hard-to-reach such that researchers may proactively address institutional and structural barriers to access.</p> <p>Keywords: barriers to access; ethnography; hard-to-reach; hidden populations; interviews; prisons; reentry</p> <p>"You should interview formerly incarcerated people instead," a senior scholar suggested during a meeting about my dissertation. I initially approached him with the idea of conducting a prison ethnography, wanting to update our understanding of the prison experience for the twenty-first century. The oft-cited "curious eclipse" of the prison ethnography ([<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref1">100</reflink>]) highlighted the opacity of the prison experience for the 2.1 million people in the United States sitting behind bars on any given day. This scholar warned me that getting access to a prison would be "very difficult and maybe even impossible." Although disheartening, I saw the merit in his advice. After all, prisons have literal gatekeepers.</p> <p>Committed to the project, I pressed on. My dissertation committee members supported my efforts, strategizing together on how to gain access to the notoriously "hard-to-reach" field site of the prison. Eventually, I succeeded in conducting a 12-month ethnography inside one U.S. state women's prison (see [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). At the time, I felt proficient in how to access an inaccessible population.</p> <p>For my next major study, I opted for a break from institutional red tape. I designed an interview study of formerly incarcerated women, as the senior scholar (who was not on my dissertation committee) had suggested. I imagined that access would be comparatively straightforward: approach reentry programs and offer an interviewee incentive for participation. A combination of convenience sampling and snowball sampling would surely yield interviewees.</p> <p>I was wrong: The reentry study was not "easier." It turned out to be equally challenging to interview a population of formerly incarcerated women. My privileged position in the ivory tower created blinders to the population's socioeconomic marginalization that yielded barriers to access. In the end, along with a PhD student research assistant (RA), we conducted in-depth interviews with 48 formerly incarcerated women in St. Louis, Missouri. Although both efforts resulted in successful data collection, the hard-to-reach populations of incarcerated women and formerly incarcerated women turned out to be surprisingly distinct.</p> <p>This article compares research access experiences for two hard-to-reach populations. Juxtaposing two qualitative studies on populations that seem interrelated at first glance—currently and formerly incarcerated women—I demonstrate that hard-to-reach means different things in different settings, and these distinctions shape pathways to access. For the prison ethnography, I found that hard-to-reach reflected an issue of <emph>institutional legitimacy</emph>. Institutional legitimacy refers to an assessment of the proposed study by organizational gatekeepers as legible, appropriate, and worthy. For the reentry interview study, I found that hard-to-reach reflected an issue of <emph>structural precarity</emph>. Structural precarity refers to the everyday vulnerabilities of research participants' social position that researchers must navigate to render the study feasible and inclusive. Although existing studies have highlighted myriad challenges in studying hidden populations ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref4">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref5">91</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref6">95</reflink>]), they have not disentangled these key differences. By proposing two different meanings of the term, social scientists can more proactively navigate potential barriers to access.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-2">The Barrier of Institutional Legitimacy in a Prison Ethnography</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171103998-3">History of Prison Ethnography</hd> <p>Nowadays, U.S. prisons are a hard-to-access research site. As [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref7">85</reflink>] lamented, "The great tradition of studies of prison social organization in the United States...has largely ceased.... Much of the research now is conducted from afar through journalism, official reports, and litigation discovery" (p. 289). Likewise, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref8">100</reflink>] famously declared, "The ethnography of the prison thus went into eclipse at the very moment when it was most urgently needed" (p. 385). In their annual review article on prison culture, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>] commented, "When compiling a review such as this, one is immediately struck by how little recent research has been conducted <emph>within</emph> U.S. prisons, a prerequisite for understanding inmate society in the era of mass incarceration" (p. 278).</p> <p>This was not always the case. In the mid-twentieth century, researchers entered prisons with comparative ease, publishing a number of books on prison life (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref12">102</reflink>]). Some prisons even welcomed sociologists inside their walls alongside psychologists and social workers (see [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref13">100</reflink>]). At the time, research focused on how individuals adapted to the uniquely punitive environment of a prison. Prison scholar [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]) wrote about "prisonization," the process by which an individual adopts "the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary" (p. 270). Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref15">93</reflink>]) called the prison a "small-scale society," wherein "The student of human behavior can find many theoretical issues suddenly illuminated...where numerous features of the free world have been drastically changed" (p. xxxii). Erving [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>], too, piqued academic interest in prison as a "total institution" that promoted conformity to rules and deindividualized roles (see [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]). Scholars seemed to construe prison as an experiment, observing how a confined community organizes itself and how individuals adapt to a closed environment.</p> <p>A slew of books categorized emergent social groups within prisons. Typologies of prisoners were used to predict behavior. Some classifications relied on background characteristics including racial, religious, and political identities ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]). Other typologies relied on a person's orientation toward prison rules: the extent to which an incarcerated individual accepted or rejected prison rules marked their place in the prison subculture ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref23">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref24">93</reflink>]). Earlier studies of prison life described a "convict code" or a set of informal social rules that promoted collective solidarity among inmates and oppositional behavior toward prison authority ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]). Over time, the growing role of drug use and gangs in prisons "eroded a more solidary inmate culture" ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]:477) in exchange for smaller-group factions inside prisons ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref28">86</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref29">96</reflink>]). Typologies specific to women's prisons focused on romantic relationships and what was termed "pseudo-families" or fictive kinship behind bars ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref32">68</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref33">102</reflink>]). These early studies of women's prisons placed undue emphasis on sexual relationships and family dynamics inside prisons, perhaps due to a scholarly lens that viewed women in domestic roles (see [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Later, during the prison boom of the 1970s and 1980s, the prison ethnography effectively vanished. Prisons closed their doors to researchers (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref36">75</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref37">100</reflink>]). University institutional review boards (IRBs) added protections for prisoners as a vulnerable population. Extra precautions ensured that researchers were studying prisoners per se and not prisoners as a conveniently testable population. Departments of Corrections created their own research boards to manage data access and to review the merits, scientific soundness, and feasibility of proposed studies.</p> <p>As prison gates kept scholars out, studies of prison culture increasingly relied on secondary sources of data. Social scientists got creative, turning to prisons records, memoirs, historical archives, legal documents, and prison town community observations to round out their data alongside a restricted number of interviews with incarcerated persons ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref40">74</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref41">86</reflink>]). The opacity and impenetrability of U.S. prisons are regrettable in an era of overcrowding, with a rise in life sentences and concomitant aging prison populations, amid stark racial disparities, and the decline of rehabilitative programming in favor of coercive control.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-4">My Experience Getting Access: The Problem of Institutional Legitimacy</hd> <p>The turning tides of prison access made my own chances at entrée seem ill-fated. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>] argued that prisons hide punishment from public view. While this imperviousness may be more palatable for society's sensibilities, it fosters a detrimental "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. A select few scholars had successfully published ethnographic studies of jails and prisons in recent years (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref44">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref45">101</reflink>]). My specific research focus was on the role of religion inside prison, and I hoped to conduct ethnographic observations and interviews. Knowing that 2.1 million Americans sit behind bars on any given day ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref46">47</reflink>]) in a moment of changing public sentiment and potential reform, the imperative was ever greater to interrogate the everyday realities of punishment doled out by the criminal justice system.</p> <p>My access efforts were marked by opacity, uncertainty, and rejection. Upon revisiting the field notes documenting my entrée, I found that the major barrier was one of institutional legitimacy. Drawing from sociological and psychological scholarship ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref47">89</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref48">97</reflink>]), I define institutional legitimacy as an assessment that a given action is legible, appropriate, and worthy within an institution's socially constructed set of norms and values. The action I sought was the ability to enter prison gates as a researcher. I navigated bureaucratic red tape over the course of nine months before achieving institutional legitimacy. This required that the prison institution view myself and my project as decipherable in a language understood by prison officials, appropriate within their norms and values, and worthy of institutional buy-in. As I describe my access experience below, I point out key moments where setbacks and rejections can be framed as instances of illegitimacy to the prison institution.</p> <p>First, I proposed the project to my university's IRB. This included a full review for Human Subjects Research by a committee that included a prisoner representative. My application included a supplemental form detailing the precautions I would take in the study design given prisoners' status as a vulnerable population. I devoted a great deal of time and meticulous attention to my application. After the first round of review, the committee recommended 17 stipulations to address before resubmitting my application. I spent several hours on the phone with the IRB representative discussing the necessary changes. I carefully revised my submission based on the 17 required stipulations, then resubmitted my application for review. The IRB convened and approved my project, conditional on my submitting a letter demonstrating that the Department of Corrections (DOC) supported my entry.</p> <p>Although the university IRB process was lengthy, my proposed project was institutionally legitimate from the outset. For one, the IRB receives human subjects research as part of its very function, meaning my proposal would be immediately legible. Moreover, I was deemed appropriate to the IRB because I was a PhD student at the same university. It was expected that students like me would propose projects whose worthiness is evaluated by the "study objectives," "background," and "risk/benefit assessment" articulated in the submission materials. My application was legitimate to the IRB because of my status as a student and because the project fit within an academic program. Although the university IRB scrutinized the proposed project, institutional legitimacy meant that their scrutiny yielded suggestions through official bureaucratic channels on how I could revise the proposal to gain eventual acceptance.</p> <p>Meanwhile, I began to navigate the application process for the DOC research board in the state in which I hoped to conduct fieldwork. I mobilized my extended social network, through which I met someone who volunteered in the women's prison. After describing my project, that person introduced me to Ms. Varlack (all names are pseudonyms), the DOC's Director of Religious Programming, who was formerly the Director of the DOC Research Committee. I wanted to float my ideas by someone with a bird's-eye level of expertise. Sitting in her office at the DOC, I found Ms. Varlack to be an intimidating administrator who spoke with a sober tone. She explained that it was important that "You don't come in with a negative outlook, thinking that prison is only a bad thing. Of course, we want to learn about the good and the bad, but some people come in thinking prison doesn't help anything." Eyeing me with some skepticism, she nodded. "It doesn't seem like you're that way." Ms. Varlack seemed to be assessing my legitimacy in that meeting rather than the project's legitimacy. She had not asked for any paper documentation of my study, only a face-to-face meeting in which I described my study on "the role of religion in a women's prison." As I shifted in my chair, Ms. Varlack analyzed my appearance, demeanor, and tone. To come across as appropriate and worthy in her eyes, she relayed, I needed to demonstrate a measured approach to my proposed project. The politics of getting approved for research seemed to hinge on appearing academically agnostic—rather than critical—toward the subject of study, in this case, the prison system. As [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>] reflected on their entrée into men's prisons, "the researcher must often—at least partially—articulate the world as seen by penal authority. This usually means promising to keep a relative distance from the dominated and to remain obedient, and somewhat loyal, to the dominant" (p. 672).</p> <p>During our meeting, Ms. Varlack explained that I needed to complete the DOC's five-page research application, describing the purpose of the study, my methodology, and my proposed timeline. The application included a section on the "usefulness" of the research to the institution and a section asking me to list hypotheses. Although forming hypotheses was atypical for my grounded ethnographic approach, I obliged. Along with my application, the DOC requested a copy of my <emph>curriculum vitae</emph>, documentation of my dissertation advisor's approval, copies of IRB-approved informed consent forms, copies of my interview guides, and a copy of my IRB approval letter. It struck me that institutional affiliation was a prerequisite for having my application considered. The DOC required these forms to ensure that the project was ostensibly appropriate: in this case, deemed scientifically sound by university-affiliated academics.</p> <p>I mailed in my application. Three weeks later, I received a rejection letter. The language was brief and generic. My proposal was not approved. Discouraged by the lack of transparency in the rejection, I turned to my committee members for advice. They suggested that I call Ms. Caulfield, the current Director of DOC Research Committee, to ask follow-up questions on why my application had been rejected. I prepared a 10-second description of my project and wrote scripted answers for questions she might ask. My goal was to request the ability to revise and resubmit my application and to discern where my initial proposal went wrong. Whereas I now felt confident that the project appeared appropriate from a scholarly point of view, and that I appeared appropriate as a researcher backed by a university, I suspected that the <emph>legibility</emph> and <emph>worthiness</emph> of the project might be the roadblock.</p> <p>Believing that the success of my dissertation hinged on this call, I mustered up the courage to dial a phone number provided online. No answer. I left a message with the office secretary for Ms. Caulfield. Anxiously awaiting a return call, I drafted a script of responses to questions she might ask. I printed out my script and carried a copy folded in my pocket everywhere I went for the next several days. Each time the phone rang, my heart started racing.</p> <p>Days passed. I never received a call from Ms. Caulfield. Perhaps an e-mail would be more effective, I reasoned. I wrote of my wishes to revise the application, asking whether I could discuss possible changes over the phone. Six days elapsed before Ms. Caulfield responded to my e-mail. She suggested I write an addendum to my application and offered to "provide feedback over the phone...keeping in mind that any changes would still need approval by the Committee." I was thrilled. Despite Ms. Caulfield's offer to talk on the phone, the phone calls I made were fruitless. No one answered, and my voicemail went unreturned. I was stuck.</p> <p>In the week that followed, I felt unmoored and uncertain. Telephone and e-mail communication was not working. At the suggestion of one of my mentors, I leaned into a gendered approach: I would show up to the DOC Research Headquarters with freshly baked cookies. It was December, and I could use the phrase "holiday cookies" to make the delivery sound like a reasonable thing to do. The plan was to appear friendly and nonthreatening while getting the information I needed on how to revise my application.</p> <p>In retrospect, I suspect that this rather unusual plan only worked due to my positionality. I donned my most professional-looking dress and straightened my curly hair, hoping to come across as feminine, youthful, and professional. If I were a person of color, or appeared to be from a different social class background, this approach might have backfired terribly. I baked two batches of my crowd-pleasing oatmeal butterscotch chocolate chip cookies, the ingredients for which cost US$40. This financial setback felt visceral as a graduate student, but I was privileged to be able to afford the risk. I drove to the research office, with an approachable smile glued to my face, ready to pitch the project in person.</p> <p>No one was expecting my visit. This fact must have raised alarm for the security guard, who asked a number of probing questions. <emph>Why did I want to speak to the director of research at the DOC?</emph> I responded with my prepared speech. I must have sounded convincing—but only to a degree. Ms. Caulfield came to meet me in the lobby. She did not invite me back to her office.</p> <p>I offered her the cookies, delivering my prepared spiel: "I know I've been bugging you about my project and I wanted to come bring you these cookies and thank you—" Ms. Caulfield interrupted. "Have you talked to Henry in Facilities?" I was taken aback. I had never heard of Henry, much less known to contact him. Ms. Caulfield told me Henry was the person to talk to and that she would connect me to him over e-mail. Her response was so abrupt that it sounded dismissive, ushering me to yet another person who would never return my calls. Still, I expressed gratitude for her time and emphasized how important this project was to my schooling. I smiled and stretched out my arms to offer the tin of cookies.</p> <p>Despite forgetting to mention that these were "holiday" cookies, Ms. Caulfield accepted them with a grin, offering a cookie to the security guard. When we said our goodbyes, I wished her a warm "Happy holidays." She looked me straight in the eye and said, "Merry Christmas. I prefer that." I chuckled sheepishly and returned a "Merry Christmas. Happy New Year." Ms. Caulfield must not have guessed that I come from a Jewish faith tradition. Had I worn visible markers of another religious identity, her congeniality may have differed.</p> <p>I felt sure that my appearance had everything to do with this productive (albeit hurried) encounter. As a petite, gender-conforming woman, standing 5'2" tall and looking younger than my 25 years at the time, these factors may have been disarming. Furthermore, they connoted shared identities of whiteness, educational attainment, and middle-class milieu. My effusive demeanor—quick to smile, with a nervous energy—may also have signaled alignment with the norms and values of the DOC rather than signaling a critical approach. In the same way that institutions like schools and prisons disadvantage working-class people and people of color ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref52">84</reflink>]), they privilege middle-class people and whites. A different social class or racial background might have stymied access efforts. Getting the institutional knowledge needed to revise my application likely hinged on factors related to privilege.</p> <p>Showing up to the DOC research office and putting a human face on my proposed project must have convinced Ms. Caulfield that I warranted further attention. An hour after the cookie delivery, she sent a friendly e-mail connecting me to Henry, sharing my telephone number and instructing him to call. The following afternoon, Henry called me to discuss the project. We spoke for more than half an hour, during which time Henry explained how I might revise my proposal to make it suitable for DOC approval. The majority of his suggested changes concerned the language I used to describe my goals. "Incarcerated women" should be referred to as "female inmates" or "female offenders." Henry, Ms. Caulfield, and the other key prison officials I spoke to used words like "evidence-based practices" and "breaking the cycle of rearrest." Quoting directly from conversations with these DOC employees: They suggested I should investigate whether religion is "linked with recidivism" or test a hypothesis that "those who truly buy in [to religion] don't come back to crime." I might look at the "efficacy of different [religious] programming," one administrator recommended. I recalled that in our meeting, and Ms. Varlack insisted that my proposal needed to describe processes that were "observable." As an ethnographer, I viewed social interactions as observable, yet these social interactions were not legible as observables among prison administrators, who favored practical, applied research. Observables of interest included prisoner behavior, infractions, psychological adjustments, and future reoffending. As I wrote in my field notes, "I need to be...prepared to speak their language of recovery, behavior, and recidivism." Henry's suggestions tailored the legibility and worthiness of my proposal to institutional gatekeepers' norms and values.</p> <p>Importantly, in establishing a proposed study's credibility in the eyes of institutional gatekeepers, it is crucial to think through implications for what sort of research ultimately gets conducted. Gatekeepers endorse research that is legible to them, excluding critical research that mobilizes different language and goals. This is as true for prisons as it is for other closed-off institutions. In their study of global elite workers at the World Trade Organization, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>] reflected on the necessity of "[s]trategic management of [the researchers'] political identity," as "it enabled the interviews to proceed without provoking a defensive posture from the informants" (p. 77). Perceptions of political and ideological orientations may dictate who gains access and who does not, thereby shaping the production of knowledge around dominant institutions such that the most critical scholarship is selected out.</p> <p>At the time, I believed my revisions were strategic and legible. Despite this, nearly two months later, I received another rejection letter. This time, the letter suggested I contact the prison warden directly, as "It was agreed that this project does not meet the interests of the [DOC]." I panicked again. Were "interests" of the DOC akin to "worthiness?" I did not understand why the new language I used led to a second rejection.</p> <p>Ms. Caulfield agreed to connect me to the warden over e-mail. Thankfully, her message contained no mention of "not meet[ing] the interests of the [DOC]." Although the proposal was rejected a second time, it was clear that the research board assigned greater legitimacy to my project in that they were willing to facilitate a conversation with the warden. To my surprise, the warden agreed to talk to me. During our phone call, the warden invited me to meet in person to discuss the project on-site at the prison.</p> <p>I drafted some talking points. A friend suggested I focus on how the research might benefit the institution to emphasize the worthiness of the project. On the day of our meeting, the warden bowed out, delegating the assistant warden and the chaplain to meet with me instead. When I arrived—nerves at an all-time high—the assistant warden was holding a hard copy of my research application. She inspected the application point by point, asking a number of clarifying questions. She said she needed to peruse the proposal to make sure all the "i's are dotted and t's are crossed." Shaking her head, she warned, "We don't want to get into trouble." The assistant warden spoke of what "we" needed to do rather than what "you" needed to do to ensure the project's appropriateness. The hierarchical nature of authority in the DOC was working in my favor (see also [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]). Apparent institutional buy-in from above shifted the tenor of the meeting from <emph>whether</emph> my project was suitable to <emph>how</emph> to implement the proposed study suitably.</p> <p>After the meeting, I was granted permission for preliminary access for eight weeks of observations. For the next two months, it was my job to get to know the people who lived and worked in the prison. I sent handwritten thank-you notes to everyone involved in approving my entrée. Converting my eight-week access into a full year involved making my research goals legitimate to not only the prison institution but to specific institutional actors. For one, because my focus was on religion in prison, I established rapport with the chaplain. I initially offered to help with office tasks for a few hours once per week, but she seemed reluctant to take me up on it. I soon learned that walking into her office and asking "What can I do for you today?" worked better than "When might you need my help?" or "Let me know what I can do to help you in your office." On the final day of my preliminary eight weeks, the chaplain agreed that I could continue my observations if the assistant warden approved. "The ladies have loved having you," she explained. Building relationships with incarcerated women was part of the ethnographic process—not a strategic maneuver to prolong access—but looking back, it seems to have been essential. Access to prison for research required far more than filling out paperwork—it required a substantial amount of face-to-face interaction. It depended on equal measures of persistence, a disposition deemed nonthreatening, and the approval of those who held the keys.</p> <p>None of the factors that made my project appealing to my dissertation committee were the same factors that facilitated my entrée. I rephrased my research questions to suggest practical outcomes and applications of the findings. So often in academia, scholarship is incremental and peppered with caveats. We chip away at research questions little by little; such is the nature of science. The DOC, by contrast, sought larger claims about the implications of a study, including measures of effectiveness of a given intervention without as much hedging. In terms of language, I referred to those who live and work in prisons using the labels that prison officials use, thereby conferring legitimacy to the institution. In the social sciences, we often design our projects to expose enduring inequalities, and our language mirrors that. In contrast, to secure access to the prison, the DOC needed to endorse my project as roughly aligned with (or at least not contradictory to) institutional values and goals. Finally, my role as a researcher was on trial. I found that face-to-face access efforts were more successful than bureaucratic channels to appear legible, appropriate, and worthy as a person. A congenial, unassuming demeanor made gatekeepers seem more willing to grant me permission. Institutional legitimacy as a barrier to access meant that the researcher is scrutinized as much as the research design.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-5">The Barrier of Structural Precarity in a Reentry Study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171103998-6">History of Prisoner Reentry Studies</hd> <p>Reentry is increasingly viewed as an urgent topic on the ramifications of criminal justice contact, as 95 percent of those who serve time in U.S. state prisons will return home ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref55">42</reflink>]). Returning citizens face obstacles at every turn, from family reunification to employment to housing. Serving time strains relationships with partners and children ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref56">80</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref57">104</reflink>]). The mark of a criminal record hinders employment opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref59">69</reflink>]) and college admissions ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref60">87</reflink>]), compounding disadvantage alongside returning citizens' exclusion from public housing, welfare assistance, voting rights, financial aid, parental custody, and even a driver's license in many states ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref64">71</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref65">98</reflink>]). Analysis of reintegration and the collateral consequences of incarceration are central to the contemporary landscape of punishment and inequality.</p> <p>Formerly incarcerated people are considered a hard-to-reach population. For one, recidivism rates are high, as the path to desistance is more "zigzagging" than linear ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref66">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref68">70</reflink>]). Nearly one in five returning citizens is reincarcerated within one year, and two thirds of returning citizens are rearrested within three years ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref70">103</reflink>]). Individuals are enmeshed in a system of "wraparound incarceration" ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref72">78</reflink>]) within an ever-widening net of "shadow carceral institutions" such as schools, religious organizations, and civil courts ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref75">37</reflink>]). While offering social service provisions, reentry and treatment programs also sanction and surveil ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref76">72</reflink>]), volleying individuals from prisons to halfway houses and back again ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref77">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref78">77</reflink>]). This nonlinearity makes it difficult to study reentry as such. Furthermore, reentry research is expensive ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref79">9</reflink>]) and retention rates are low ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref80">66</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref81">99</reflink>]). Transient lifestyles, frequent contact with criminal justice actors, and limited postrelease support systems make it difficult to identify, contact, and meet with the population of interest ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref82">103</reflink>]).</p> <p>To access this hard-to-reach population, two methods of recruitment pervade the reentry literature. The first access strategy involves recruitment through institutions. Mirroring the institutional gatekeeper considerations described above, this tried-and-true strategy draws on a convenience sample from an organization that serves the population in question (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref86">72</reflink>]). For instance, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>] interviewed women from one residential reentry program, gaining permission to conduct interviews inside the facility, a familiar and convenient location for participants. One potential limitation of this method is the lack of privacy within institutions designed to surveil ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]). Another potential limitation is the exclusion of key segments of the population in question—often the most vulnerable ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref89">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref90">92</reflink>]). Nevertheless, this can be an effective method through which institutional buy-in facilitates participants' buy-in.</p> <p>The second access strategy extends beyond institutional recruitment through reentry programs, recruiting from penal institutions then maintaining contact postrelease ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>]), often involving a research team ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref93">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref94">27</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref95">103</reflink>] study retained 91 percent of their formerly incarcerated sample using a research team, conducting regular phone check-ins with subsequent e-mails and letters. The team maintained a list of secondary contacts, including friends and family, if efforts to reach the participant failed. Secondary contacts were often the product of a gendered division of labor, in which mothers and female partners of formerly incarcerated men offered stability for their loved ones. Finally, they worked with justice agencies and developed community contacts to locate participants. This feat of access and retention required an impressive amount of coordination and persistence, benefiting from a large, well-funded research team. What are the takeaways for solo researchers conducting this work—for smaller teams and less financial support? Moreover, what if women are the main focus of the study, lacking the gendered safety net that men rely on?</p> <p>Studying returning citizens, especially women, is a challenge. Criminologists have demonstrated that women's "pathways" to punishment differ from men's, especially related to high rates of trauma, addiction, and abuse ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref96">83</reflink>]). These pathways to incarceration also operate as gendered roadblocks to reintegration. Women face distinct hardships related to employment and parenting post-release ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]), particularly given the symbiotic relationship between the criminal justice system and the foster care system ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref99">81</reflink>]). Addiction plays a central role in women's persistence in criminal offending ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref100">55</reflink>]). Social stigma levies a harsh penalty on women who have experienced incarceration, straining an already-limited social safety net ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref101">19</reflink>]). Recruiting for a study on women's reentry erects additional barriers among a hard-to-read population of individuals returning home from prison.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-7">My Experience Getting Access: The Problem of Structural Precarity</hd> <p>Before entering the field, I expected that female-identified returning citizens would be a hard-to-reach population. Armed with the strategies gleaned from my earlier prison study, I contacted women's reentry organizations in St. Louis, Missouri, trying to present myself and my project legitimate from the start. A colleague who researched similar organizations in the past introduced me to those in charge. Thanks to my institutional moniker and professional referral, I expected to appear legible, appropriate, and worthy. Believing that recruiting from reentry programs would be the most direct approach, I called and e-mailed a number of residential and nonresidential reentry programs, requesting to meet in person.</p> <p>Meetings with the full-time staff at these reentry organizations proved straightforward: I arranged a meeting at their offices, sometimes with my graduate student RA, Amanda, in tow. We prepared photocopies of the IRB approval, recruitment instruments, interview guides, and interviewee payment forms and tucked them into brand new navy blue folders. I felt confident that these "interview packets" fostered a sheen of preparedness and legibility. In another bid for legitimacy, I tried to match the business casual attire I expected from reentry staff and social workers: a colorful, loose-fitting top, black slacks, and ballet flats. As I wrote in my field notes, the ideal clothing for the occasion was a "wholesome Midwestern <emph>Ann Taylor</emph> sweater." At each of these meetings, staff seemed amenable to my research goals and the cooperation I sought from them as institutional gatekeepers.</p> <p>Fortunate to have received grant support, we could offer $25 interviewee incentives. Interviewees were paid in cash, except in the case of one reentry program, whose director required that we offer $25 grocery store gift cards instead, which could not be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco. As she explained, "In the past, when some women have gotten cash, they leave their program right away," implying that a cash incentive might interfere with women's sobriety. Despite my trepidation at policing participants' consumption, I complied with this request in hopes that it would maintain institutional assessment of the study as appropriate.</p> <p>Yet, access was difficult despite the institutional legitimacy achieved with this project. Little did I anticipate nearly two months' delay before the first interview would occur and nine months before the target of 48 interviews would be completed. I came to realize this was due to the barrier of structural precarity, defined as respondents' everyday vulnerabilities as a function of their structural position. Per [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>], precarity, or "structural dispossession," is the result of the neoliberal conditions that "undermine economic opportunities, threaten living and learning settings and heighten police surveillance and violence...[leaving marginalized populations] more vulnerable to the unnerving predictability of impending disaster" (p. 611). Normative access strategies must be questioned and adapted to the realities of daily life among research participants. Importantly in navigating structural precarity, no researcher is entitled to participants' time and candor. Instead, the onus is on the researcher to render the study inclusive and feasible.</p> <p>In the reentry study, the barrier of structural precarity manifested as follows. After reentry programs agreed to post flyers in their hallways and advertise the study to their clients, I waited for phone calls and e-mails to roll in. It took a few weeks before the flyers were posted, after which I received a handful of calls. A number of prospective interviewees said they were interested in the $25 incentive, especially with Christmas around the corner. Unfortunately, the timing was such that I received these calls while out of town at a professional conference. I answered the phone each time and told the prospective interviewee that I would call back the following week to schedule an interview. That was my first mistake. After returning from the conference just a few days later, some calls went unanswered, while others reached the wrong person. Several prospective interviewees had borrowed someone else's phone to inquire about participation. The cell phone owners did not recall prospective interviewee's names nor their whereabouts. Our first lesson was that telephone access was unstable. When interested participants called, we had to schedule an interview immediately.</p> <p>There was a lull in recruitment. The phone stopped ringing. Winter break took Amanda and me out of our research site and back to our respective hometowns. We started again in early January. With the holidays behind us, the interviewee incentive intrigued less immediacy. The flyers were outdated, and reentry staff stopped mentioning our study. Amanda reported feeling disillusioned, calling the process "frustrating" and "an access nightmare." When either of us missed a recruitment phone call while teaching or in a meeting, we would call back only to reach a full mailbox or a phone ringing off the hook. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>] argued that research teams improve chances of continued contact for this reason. We learned that successful recruitment meant fewer missed calls.</p> <p>We continued with institutional efforts, calling reentry programs and asking them to circulate flyers again. A few phone calls trickled in. One such call came during a meeting with Amanda. I answered on speakerphone, and Georgia, a prospective interviewee, was on the line. Her voice sounded stilted and unsettling. I arranged an interview for the very next day. As soon as I hung up the phone, a weight hung over the room. "Did Georgia sound high to you?" Amanda asked. I pursed my lips. When Amanda arrived to interview Georgia the following day at the agreed-upon public location, no one showed. Despite repeated efforts at contact, that interview never happened. We knew that addiction might be a challenge faced by our research participants (see also [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref104">26</reflink>]). Indeed, as the interviews progressed, we heard about the extent to which substance abuse was linked with carceral contact and the ways in which recovery and reentry were connected. For example, Marcia, a woman in her mid-50s who currently lives in a residential reentry facility, described the revolving door of incarceration related to her addiction:</p> <p>I came home in 1991...started using. Using was always the most important thing...I'd repeat that same behavior and be locked up within a year.... Again was home less than 18 months...and just repeating the same behavior again. When I went back, went to the long term treatment and still came home and used.... Was still getting high, stealing the whole time.... And then I went back [to prison] for six years and nine months.... I had a new case within six months of getting out on parole.... And ended up using again.... I received a 14-year sentence.... Again I came home and used.</p> <p>Marcia has been incarcerated six times, each time related to relapse. Because of the criminalization of substance use and its role as a pathway to incarceration ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref105">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref106">76</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref107">83</reflink>]), we had to anticipate the ways that addiction might impact recruitment as much as it was woven into the lives of the women we sought to interview.</p> <p>Other times, interviews were canceled due to last-minute scheduling changes related to community supervision. Among the women who lived at a high-supervision residential reentry program, case managers could deny permission at any time to leave for an interview. Case managers' discretion meant that women had little control over their schedules and were often denied access to a telephone to indicate the change of plans. As Amber, an interviewee in her 30s, explained, "We're stuck all day [at the reentry facility] unless we get passes to go out. You got to get permission." Reflecting on the 90-minute pass she was granted at the time of the interview, Amber said, "I think that's a little harsh." She went on to compare this lack of autonomy over her schedule to her time behind bars: "I'm doing okay. There's no other way to handle it. I've been locked up." Women's autonomy over their own schedules was limited by residential reentry facilities' oversight, operating within the ever-widening net of carceral control ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref108">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finding an appropriate interview location was another key challenge. The reentry program directors I spoke to made it clear that their facilities were already at capacity. It would not be possible to conduct our interviews on-site. Furthermore, we wanted to interview women who participated in nonresidential reentry programs to learn about hardships related to housing. We asked prospective interviewees where they would like to meet, choosing locations most convenient to them. Sometimes, this was a public place like a library; other times, a privatized "third space." Gwen, for one, chose to meet at a McDonalds located on a major artery that ran through the city, easily accessible by public transportation. Christine scheduled her interview at a St. Louis Bread Company (Panera), which her probation officer agreed to drive her to. On several occasions, prospective interviewees were unable to secure transportation and had to cancel their meetings. A Midwestern city with low walkability and limited public transportation meant that lacking access to a car was a form of structural precarity.</p> <p>Another key feature of structural precarity among formerly incarcerated women related to strained romantic relationships. Intimate relationships with men that operated as pathways to incarceration ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref109">76</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref110">83</reflink>]) sometimes persisted postrelease as roadblocks to reintegration. An excerpt from Amanda's field notes during an interview with Jackie illuminates one such instance. One December morning, Amanda sat in the lobby of a health services organization across from Jackie. Jackie began the interview by sharing that she has been incarcerated eight times and was unhoused only a few months prior. It soon became clear how the everyday vulnerabilities faced by Jackie's boyfriend, Carl, shaped her experience of reentry and indeed impacted the interview itself. Less than five minutes after the interview began, Carl barged into the lobby of the health services organization looking distressed. Quoting from Amanda's abridged field notes:</p> <p>Carl explains that he had gotten into some kind of conflict with another gentleman outside, who "pulled a blade" on him, and he believes in the chaos, he must have dropped his phone. He tells Jackie that it wasn't just his phone but attached were three bus passes, his social security card, and other important items.... Jackie initially remains quiet, seemingly unsure of what to say or how to help. She asks him if he left it at the "food pantry" and he responds argumentatively that he couldn't have lost it there. He continues searching his backpack as Jackie offers additional locations the phone could be, which makes him even more agitated.</p> <p>...Staff [of the organization] are not intervening at this point.... Jackie's face is red, and she seems out of breath. Her boyfriend is now shouting at staff, Jackie, and other clients. Jackie is quietly explaining (justifying?) to me...[that Carl has] an addiction to heroin and no family of his own. She tells me that this behavior happens frequently.</p> <p>During this encounter, Carl enumerated a number of stressors, namely a violent encounter in which he lost his cell phone, bus passes, and identification documents. Amanda wondered whether Jackie was justifying his behavior when she described Carl's addiction and his lack of familial support. The interview was at a standstill as the situation escalated. When Carl tried calling his cellphone using a landline to no avail, he slammed the phone down. Amanda's notes continue:</p> <p>When staff tell Carl not to throw the phone, he explodes into a rage and threatens to "beat [staff's] face in." Carl approaches the counter and yells into the staff member's face about his worthlessness. [Staff member] stares back, saying nothing.</p> <p>...Jackie becomes visibly anxious as a female staff member tells Carl to calm down and leave the property. Carl threatens to physically harm the female staff member while Jackie tries to convince him that he should leave with her. He tells Jackie to "shut up." A female staff member enters the lobby and walks towards Carl. He immediately warns her to back off before he attacks her.</p> <p>The staff member threatens to Carl that she will call the police. He tells her he doesn't care and that he will fight the police if he needs to. Jackie, looking terrified, tells Carl to leave with her so that he does not get arrested. I do a quick safety-check, Jackie assures me that she is safe with her boyfriend.</p> <p>Jackie defused the situation, convincing Carl to leave before staff called the police. Amanda observed Jackie consoling Carl, coaxing him to accompany her to a nearby grocery store where they could spend the $25 interview incentive. Amanda reflected, "Through this entire confrontation, Jackie prioritizes her boyfriend, risking her own safety and successful reentry." In this trying circumstance, Carl's hardship sent him into an emotional tailspin that could have resulted in his own arrest and possibly even Jackie's.</p> <p>The elements of structural precarity that made this population necessary to study were the very factors that made access difficult. Cell phone access was unstable. Substance use posed a challenge. Reentry programs restricted autonomy and made schedules inflexible. Romantic relationships fostered vulnerability. Crucially, I view the onus as on the researcher to navigate these barriers to access. Humility is essential: academic interviews are not—and should not be—a top priority for those in vulnerable circumstances. Early on, we had not properly adapted our strategies to the realities of everyday life for women reentering from jail and prison. The academic calendar did not line up with the lived experiences of the women we wanted to interview. When we were in class, we missed calls. We left town for holiday breaks. We underestimated the challenges of public transportation. The privileges afforded in the ivory tower created blinders to the practicalities of daily life among a vulnerable population.</p> <p>It became increasingly clear that interviews conducted on-site at a reentry organization would be the most effective approach. Drawing once more on strategies of institutional legitimacy, I connected with a leading staff member of a reentry organization via e-mail. After a few phone calls, we were granted permission to attend weekly meetings to recruit for our interviews. When I observed one such meeting, I was struck by how many women were interested in participating in the study. Interviews would be conducted then and there. No scheduling was required. This final recruitment coup offered us the most fruitful lesson of all: we needed to <emph>show up</emph>. In populations facing structural precarity, physical presence is the surest means to access (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref111">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref112">88</reflink>]). By the end of the study, we received more snowball referrals than we could manage.</p> <p>This may sound like an endorsement for ethnography. After all, showing up is part and parcel of ethnographic fieldwork, and in doing so, we circumvented a few of the previous barriers to access. Observational fieldwork may generate rapport and participants' buy-in where flyers and referrals may not. This is especially important for research across social boundaries. Nevertheless, an interview study with a structurally precarious population does not <emph>require</emph> an ethnographic component. For one, reentry is diffuse. There is no unified social world of reentry in the same way there is inside prison walls. Indeed, scholars have noted the relative stability of incarcerated populations compared to their formerly incarcerated counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref114">90</reflink>]) insofar as access to housing and medical care. The experience of reentry permeates across communities—woven into public, private, and penal spaces—de facto limiting the contributions of a single-sited or even multisited ethnography. Furthermore, an ethnography of a reentry program might exclude the most vulnerable individuals, particularly those without housing, transportation, social safety nets, and support for substance abuse. Ideally, whether using interviews or observational methods, successfully accessing a structurally precarious population as an outsider involves a combination of institution-based recruitment alongside recruitment of those unaffiliated with social service organizations.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-8">Discussion</hd> <p>In describing access experiences for two related studies on incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women, my goal in this article is to illuminate distinctions between types of hard-to-reach populations. Although much ink has been spilled on reaching "hidden" populations, the term is too broad, limiting its usefulness for future scholars seeking access. Teasing out institutional legitimacy versus structural precarity elucidates what exactly renders a population difficult to reach. In this discussion, I review the two types of hard-to-reach populations identified above, paying special attention to positionality. I then consider the topics of vulnerability and power, and conclude by applying this framework to other hard-to-reach populations.</p> <p>First is the barrier of institutional legitimacy, in which researchers must present themselves and their proposed study as legible, appropriate, and worthy to organizational gatekeepers. The pitfalls encountered in getting permission to conduct an ethnography inside a U.S. state women's prison were emblematic of this barrier. These obstacles to access were remedied through bureaucratic and idiosyncratic means. To render my project legitimate, I mobilized my university affiliation with official letterhead and documentation of IRB approval. In my proposal, using positivist hypotheses and mirroring practitioners' language for research subjects fostered greater legibility and an evaluation of appropriateness. To render myself legitimate as a researcher, I adopted particular modes of self-presentation. Positionality played a major role facilitating these efforts. Gatekeepers' perceptions of my race, ethnicity, class, gender, and age shaped their readiness to view me as nonchallenging to the status quo. Scholars of color, gender-nonconforming individuals, and those without coaching from mentors on how to curry institutional favor by performing the "right kind" of emotional labor are likely to experience greater scrutiny from institutions. Under a pretense of bureaucratic neutrality, access to institutions such as prisons is granted or denied based on assessments of legitimacy of the research and the researcher.</p> <p>Second is the barrier of structural precarity, in which researchers must make themselves and their study inclusive to a population facing everyday vulnerabilities. The pitfalls encountered in interviewing women who had experienced incarceration were emblematic of this barrier. The academic calendar posed a challenge insofar as research participants favored a quick turnaround on interview requests: the next day was feasible, whereas the next week was not. For those without a cell phone or Internet access, initial contact was difficult. Unreliable transportation made appointments at external sites inconvenient. Lack of autonomy over one's schedule in high-supervision reentry programs made cancelations and no-shows frequent. Volatile relationships and the ramifications of addiction impeded interviews. Crucially, the researcher is responsible for anticipating and navigating these lived realities. Positionality is central here, too. The blinders derived from socialization into whiteness and middle-class position ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref115">79</reflink>]) obscure precarious features of daily life that are apparent to those familiar with the population in question. The very same identities that facilitate institutional legitimacy may obstruct access to structurally precarious populations.</p> <p>In fact, positionality is inextricably tied to navigating barriers to access. Researchers' identities in the context of the field site directly shape how they negotiate entrée. This article focuses on navigating access among "interested outsiders" ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref116">56</reflink>]; see also [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref117">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref118">57</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref119">58</reflink>]). Insiders to a research group may gain permission and candor more readily but navigate different questions of legitimacy and trust later on (for a discussion, see [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref120">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref122">20</reflink>]). Whether an insider or an outsider, shared identities such as gender, race, class, sexual orientation, ability, and religion can facilitate access and rapport. However, lacking shared identities does not preclude successful research. Instead, considerations around difference must be woven into the data collection process. For instance, it is likely that being a cisgender woman seeking to interview and observe other cisgender women erased certain barriers to access that might be experienced by cis men, gender nonconforming researchers, and gender nonbinary researchers. On the other hand, these barriers of potential skepticism can be overcome with careful reflection and sensitivity to power and interaction (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref123">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>]). Feelings of distance may emerge regardless of shared identities. For example, in the reentry study, Amanda interviewed Darla, both of whom were white women around the same age. As Darla began to describe her experience giving birth in prison, she asked Amanda, "Do you have children?" When Amanda responded, "No," Darla took a moment to explain what Amanda would understand "[o]nce you did have a child." Despite their similar demographic characteristics, motherhood status created distance between the interviewer and the interviewee in this instance. Effective, reflexive scholars must analyze how their insider/outsider status influences the methods they choose, the questions they ask, the interpretations they draw, and the findings they deem important.</p> <p>Both of the populations described here face unique vulnerabilities that were central to access efforts. The vulnerabilities of formerly incarcerated women were outlined above, given that the enduring consequences of criminal justice exposure were woven into the process of navigating precarity. Women in prison are also a deeply vulnerable population. Given the intractable coercion, control, and surveillance of the carceral context, university IRBs carefully examine proposed research on prisoners, evaluating the study protocol, risk/benefit assessments, and informed consent procedures. Even after receiving approval to conduct data collection, recruitment must be sensitive to participants' vulnerabilities. In the prison study, I was careful to make my research goals known and take every precaution to ensure informed consent. I made it clear that participation was voluntary, that subjects could withdraw at any time, and that there were no benefits to participating, including no impact on parole. Importantly, I was not escorted by a correctional officer at any point during the yearlong ethnography. Carrying my signed research approval form every day I was in the field, I was permitted to observe a variety of common areas in the prison on my own. I believe that this autonomy helped divorce institutional support for the study from individual consent processes. It was heartening that the women who consented to participate seemed comfortable asking me questions in return, as in the case of Brigit, an early 20s Black woman, who declared on our second meeting, "I got some questions for you, little woman." She proceeded to ask about my background and beliefs before giving me her consent to participate. When a few women declined to participate in the prison study, I viewed that as a signal that the consent process was indeed voluntary.</p> <p>Access is an ongoing process that requires sensitivity to the role of power in the shared production of knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref125">82</reflink>]). Gatekeepers may rescind permission at any time ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref126">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref127">35</reflink>]). Participants may be skeptical of researchers who will "cut and run," taking only what they need and leaving the population behind ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref128">5</reflink>]). Power dynamics pervaded access in different ways. In the prison study, I was comparatively powerless next to the DOC. As I memoed in a moment of distress when my second application to the DOC was rejected: "It's over. I keep thinking about Plan B. Plan C. Damn it. I have wasted months...over two months of wasted effort and false hope." The weight of self-pity still leaps off the page as I read through these early reflections. DOC officials controlled the nature and extent of their permission. However, once in the field, my status as a "free" person afforded more power ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref129">62</reflink>]). For instance, my attention was a form of power, insofar as the women I interviewed were granted time out of their cells and a break from the monotonous routine of prison life. It was necessary to be continually mindful of power dynamics as a nonincarcerated individual inside a prison. By contrast, in the reentry study, my RA and I were comparatively privileged next to the women we sought to interview. Repeatedly fruitless access efforts were "overall frustrating," as Amanda wrote in a reflexive memo, "Access has been an ongoing issue throughout this research. Even with the recruitment process of reentry organizations, accessing this population has been a challenge." Our frustration stemmed from the blinders of privilege. Once we understood the dynamics of precarity inherent in the recruitment process, we could better defer to the routines and expertise of the research subjects: "Using deference means shrinking one's presence in the [field site], embracing one's powerlessness for data collection purposes..." ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref130">53</reflink>]:32). Later on, when interested participants outnumbered interviewee incentives, our decisions on whom to interview illuminated the financial power inherent in recruitment. In reflecting on the role of power in access, it is essential to note that researchers are <emph>never entitled</emph> to any individual's or any institution's participation in their study.</p> <p>To what extent are the barriers identified above relevant for other hard-to-reach populations? Historically, social scientists have distinguished hard-to-reach populations by categorizing populations as "studying up" or "studying down." The "studying up" and "studying down" distinction is not only problematic in implying a value judgment ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref131">94</reflink>]), but it is also unhelpful and irrelevant. There are arguably more similarities in gaining access to observations inside a prison and inside a Manhattan hedge fund ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref132">65</reflink>]) and gaining access to women returning home from prison and unemployed middle-class professionals ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref133">73</reflink>]). The former examples involve a physically defined field site, institutional red tape, and gatekeepers with little incentive to agree to be studied. The latter examples involve a diffuse field site, unpredictable schedules, and minimal links between researcher and subject prior to consent to participate.</p> <p>Teasing out barriers to access related to institutional gatekeepers versus everyday lived realities, we can move past the unhelpful "studying up" or "studying down" paradigm and more effectively strategize recruitment efforts. For instance, when designing a study on chronically unhoused populations, the researcher should decide whether they are seeking those connected to nonprofit support organizations or seeking the most vulnerable segments of individuals experiencing homelessness, disconnected from all institutional support systems ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref134">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref135">88</reflink>]). This methodological decision will dictate whether to pursue institutional means to access, which require navigating legitimacy, or individual means to access, which require navigating precarity. Likewise, when designing a study on elite workers, the researcher should decide whether to seek permission for recruitment from firms, offices, and other hierarchical organizations, which require institutional legitimacy early on ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref136">10</reflink>]) but "permissions cascade down the ranks" thereafter ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref137">8</reflink>]:11). Alternatively, the researcher may recruit elite workers absent institutional support, which "calls for the incorporation of strategies that include a mixture of ingenuity, social skills, contacts, careful negotiation, and circumstance" ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref138">67</reflink>]:307). Such an endeavor requires showing up, establishing trust, and snowball sampling, similar to the strategies for recruiting a structurally precarious population (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref140">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref141">73</reflink>]). Nuance in the term hard-to-reach encourages researchers to thoughtfully consider extant scholarship on the lived experiences of their subjects and reflect on how their own positionality may create blinders to potential barriers to access. In this article, I have discussed institutional legitimacy and structural precarity as two prevalent barriers to access for hard-to-reach populations. This distinction can help us design realistic studies, circumvent time-consuming pitfalls, and better consider positionality, vulnerability, and power implicit in the research process.</p> <hd id="AN0171103998-9">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The author thanks Randall Collins, Stephanie DiPietro, Elaine Doherty, Beth Huebner, Annette Lareau, Aliya Rao, and Melissa Wilde for their help and feedback on these projects. Many thanks to Amanda Miller for her research assistance.</p> <ref id="AN0171103998-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref61" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allard Patricia. 2002. Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref97" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bachman Ronet, Kerrison Erin, Paternoster Raymond, Smith Lionel, O'Connell Daniel. 2016. " The Complex Relationship between Motherhood and Desistance." Women &amp; Criminal Justice. 26(3):212–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref73" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beckett Katherine, Murakawa Naomi. 2012. " Mapping the Shadow Carceral State: Toward an Institutionally Capacious Approach to Punishment." Theoretical Criminology. 16(2):221–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref38" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berger Dan. 2014. Captive Nation: Organizing in the Civil Rights Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref128" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Black Timothy. 2009. When a Heart Turns Rock Solid: The Lives of Three Puerto Rican Brothers on and off the Streets. New York: Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref121" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blee Katherine. 2017. " How Field Relationships Shape Theorizing." Sociological Research &amp; Methods. 48(4):739–62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref120" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bosworth Mary, Campbell Debi, Demby Bonita, Ferranti Seth, Santos Michael. 2005. " Doing Prison Research: Views from Inside." Qualitative Inquiry. 11(2):249–64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brayne Sarah. 2020. Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing. New York: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref79" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bushway Shawn, Stoll Michael, Weiman David. 2007. Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-industrial America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clair Matthew. 2020. Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Matter in Criminal Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clemmer Donald. [1940] 1958. The Prison Community. New York: Rinehart.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins Caitlyn. 2019. Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comfort Megan, Grinstead Olga. 2004. " The Carceral Limb of the Public Body: Jail Inmates, Prisoners, and Infectious Disease." Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care. 3(2):45–48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conti Joseph, O'Neil Moira. 2007. " Studying Power: Qualitative Methods and the Global Elite." Qualitative Research. 7(1):63–82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contreras Randol. 2019. " The Broken Ethnography: Lessons from an Almost Hero." Qualitative Sociology. 42(2):161–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copes Heith, Hochstetler Andy, Brown Anastasia. 2013. "Inmates' Perceptions of the Benefits and Harm of Prison Interviews." Field Methods. 25(2):182–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crewe Ben. 2005. " Prisoner Society in the Era of Hard Drugs." Punishment &amp; Society. 7(4):457–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly Kathleen. 1992. "Women's Pathways to Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation.". Review of Law and Women's Studies. 2:11-52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge Mary, Progrebin Mark R. 2001. " Collateral Costs of Imprisonment for Women: Complications of Reintegration." The Prison Journal. 81(1):42–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duck Waverly. 2015. No Way Out: Precarious Living in the Shadow of Poverty and Drug Dealing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eason John. 2017. Big House on the Prairie: Rise of the Rural Ghetto and Prison Proliferation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis Rachel. 2018. " 'It's Not Equality': How Race, Class, and Gender Define the Normative Religious Self among Female Prisoners." Social Inclusion. 6(2):181–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis Rachel. 2020. " Redemption and Reproach: Religion and Carceral Control in Action among Women in Prison." Criminology. 58(4):747–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis Rachel. 2021. " Prisons as Porous Institutions." Theory &amp; SocietyRetrieved February 18, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09426-w).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fader Jamie. 2013. Falling Back: Incarceration and Transitions to Adulthood among Urban Youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fahmy Chantal, Clark Kendra J., Mitchell Meghan M., Decker Scott H., Pyrooz David C. 2019. " Method to the Madness: Tracking and Interviewing Respondents in a Longitudinal Study of Prisoner Reentry." Sociological Methods &amp; Research. Advance online publication, 1–43. Retrieved December 4, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119875962).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrall Stephen, Hunter Ben, Sharpe Gilly, Calverley Adam. 2016. " What 'Works' When Retracing Sample Members in a Qualitative Longitudinal Study? " International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 19(3):287–300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman Lindsey Raisa. 2018. " Forging Selfhood: Social Categorisation and Identity in Arizona's Prison Wildfire Programme." Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 57(1):21–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fine Michelle, Torre Maria Elena, Frost David, Cabana Allison. 2018. " Queer Solidarities: New Activisms Erupting at the Intersection of Structural Precarity and Marginal Misrecognition." Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 6(2):608–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firchow Pamina, Ginty Roger Mac. 2017. " Including Hard-to-access Populations Using Mobile Phone Surveys and Participatory Indicators." Sociological Research &amp; Methods. 49(1):133–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores Jerry. 2016. Caught Up: Girls, Surveillance, and Wraparound Incarceration. Berkeley: University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Sheridan Alan. New York: Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garabedian Peter. 1963. " Social Roles and the Process of Socialization in the Prison Community." Social Problems. 11(2):140–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giallombardo Rose. 1966. Society of Women: A Study of a Women's Prison. New York: John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson-Light Michael, Seim Josh. 2020. " Punishing Fieldwork: Penal Domination and Prison Ethnography." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 49(5):666–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goffman Erving. [1961] 2007. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzman Melissa. 2020. " Sanctifying the Expansion of Carceral Control: Spiritual Supervision in the Religious Lives of Criminalized Latinas." Punishment &amp; Society. 22(5):681–702.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagan John, McCarthy Bill. 1998. Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding David J., Morenoff Jeffrey D., Herbert Claire W. 2013. " Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 647(1):214–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heffernan Esther. 1972. Making It in Prison: The Square, the Cool and the Life. New York: John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huebner Beth M., DeJong Christina, Cobbina Jennifer. 2010. " Women Coming Home: Long-term Patterns of Recidivism." Justice Quarterly. 27(2):225–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes Timothy, Wilson Doris James. 2020. Reentry Trends in the U.S. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt Geoffrey, Riegel Stephanie, Morales Tomas, Waldorf Dan. 1993. " Changes in Prison Culture: Prison Gangs and the Case of the 'Pepsi Generation'." Social Problems. 40(3):389–409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irwin John. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs James B.1976. " Stratification and Conflict among Prison Inmates." Journal of Criminal Law &amp; Criminology. 66(4):476–82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson Andrew R.2017. If I Give My Soul: Faith behind Bars in Rio de Janeiro. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaeble Danielle, Cowhig Mary. 2018. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreager Derek A., Kruttschnitt Candace. 2018. " Inmate Society in the Era of Mass Incarceration." Annual Review of Criminology. 1:261–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruttschnitt Candace, Gartner Rosemary. 2005. Marking Time in the Golden State: Women's Imprisonment in California. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kunzel Regina. 2008. Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langan Patrick A., Levin David J. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lareau Annette. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lareau Annette, Rao Aliya. 2020. " Intensive Family Observations: A Methodological Guide." Sociological Methods &amp; Research. Advance online publication. Retrieved November 2, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914949).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laub John H., Sampson Robert J. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leverentz Andrea M.2014. The Ex-prisoner's Dilemma: How Women Negotiate Competing Narratives of Reentry and Desistance. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liebling Alison. 1999. " Doing Research in Prison: Breaking the Silence? " Theoretical Criminology. 3(2):147–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin Liam. 2013. " Reentry within the Carceral: Foucault, Race and Prisoner Reentry." Critical Criminology. 21(4):493–508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin Liam. 2018. " 'Free but Still Working in the Yard': Prisonization and the Problems of Reentry." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 47(5):671–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maruna Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mauer Marc, Chesney-Lind Meda, eds. 2002. Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: New Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCorkel Jill A.2013. Breaking Women: Gender, Race, and the New Politics of Imprisonment. New York: New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCorkel Jill A., Myers Kristen. 2003. " What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field." Qualitative Sociology. 26(2):199–231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCorkle Lloyd, Korn Richard. 1954. Resocialization within walls. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 293:88–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mollborn Stefanie, Jacobs Janet. 2012. " 'We'll Figure a Way': Teenage Mothers' Experiences in Shifting Social and Economic Contexts." Qualitative Sociology. 35(1):23–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neely Megan Tobias. 2018. " Fit to be King: How Patrimonialism on Wall Street Leads to Inequality." Socio-Economic Review. 16(2):365–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson Marta, Deess Perry, Allen Charlotte. 1999. The First Month Out: Post-incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odendahl Teresa, Shaw Aileen M. 2002. "Interview Elites." Pp. 299–316in Handbook of Interview Research, edited by Gubrium Jaber F., Holstein James A. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen Barbara. 1998. "In the Mix": Struggle and Survival in a Women's Prison. Albany: SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pager Devah. 2003. " The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal of Sociology. 108(5):937–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panfil Vanessa R. 2020. " 'I was a Homo thug, now I'm Just Homo': Gay Gang Members' Desistance and Persistence." Criminology. 58(2):255–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petersilia Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior Francis B.2020. " Security Culture: Surveillance and Responsibilization in a Prisoner Reentry Organization." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 49(3):390–413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao Aliya Hamid. 2020. Crunch Time: How Married Couples Confront Unemployment. Berkeley: University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter Keramet. 2016. 23/7: Pelican Bay Prison and the Rise of Long-term Solitary Confinement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes Lorna A.2001. " Towards an Anthropology of Prisons." Annual Review of Anthropology. 30:65–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richie Beth E.1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richie Beth E.2001. " Challenges Incarcerated Women Face as They Return to Their Communities: Findings from Life History Interviews." Crime and Delinquency. 47(3):368–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rios Victor M.2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: NYU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rios Victor M.2015. " Decolonizing the White Space in Urban Ethnography." City &amp; Community. 14(3):258–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts Dorothy E.2004. " The Social and Moral Cost of Mass Incarceration in African American Communities." Stanford Law Review. 56(5):1271–1305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts Dorothy E.2012. " Prison, Foster Care, and the Systemic Punishment of Black Mothers." UCLA Law Review. 59(6):1474–1500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rumpf Cesraéa. 2017. " Decentering Power in Research with Criminalized Women: A Case for Photo-elicitation Interviewing." Sociological Focus. 50(1):18–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salisbury Emily J., Voorhis Patricia Van. 2009. " Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers' Paths to Incarceration." Criminal Justice and Behavior. 36(6):541–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shedd Carla. 2015. Unequal City: Race, Schools, and Perceptions of Injustice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simon Jonathan. 2000. " The 'Society of Captives' in the Era of Hyper-incarceration." Theoretical Criminology. 4(3):285–308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skarbek David. 2014. The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart Robert, Uggen Christopher. 2019. " Criminal Records and College Admissions: A Modified Experimental Audit." Criminology. 58(1):156–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuart Forrest. 2016. Down, Out, and Under Arrest: Policing and Everyday Life in Skid Row. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suchman Mark C.1995. " Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches." Academy of Management Review. 20(3):571–610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sufrin Carolyn. 2017. Jailcare: Finding the Safety Net for Women Behind Bars. Berkeley: University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugie Naomi F.2016. " Utilizing Smartphones to Study Disadvantaged and Hard-to-reach Groups." Sociological Methods &amp; Research. 47(3):458–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweet Paige L.2019. " The Paradox of Legitimacy: Domestic Violence and Institutional Survivorhood." Social Problems. 66(3):411–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sykes Gresham. [1958] 2007. Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavory Iddo. 2019. " Beyond the Calculus of Power and Position: Relationships and Theorizing in Ethnography." Sociological Methods &amp; Research. 48(4):727–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tourangeau Roger. 2014. "Defining Hard-to-survey Populations." Pp. 3–20in Hard-to-survey Populations, edited by Tourangeau Roger, Edwards Brad, Johnson Timothy P., Wolter Kirk M., Bates Nancy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trammell Rebecca. 2012. Enforcing the Convict Code: Violence and Prison Culture. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyler Tom R.2006. " Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation." Annual Review of Psychology. 57:375–400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uggen Christopher, Manza Jeff, Thompson Melissa. 2006. " Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 605(1):281–310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Visher Christy A., Debus-Sherrill Sara A., Yahner Jennifer. 2010. " Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners." Justice Quarterly. 28(5):698–718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wacquant Loïc. 2002. " The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnography in the Age of Mass Incarceration." Ethnography. 3(4):371–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker Michael L.2016. " Race Making in a Penal Institution." American Journal of Sociology. 121(4):1051–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward David, Kassebaum Gene. 1965. Women's Prison: Sex and Social Structure. Chicago: Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Western Bruce. 2018. Homeward: Life in the Year after Prison. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wildeman Christopher, Schnittker Jason, Turney Kristin. 2012. " Despair by Association? The Mental Health of Mothers with Children by Recently Incarcerated Fathers." American Sociological Review. 77(2):216–43.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0171103998-11"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> A version of this article was presented at the Department of Methodology Seminar Series at the London School of Economics. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by fellowships from the Mellon Foundation/American Council of Learned Societies, the Louisville Institute, the National Science Foundation (DGE-0822), and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. This work was also supported by grants from the Association for the Sociology of Religion, the Religious Research Association, and the University of Missouri Research Board.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rachel Ellis1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9187-8809</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rachel Ellis</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Rachel Ellis is an assistant professor at the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on women's experiences of punishment in the U.S. criminal justice system. Empirical articles on which this work is based have been published in The British Journal of Criminology, Criminology, and Theory &amp; Society.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref139"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1390802 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: What Do We Mean by a 'Hard-to-Reach' Population? Legitimacy versus Precarity as Barriers to Access – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ellis%2C+Rachel%22">Ellis, Rachel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9187-8809">0000-0002-9187-8809</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Sociological+Methods+%26+Research%22"><i>Sociological Methods & Research</i></searchLink>. Aug 2023 52(3):1556-1586. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 31 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: SourceSuprt Label: Sponsoring Agency Group: SrcSuprt Data: National Science Foundation (NSF) – Name: NumberContract Label: Contract Number Group: NumCntrct Data: DGE0822 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Population+Groups%22">Population Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutionalized+Persons%22">Institutionalized Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Problems%22">Research Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1177/0049124121995536 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0049-1241<br />1552-8294 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Numerous articles and textbooks advise qualitative researchers on accessing "hard-to-reach" or "hidden" populations. In this article, I compare two studies that I conducted with justice-involved women in the United States: a yearlong ethnography inside a state women's prison and an interview study with formerly incarcerated women. Although these two populations are interconnected--and both are widely deemed hard-to-reach--the barriers to access differed. In the prison study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of "institutional legitimacy," in which researchers must demonstrate themselves and their proposed study as legible, appropriate, and worthy to organizational gatekeepers. In the reentry study, hard-to-reach reflected an issue of "structural precarity," in which researchers must navigate the everyday vulnerabilities of research participants' social position to ensure the study is inclusive and feasible. Juxtaposing these two experiences, I propose greater nuance to the term hard-to-reach such that researchers may proactively address institutional and structural barriers to access. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1390802 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1390802 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1177/0049124121995536 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 31 StartPage: 1556 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Population Groups Type: general – SubjectFull: Barriers Type: general – SubjectFull: Institutionalized Persons Type: general – SubjectFull: Females Type: general – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Research Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Ethnography Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: What Do We Mean by a 'Hard-to-Reach' Population? Legitimacy versus Precarity as Barriers to Access Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ellis, Rachel IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 08 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0049-1241 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1552-8294 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 52 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Sociological Methods & Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
