"Researching students in higher education depends on gatekeepers granting access, but do these practices create inclusion, or do they inadvertently contribute to greater exclusion of students traditionally underrepresented in HE research?" ask Sinead Lynch and Sean MacDermott
“Researching students in higher education depends on gatekeepers granting access, but do these practices create inclusion, or do they inadvertently contribute to greater exclusion of students traditionally underrepresented in HE research? ”
Research in higher education depends on the ability to access participants. In studies involving students as the subject, gatekeepers play an essential role in connecting researchers and students to facilitate engagement. This role is particularly important when researching students who have traditionally been less likely to engage and are therefore generally assumed to be hard to reach, such as those from underrepresented groups, e.g., those from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature or disabled students, or marginalised communities.
Gatekeepers here occupy a dual role: protecting students within their organisations from research they may consider invasive or poorly structured, while ensuring underrepresented student voices are heard in research. To do this, gatekeepers hold decision-making power over which research opportunities are shared with students in their organisations, which aren’t and to whom, and can shape participation in ways that may not be visible to students. Ultimately, gatekeepers control which student voices are included and where they are heard. Accessing student groups that are typically underrepresented is essential to ensure their lived experiences are included. If access is withheld, such student voices will continue to be missing, ensuring a continued lack of representation.
As student partners involved in access and participation, through our work as quality assurance reviewers in the National Student Engagement Programme (NStEP) and as research assistants in Applied Inspiration, we gained insight into how inclusion in research and participation is enacted in practice. Our roles allowed us a fascinating view of how organisations shape who is included in research. The experience prompted us to reflect on the meaning of inclusion and autonomy, and ultimately on an important question: Does gatekeeping enhance inclusion, or can it unintentionally limit student voice and participation?
Gatekeepers and access to participation
In access and participation work, many organisations support students from underrepresented backgrounds. For students, these organisations may be considered trusted support systems where they can go to receive information and connect with people who understand their experiences. These organisations are also trusted intermediaries who pass along research and engagement opportunities to students, serving as gatekeepers between researchers and students from diverse backgrounds.
Gatekeepers influence what information is shared, which opportunities are prioritised, and how participation is facilitated. These decisions are typically made with positive intentions, such as protecting students, ensuring accessibility, and promoting inclusive practice. However, gatekeeping also means that often one person is responsible for a decision that affects hundreds of students, creating a position of control and power that students themselves have not agreed to be part of.
As a hypothetical example, a student from a disadvantaged background may come across a fabulous Instagram page that aligns with their interests, and the page has thousands of students just like them, making them feel much less alone. They join the mailing list for that group, receive emails and information from it, and feel happy and supported. On occasion, perhaps twice a year, they may be asked to take part in research about their experiences and choose to always complete it, as they want to help other students get the same support they did. However, unknown to this student, the group admin only allows their own research to be distributed and denies access to anyone else.
In this example, the student who wants to support their peers is unaware that a gatekeeper is controlling access to information that could help them. This experience highlights a tension between two important principles: inclusion and autonomy. Inclusive practice seeks to reduce barriers and protect students from exclusion. At the same time, meaningful participation depends on students having the opportunity to make informed choices about their own engagement. Here, the student’s autonomy is being removed by a gatekeeper’s decision to control access to their information, without the student’s consent, to limit their participation on their behalf. More, in this scenario, access is withheld to the organisational research only, meaning these student voices continue to be underrepresented in other types of research at the institutional, national, and policy levels.
Recognising student voice and autonomy
Student partnership is grounded in the principle that students are active contributors to decision-making, rather than passive recipients of services. This principle should extend to decisions about access to research and engagement opportunities. Autonomy is central to meaningful participation and should be recognised as an implicit right that must not be ignored. Students themselves should be the decision makers in their own lives, and in how and where their voices are heard.
Gatekeeping is essential for protecting students, but we believe that gatekeepers should be cognisant that students’ autonomy and voices are the priority, not the gatekeepers’ views. Though their aim may be to protect underrepresented students, denying access removes them from participation in research, perpetuating the cycle of this population’s voices being missed, thereby resulting in policies that do not include them and further exclusion.
Gatekeeping may also affect trust between students and organisations. If students become aware that research opportunities are being withheld, or that they are continually asked to take part in research and nothing changes in their educational experience, they will be less likely to participate, which reduces the number of students engaged in research. Thus, gatekeeping shapes not only access, but knowledge. It influences which experiences are visible and which remain unheard.
Moving forward: How can gatekeeping support inclusion?
In our work, we have come to realise that although gatekeeping is essential for protecting students, protection should not come at the expense of student autonomy or inclusion. Students must be recognised not only as participants in research, but as autonomous people with the explicit right to make informed choices about their own engagement. This requires a shift from controlling access to enabling participation, where gatekeepers work transparently, involve students in decisions about how opportunities are shared, and prioritise student voice alongside protection.
We ask that gatekeepers reflect critically on their decisions and on their aims when involving students in research. Are decisions being made to empower students and centre their voices, or to speak on their behalf? Are current gatekeeping practices protective of students’ needs to create greater inclusion, or are they accidentally creating more exclusion?
Ultimately, who should decide when and how an underrepresented student’s voice is heard in research, an organisation, an administrator, or the student themselves?
Sinead Lynch is a PhD researcher and lecturer at DCU, and a researcher at the National Centre for Inclusive Higher Education, Maynooth University. Sean MacDermott is currently studying child, youth, and family policy in UoG. Sinead and Sean both hold roles in the National Student Engagement Programme and in Applied Inspiration.
