Challenges in research data collection and mitigation interventions

Abstract

This paper investigated the challenges that researchers in a health sciences university can experience, and ways to counterbalance the negative effects of these challenges. Focus was on the extent to which gatekeepers on higher education institutions (HEIs) can restrict research, and the way natural sciences researchers often experience gatekeeper biasness on denying them access as compared to the way health sciences researchers are treated. The method compared experiences of researchers for Master of Science (MSc) degrees in selected science subjects, and the projects undertaken by health sciences students. All the studies were based on students on campus as research subjects. The MSc ones were for students who were already academics teaching on campus. All the proposals received clearance certificates from the same ethics committee. Upon requiring the HEI registrar to grant permission to use the student as study participants, the health sciences were granted permission and the names of the students. For the science academics, they were denied permission to the student numbers, which were needed to request individual students to make on decisions whether they wanted to participate in the studies or not. Gatekeeping weaknesses were explored, and lawful interventions were used to collect research data. It was observed that in the science academic divisions of HEIs that are dominated by the health sciences, gatekeeper unfairness and power could offset creativities and innovations initiated by researchers. Recommendations have been made to limit this power.

Keywords: {'name': 'Gatekeeping, Interventions, POPI Act, Social media'}

Authors & affiliations

Yolanda Menziwa
Affiliation not supplied

Eunice Lebogang Sesale
Affiliation not supplied

Solly Matshonisa Seeletse
Affiliation not supplied

Deposited references

Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.

Altschuler, M. (2021). 14 proven tips for getting past the gatekeeper. GTMNow, 27th May 2021.

DOI: 10.1007/s41649-022-00223-4

Arjomand, N (2021). The gatekeeper to end all gatekeepers? Social media and the transformation of journalism in developing countries. Center for International Media Assistance, 5th May 2021.

DOI: 10.7196/SAMJ.2023.v113i8.781

DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13223

DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3656

DOI: 10.1017/S0003055422000375

DOI: 10.1177/1948550619875149

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-4411-6_2

Demirdö?en, Ü. D. (2010). The roots of research in (political) persuasion: Ethos, pathos, logos and the Yale studies of persuasive communications. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 3(1), 189-201.

DOI: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707694

DOI: 10.1177/0049124121995536

Gagich, M., & Zickel, E. (2018). A guide to rhetoric, genre, and success in first-year writing. MSL Academic Endeavors.

DOI: 10.2196/43808

Gudivada, V., Apon, A., & Ding, J. (2017). Data quality considerations for big data and machine learning: Going beyond data cleaning and transformations. International Journal on Advances in Software, 10(1), 1-20.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1361

DOI: 10.1515/9781438494623

DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003

DOI: 10.1177/15586898221086346

DOI: 10.1007/s10845-022-02020-0

DOI: 10.1007/s10798-022-09739-0

Leeds, D. (2003). Power speak: Engage, inspire, and stimulate your audience. Red Wheel/Weiser.

DOI: 10.1177/1609406920937875

Mertens, D. M. (2023). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage.

DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2022.3208773

DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2017.06.001

DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0

DOI: 10.1007/s10833-022-09449-3

DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_22

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4_8

DOI: 10.3390/logistics7040088

DOI: 10.1108/JD-05-2022-0101

Sonnenwald, D. H., & McLaughlin, K. L. (2005). Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in Academia. In International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) 2005 Conference.

DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1774051

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.008

DOI: 10.4324/9781003419327-1

DOI: 10.1201/9781003145035-8

DOI: 10.1177/0021886317703292