Insiders and Outsiders: Evaluating Positionalities in Qualitative Research

Insiders and Outsiders:

Evaluating Positionalities in Qualitative Research

Lachlan Pedley

This is an essay written by Lachlan Pedley for ‘Critical Analytical Skills’, comparing the values and limitations of insider and outsider positions when undertaking qualitative research. A researcher that comes from a similar background and community to those being researched is known as an ‘insider’. ‘Outsider’ denotes a researcher who inquires from a perspective outside of the community being studied.

Qualitative research aims to identify, investigate and understand social meanings and patterns through the analysis of phenomenon within a given context, (Walter, 2019, p.7). At the centre of this meaningmaking process is the researcher. As such, the social and cultural perspectives inhabited by researchers, commonly termed positionality, can often influence the research design as well as the collection and analysis of data. This essay intends to deconstruct the effects of positionality by evaluating the values and limitations of the insider approach to qualitative research. Ultimately, the conclusion will be reached that insider and outsider positionalities should be considered along a continuum, as it allows for a greater understanding of the social phenomenon under research, while also working to utilise the strengths associated with either standpoint.

This essay begins by substantiating the centrality of the researcher and the importance of positionality in the meaning-making process of qualitative research. The notion of insider and outsider perspectives to the research domain will then be explained, emphasising the importance of reflexivity when considering one’s own predispositions. This essay will then engage in a discussion on the values and limitations of insider and outsider perspectives whilst drawing on two examples for greater contextualisation. The conclusion will then be made, that due to the limitations of a purely insider approach, qualitative research is best conducted with an approach that considers insider and outsider perspectives along a continuum. Qualitative research is intrinsically involved in a process of meaning-making (Walter, 2019, p.20), with the researcher representing the tool with which social phenomenon are analysed. Herein lies an inherent dilemma of qualitative research. Sometimes described as a ‘tool’ of qualitative research (Porter, 2012, p.809), the researcher and their interpretations are central to the production of findings, and therefore, meanings. However, this mechanic is not without its challenges. For instance, the meanings behind a particular phenomenon “can assume multiple realities, depending on the perspective of an observer” (Yin, 2015, p.16). The implication here is that varying perceptions of the same phenomena can be derived from differing processes of thought that are informed by unique social, cultural, economic, or political factors. For the purpose of this essay, this idea is what will be used to define the term ‘positionality’. This assertion is supported by Maggie Walter, who suggests, “our social-cultural positioning – who we are socially, economically, culturally, even politically – underpins the questions we see, the answers we seek, the way we go about seeking those answers and the interpretation we make” (2019, p.14). Researchers of social science often utilise “pre-existing categories and schemas to analyse and report on their findings” (Olive, 2014, p.6), potentially developing a tendency towards selectivity, whether intentional or not, throughout the analysis of qualitative data (Yin, 2016, p.17). This implies that the researcher holds a large degree of agency in determining which phenomena hold significance, and even what constitutes as phenomena in the first place.

This dependence on the positionality of the researcher - their ‘reality’ - is one of the defining challenges of qualitative research.

Conversely, however, the positionality of the researcher, whether insider or outsider, can bring value to qualitative research, particularly when this positionality is critically reflected upon throughout the research process. As described previously, qualitative research is inherently interested in the production of meaning. As such, and as Mason reinforces, the task of the qualitative researcher is not simply to describe social phenomenon, but rather to “produce explanations or arguments” (Mason, 2002, p.7). In fact, qualitative researchers, due to their reliance on interpretation, cannot be entirely neutral or objective in their descriptions (Mason, 2002, p.7). The influence of interpretation and perspective are, therefore, not only valuable to the production of meaning, but unavoidable within qualitative research. As such, the researcher’s ability to recognise, reflect upon and analyse their own positionality, whether insider or outsider, is a pivotal step in ensuring the quality of social research. This notion of active recognition of one’s own positionality and its effect on the research process is often termed ‘reflexivity’. Mason contends that a reflexive approach towards social research involves “thinking critically about what you are doing and why… and recognising the extent to which your thoughts, actions and decisions shape how you research and what you see” (2002, p.5).

Having established discussion on the instrumental role of the researcher in qualitative research, the notion of multiple realities may be further unpacked through the investigation of insider and outsider perspectives. Although not representative of all positionalities, the insider and outsider dichotomy will form the scope of this essay. So what is meant by the insider position and what is its implications? Also referred to as the ‘emic’ perspective, the insider position suggests the researcher is involved in the social phenomenon under study. Insider researchers are generally those “who choose to study a group to which they belong” (Breen, 2007, p.163) and attempt to collate an emic perspective that captures “participants’ indigenous meanings of real-world events” (Yin, 2016, p.16). The emic position, therefore, is one closely associated with the shared views of cultural knowledge from the insider’s perspective (Fetterman, 2012, p.2). As such, the insider positionality privileges a constructivist ontology, as this perspective approaches the analysis of social phenomenon as a co-construction between the researcher and the participants in the research (Breen, 2007, p.164).

In other words, the insider perspective attempts to emphasise the social realities established from the perspective of participants. It is important, however, to acknowledge that a purely emic approach to qualitative research is not always the most beneficial perspective with which to analyse social phenomenon. As Olive suggests, the differences that can be accentuated by engaging with both insider and outsider approaches can prove fruitful to the quality and value of research (2014, p.5). As such, the outsider perspective and the benefits such an approach can provide will now be considered.

In contrast to the insider position, the outsider, or etic perspective, approaches analysis of social phenomenon from a detached position. It represents the “external social scientific perspective on reality” (Fetterman, 2012, p.2). When conducting qualitative research from such a position, the researcher generally utilises preconceived categories to analyse social phenomenon unfamiliar to them. As Pike phrases it, “analyses from the etic standpoint are ‘alien’ in view, with criteria external to the system” (1967, p.38). As such, the findings drawn from research conducted from an etic perspective are often considered ‘absolute’ or more directly measurable (Pike, 1967, p.38). The outsider positionality, may therefore be considered more closely associated with a positivist epistemology, as such a perspective relies heavily upon scientific precedents, including “falsifiability, logical consistency, and replicability (Fetterman, 2012, p.2). In other words, the etic perspective explores social phenomenon with a higher degree of objectivity and with less contextual consideration. Herein lies the predicament that plagues the intersection between qualitative research and positionality. In many regards, the objective essence of the outsider positionality does not always adequately align with qualitative research and its emphasis on the importance of contextual analysis. Conversely, the emic perspective is often critiqued for the researcher’s limited detachment from the research domain (Kanuha, 2000, p.444), possibly limiting their objectivity and validity due to the greater potential with which to make assumptions of similarity and fail to adequately explain the meanings behind social phenomenon.

As such, and as this essay will emphasise, perhaps it is more beneficial for qualitative researchers to position themselves along the continuum that bridges insider and outsider perspectives, potentially mitigating the limitations of each while strengthening the validity of their research.

To further the discussion on researcher positionalities, a couple of examples will now be drawn upon to provide a more contextualised analysis. The first example this essay will reference is an article written by Jenny Fleming, titled ‘Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in workintegrated learning’. This article provides an analysis into the challenges of insider positionalities when a researcher undertakes a study of a work-integrated learning program to which they are involved in. Fleming, an academic in a university, was tasked with developing a curriculum which incorporated both study and work experience for students undertaking their final year of a degree (Fleming, 2018, p.316). As part of her own doctoral research project, Fleming analysed the practice of cooperative education at her own university (Fleming, 2018, p.317). Due to a vested interest in the success of a cooperative education program in which she had designed, Fleming understands her position to be that of an insider researcher (Fleming, 2018, p.316). This positionality presented a variety of challenges to the credibility and validity of her research.

Holding a dual role as both an academic and a researcher within the same context of a cooperative education program, Fleming identified the potential for bias, meaning trustworthiness was a key element of her research design (Fleming, 2018, p.319). Similarly, this professional conflict also required her to be reflexive in considering her own preconceived ideas and desires for positive outcomes in regards to the work-integrated learning program she had designed (Fleming, 2018, p.318). Finally, holding the position of a senior academic within the university under study, meant Fleming had to be vigilant in recognising the potential for the “implicit coercion of participants”, as her superior positionality may have influenced the data collected throughout interviews (Fleming, 2018, p.317). Despite the limitations presented, Fleming goes on to conclude that if these challenges are addressed through a reflexive approach, credible research can still be achieved (Fleming, 2018, p.320). A key aspect to derive from this case study is the need for researchers to acknowledge and confront the potential implications that an insider positionality brings. Kanuha reinforces the challenges to insider research positions highlighted by Fleming, by acknowledging the common critiques of such a position, namely, “questions about objectivity, reflexivity, and authenticity of a research project are raised because perhaps one knows too much or is too close to the project and may be too similar to those being studied” (2000, p.444) It is important, therefore, to recognise that a researcher can assume elements of either position throughout their research process. Breen is one such scholar that recognises this, as she challenges the insider and outsider dichotomy, branding it as “simplistic”, and rather suggests the distinction should be conceptualised along a continuum (2007, p.163). This idea is further analysed in the second example.

The second example is an article written by Lauren Breen, titled ‘The researcher ‘in the middle’: Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy’. As part of her qualitative study into the experiences with grief resulting from crashes in Western Australia, Breen describes her positionality as neither an insider or an outsider to the research domain. The insider credentials of the researcher were acquired by her own personal experiences with the death of a sister-in-law in a crash, as well as familiarity with three informants to the study. As such, Breen refers to her own positionality as “neither an ‘insider’ in nor an ‘outsider’ to the research domain” (2007, p.167), leading her to conclude that the role of the researcher is better conceptualised on a continuum, rather than a dichotomy (2007, p.170).

As part of her analysis, Breen goes on to evaluate the values and limitations of her own positionalities. As an insider to the research domain, Breen found particular value in the recruitment stages, suggesting “bereaved informants were keen to voice their experiences to someone who was willing to listen” (2007, p.167). As well as this, as an insider, Breen suggests she gained a greater ability to “identify the key players, power differentials, differences, and dynamics” that exist in the research domain (2007, p.171), which is likely a result of their prior experience with, and understanding of, the factors associated with the topic of crash fatalities.

Her insider perspective also had limitations on the research. As she explains, some people familiar with her personal experience questioned the credibility of her analysis, citing a potential unconscious bias. In response to questions regarding the credibility of her analysis, due to a potential bias resulting from her insider perspective, Breen suggests her positionality along the continuum, both engaged and external to the research domain, provided her with the benefits of an assumption of unbiased, independent objectivity associated with the outsider perspective (2007, p.171). In sum, Breen’s article reiterates the strength of the idea of the insider and outsider continuum. She contends that maintaining a positionality of neither an insider nor an outsider “maximised the advantages of each while minimising the potential disadvantages” (2007, p.171).

In conclusion, this essay contends that an approach to qualitative research that embraces aspects of both etic and emic positions, that finds a place along the continuum, is most effective. This is supported by Agar’s proposition that both the etic and the emic are “both part of any understanding” (2011, p.39). This would convey that a qualitative analysis is both incomplete and vulnerable to critique when failing to consider both sides of the insider and outsider positionality spectrum. As this essay initially emphasised, however, the interpretivist nature of qualitative research means the researcher, central to the process of qualitative analysis, must be able to engage reflexively with whatever position along the insider and outsider continuum they assume.