This blog post is inspired by a research class I recently attended with professors and research scholars at the Department of Education, University of Delhi. Acknowledgements are due to all of them.
This
is a break in the series on chapter writing. But it has been a while since I
wrote I guess a break would do no harm. In this blog post, I am revisiting the
insider-outsider debate. The primary focus in studying the debate is on the
impact it is likely to have on data collection and analysis.
The Debate
let me share my understanding of the debate. In the simplest words, the debate
raises the issue that when we study a field, our perspective is likely to be
different based on how we relate to the population being studied. If the
researcher is closely associated with the population, immersing in the field as
an insider is likely to be easier. Thus, there will be greater access to data
from the field. People may open up more easily and there may be lesser
restrictions. At the same time, the insider is likely to be less aware of some
issues. A fish that has always lived in salt water may not be as aware of the
nature and extent of saltiness as a fish that has lived in fresh water. Thus,
an outsider to the field may be keenly aware of things that the insider may
overlook as obvious and natural. An outsider on the other hand may face
restrictions from the population, particularly when studying sensitive issues.
Another
way to look at the perspective is that the outsider is likely to give a bird’s
eye view of the whole society. This is also known as the etic perspective. The
researcher by complete immersion in the field is likely to change the field. An
etic perspective prevents such alternation. The challenge is that the
participants are not likely to behave naturally when they are being observed.
The insider provides what may be the worm’s eye view. Also known as the emic
perspective, the researcher becomes a part of the field. This may stem from the
researcher’s own background that affiliates to the population being studied. On
the other hand, the researcher can work closely with the population and be
accepted as an insider.
By
and large, the population is likely to be closer to the insider and thus the
emic perspective often gives more in depth data.
The
debate is thus whether outsiders can ever understand the population at all.
Some simple examples of this debate are as follows: Can men as outsiders ever
hope to understand women’s perspectives and if not, should they even bother
taking up women’s studies? Can a ‘heteronormal’ researcher understand the
rights issue of the LGBTQ? Should the privileged class and caste attempt to
study the problems of the marginalised?
Data Collection and
Analysis
The
categories used in the questions raised in the previous section are
deliberately kept obviously distinct. The complexity in the field can be much
more perplexing. The researcher may feel as an insider or outsider on various
counts. For example, an educated, Dalit, woman researcher goes back to conduct
a study on women in her own village that is predominantly Dalit. She has the
same background and is thus an insider. Women are expected to be comfortable
with her because of her gender identity. However, she is the first woman to
enter into higher education from her village. Is she likely to be treated
differently?
As
has been mentioned above, data collection for the insider and outsider is
likely to be different right from the point of access. Is the insider likely to
have greater access? The most obvious answer is yes. But, would the population
be more forgiving of the outsider, who transgresses traditional boundaries,
such as attending a meeting of village superiors, talking to and observing
members of different gender or age groups, photodocumenting, or is simply being
obviously observant?
Besides
access, the researcher’s own background is likely to have an impact on the
field notes taken. What does the researcher find interesting enough to note?
The cultural processes, systems and practices that the researcher has grown up
with, may not be documented because the researcher is too aware of them to
notice the significance of them. Go back to the fish example referred to in the
earlier section. The insider, who knows the language of the culture being
studied, has the advantage of understanding what is happening in the field.
Here, language does not just refer to cultural dialect and linguistic
specificity. There may be a language that teachers use to talk about students
when they sit in the staff room. An insider would catch words, phrases and
metaphors directly. The outsider will have to rely on a translator for
developing such an understanding. This appears to be a direct disadvantage. The
(outsider) researcher can turn this into an advantage by recording everything.
The outsider will ask everything to be translated and search for the underlying
meaning of commonly used phrases that the insider may have accepted as routine.
The
argument that I have used for data collection also applies to data analysis.
Will the insider ignore the obvious and thus miss out on analysing some very
significant details? Or will the insider’s shared cultural understanding help
to dive deeper into the field that the outsider can ever hope? Greater empathy
is likely to provide closeness to the field that the outsider may never be able
to achieve. In research, this closeness translates into rich analysis of the
field and the various dimensions that the research covers. However, as an
outsider, you may have your own set of ideas of the field that you carry with yourself
to the field.
What Does It All Mean?
Okay,
so I have discussed the debate and what it is likely to mean for data
collection and analysis. In general, you would notice that it takes time for
becoming an insider in the field. Till the time that happens, life will be
tough. I can think of more than one research scholar who took on particularly
tough areas of study and received death threats for trying to tread too far and
unearth too many secrets! When you develop a close bond with the field, it
becomes particularly difficult to be detached in your writing. The dilemma of authentic
reporting of what is deeply personal and meaningful for the participants will be
more powerful for the researcher who is really close to the participants. If you
are wondering what this dilemma is, try talking to a researcher who had
undertaken life stories, particularly on sensitive areas, such as sexual abuse,
trauma or conflict.
In
writing your research, I think it is important to first lay bare what is your
position in the field. Are you an insider or an outsider? What dilemmas,
perceptions, hops and thoughts are you approaching the field with? When you
write this down, you are acknowledging that despite all your checks of
validation, your own thoughts may have impacted the research process. This will
help in two ways. One, you are likely to be more aware of your own position in
the field when you are undertaking field work or writing about it. This will
help you to revisit your data be conscious of revisiting your assumptions. Two,
when your research is published, the reader will be made aware of your position
and understand the research with this position in mind. If you want to know what this difference this
is likely to make, try to read two works on the same field written by an
insider and an outsider.