Between marginality and privilege: gaining access and navigating the field in multiethnic settings

Abstract

In this article we propose a framework of credibility and approachability for researchers to use as they prepare for fieldwork and write up their data. Highlighting intersectional perspectives from two women and scholars of color, this framework translates the important theoretical critiques of dichotomous thinking (for example, insider-outsider) into methodological practice. We argue that credibility and approachability are not just performed by researchers, but are also perceived by respondents and placed on researchers' bodies. By conceptualizing credibility and approachability as both performed behaviors and perceived characteristics, we are able to incorporate the researcher's positionality, the standpoint of the researched, and the power-laden particularities of the interaction in our data analyses and fieldwork reflections for the benefit of both researchers and readers.

“But You Are Also Ghanaian, You Should Know”: Negotiating the Insider–Outsider Research Positionality in the Fieldwork Encounter

“…However, our status was constantly negotiated depending on the context, our respondents, and the topic of inquiry. In analyzing how we negotiated our insider-outsider positionality, we draw from and build on the analytic framework of credibility and approachability as operationalized by Mayorga-Gallo and Hordge-Freeman (2017). Based on our experience, we agree with their argument that although there is an intentional performative aspect to these concepts, credibility and approachability are also imputed upon researchers by the researched.…”

Data, Disasters, and Space-Time Entanglements

“…A researcher’s positionality shapes creata and research in various ways, from access to the field to the ways a researcher constructs the world (Berger 2015 ). Being an “insider” is likely to come with a nuanced understanding of the context, even if researchers are often unlikely to entirely share the positionality of the most marginalized research participants (Mayorga-Gallo and Hordge-Freeman 2017 ) such as those most vulnerable to disasters. However, a more burning concern is that dominant “outsider” research perspectives are imposed upon places beyond their origin, be it within disaster studies (Gaillard and Gomez 2015 ) or social sciences more broadly (Massey 2004 ).…”

“…While being an “insider” to a phenomenon might add nuance to what a researcher captures of a cultural and geographical context, it may come at the peril of projecting one’s own experiences over and upon those of other research participants (Berger 2015 ). Meanwhile, particularly when conducting research with/on/among vulnerable or marginalized people, a researcher’s positionality and power position are unlikely to align entirely with those of the other research participants (Mayorga-Gallo and Hordge-Freeman 2017 ). While some researchers engage in activism alongside the places and people with whom they are studying (Nagar 2014 ; Cordeiro et al 2017 ), not many researchers are likely to share the concerns and space-time trajectories of the marginalized populations extensively.…”

Insider status: (Re)framing researcher positionality in international human resource management studies

“…As Ganga and Scott (2006) have emphasised, studying one’s own cultural community as an insider paradoxically increases awareness of the social divisions that structure interactions between both researchers and participants. As well as nationality, race and gender, categories and identities relating to age, education level, class, skin colour, geo-political status and religion also stand out as sources of commonality and difference (Bilecen, 2014; Khambhaita et al, 2017; Mayorga-Gallo and Hordge-Freeman, 2016; O’Connor, 2004; Pechurina, 2014). Playing the role of a researcher in itself has been observed to create a salient point of difference, which may impact the power relationships between a researcher and a group of participants (Akerstrom, 2013; Belur, 2014; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009; Kusow, 2003; Lim, 2012; Ugwu, 2017), and/or any gatekeepers (Lund et al, 2015).…”