Insider or outsider? Exploring the fluidity of the roles through social identity theory

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the fluidity of the fieldwork roles “insider” and “outsider.” The paper aims to move the discussion of insiders from an a priori categorized status and contribute to the literary insider–outsider debate by unfolding the micro process of how the role of an insider is shaped in situ. Grounded in empirical examples, the paper illustrates how the researcher’s role is shaped through interactions with organizational members and by context. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on an ethnographic study in an IT department of a Nordic bank and draws on empirical material generated through a combination of data: shadowing, interviews, observations and documents. Excerpts from fieldnotes are included to invite the reader into “the scenes” played out in the field and are analyzed in order to illustrate the shaping of roles in situ. Findings The study finds that, independent of the researcher’s role as sponsored by the organization, the interactions with organizational members and context determine whether the researcher is assigned a role as insider or outsider, or even both within the same context. Originality/value The paper contributes with a new discussion of how the roles of insiders and outsiders are fluid by discussing the shaping of the roles in situ. By drawing on relational identity theories, the paper illustrates how interactions and context influence the researcher’s role, grounded in empirical examples. In addition, the paper discusses what the assigned roles enable and constrain for the ethnographer in that particular situation.

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

“…Someone who begins as an outsider may become so embedded in a community or form such close friendships with participants that, by the end of data collection or analysis, they become an insider (Cassell, 2005). Conversely, someone who begins by assuming an insider position due to working with the participants in an organisation or industry may come to realise salient (and important) differences that could see them treated as outsiders, thereby enabling or constraining the research (Bruskin, 2018). Insider identity must therefore be conceived as tentative and dynamic (i.e.…”

“…While degrees of membership to a social group provides a starting point for understanding the role of the insider in shaping research, it is also necessary to move beyond group membership and consider the multiple identities an insider researcher may share with the people they study (Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013). In recent organisational literature, it has been argued that a researcher can move fluidly between, or even simultaneously hold, insider and outsider identities in various contexts (Bruskin, 2018; Fayard and Van Maanen, 2015). This renders fixed and permanent membership-based classifications of insiderness inadequate for some of the complex IHRM research undertaken in our field, and highlights a need for ongoing identity reflexivity by researchers, as their relationships and roles change throughout the research process (Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013).…”

“…From our own experience as global mobility researchers, much of what is salient in constituting our insider/outsider identities is context-dependent and impacted by researcher–participant interactions (Bruskin, 2018), which can sometimes come as a surprise. Gender, employment status and marital status are examples of social identities or positions that have unexpectedly impacted our own work, most often as research projects progress through various stages.…”

Beyond policy: consumer and carer participation through the lens of public sector mental health managers

“…Furthermore, the nature of this research is 'exploratory' (Neuman, 2006, p. 33) and adds to the contributions of a growing body of evidence on insider research (Abalkhail, 2018;Arthur, 2010;Babbie, 2007;Bruskin, 2018;Cui, 2015;Fay, 1996;Thomson & Gunter, 2010;Kanuha, 2000;Katyal & King, 2011;Laurila, 2016;Mariam and Edge, 2017;McNess et al, 2015;Milligan, 2016, Shah, 2004Merton, 1972). Adding to the evidence on insider research is significant.…”

“…In contrast to a binary insider/outsider researcher positioning that fails to recognise the complexities involved, a more nuanced 'inbetweener' researcher position has been recognised in the literature, (Dwyer, 2009;Milligan, 2016). This position is argued by some insider researchers to be fluid with multiple overlapping identities (Arthur, 2010;Bruskin, 2018;Kanuha, 2000;Yeo and Dopson, 2018). This is important because, being a 'partial in-betweener or at least a trusted outsider' (Mann, 2018) can ensure trustworthy research and altered perceptions of power between participants and researchers (Bennetts et al, 2011;Littig, 2009;Obelenė, 2009).…”