Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Insider or outsider, who decides? An auto-ethnographic analysis of the continuum and ethics of insiderness within a professional PhD

Article Sidebar

Download PDF
Submitted   Sep 22, 2024
Published   Dec 13, 2024
Issue    Vol 5 No 1 (2024)
DOI   10.25082/AERE.2024.01.003

Views

400

Downloads

74

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Laura McQuade corresponding author
Department of Management, Lincoln International Business School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

Abstract

An insider researcher is closely connected to the research subject so needs to be aware of the possible assumed cultural understandings that would be more apparent to an outsider researcher. However, there are multiple levels of insiderness and participant perceptions are critical to the co-creation of researcher position. Through an auto-ethnographic discussion of a PhD (Professional) research project, it is clear that participants manipulate researcher insiderness to create zones of comfort from which to discuss sensitive issues. A PhD (Professional) looks to carry out research which can be applied to practical problems within the student's work environment. Researching within a workplace where some colleagues do not consent to being a participant but have an influence over the thought processes involved with the research leads to a conclusion that the insider continuum may apply to all researchers. The observations in this article were made in a research journal the researcher kept during data collection during for their PhD (Professional) in Education. This research was focused on the factors affecting teacher well-being. While insider research has been discussed extensively in the literature, it assumes the position of power to be in the hands of the researcher. This article reports on the different levels an insider researcher can assume during a PhD (Professional) research project which is not only depended on the position a researcher supposes but also how the participants perceive the researcher as a co-construction of insider positioning. The manipulations that participants undertake during and after interviews is analysed to show how this co-construction is created. These manipulations are important to both the participant and researcher, and is significant because the power exerted by participants is often ignored in current literature. Ignoring the participants use of power dehumanises them and is an injustice to those we are indebted to for our data.

Keywords
insider research, teacher wellbeing, qualitative research, auto ethnographic

Article Details

How to Cite
McQuade, L. (2024). Insider or outsider, who decides? An auto-ethnographic analysis of the continuum and ethics of insiderness within a professional PhD. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(1), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2024.01.003
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Eppley K. Defing Insider-Outsider categorisation: One researcher’s fluid and complicated positioning on the Insider-Outsider Continuum, Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2006, 7(3): 16.
  2. Robson C. Real World Research, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.
  3. West C, Stewart L, Foster K, et al. Accidental insider: Living the PhD study. Collegian. 2013, 20(1): 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2012.03.005
  4. Tshuma N. The vulnerable insider: navigating power, positionality and being in educational technology research. Learning, Media and Technology. 2021, 46(2): 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1867572
  5. Foucault M. Neitzsche, Genealogy, History in Language, Counter-memory, Practice; selected Essays and Interviews, Cornell University Press, Ithica, New York. 1977, 139-164.
  6. Mercer J. The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: wielding a double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education. 2007, 33(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094651
  7. Breen LJ. The researcher in the middle: Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy, The Australian Community Psychologist. 2007, 19(1): 163-174.
  8. Rooney P. Researching from the inside – does it compromise validity? A discussion, Level 3. 2005, 3: 1-19.
  9. Blythe S, Wilkes L, Jackson D, et al. The challenges of being an insider in storytelling research. Nurse Researcher. 2013, 21(1): 8-12. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.09.21.1.8.e333
  10. Denscombe M. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Research Projects. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1998.
  11. Wegener C. ‘Would you like a cup of coffee?’ Using the researcher’s insider and outsider positions as a sensitising concept. Ethnography and Education. 2013, 9(2): 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.841082
  12. Drake P, Heath L. Practitioner Research at Doctoral Level. Routledge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841006
  13. McQuade L. Factors affecting secondary teacher wellbeing in England: Self‐perceptions, policy and politics. British Educational Research Journal. 2024, 50(3): 1367-1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3973
  14. Chavez C. Conceptualising from the inside: Advantages, complications and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report. 2008, 13(3): 474-494.
  15. Hellawell D. Inside–out: analysis of the insider–outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teaching in Higher Education. 2006, 11(4): 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874292
  16. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Sage, London, 2007.
  17. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  18. Maharaj N. Using field notes to facilitate critical reflection. Reflective Practice. 2016, 17(2): 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134472
  19. Taylor J. The intimate insider: negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qualitative Research. 2011, 11(1): 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110384447
  20. Brewis J. The Ethics of Researching Friends: On Convenience Sampling in Qualitative Management and Organization Studies. British Journal of Management. 2014, 25(4): 849-862. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12064
  21. Woods M, Macklin R, Dawkins S, et al. Mental Illness, Social Suffering and Structural Antagonism in the Labour Process. Work, Employment and Society. 2019, 33(6): 948-965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019866650
  22. Hemp P. Presenteeism: At work-but out of it, Harvard Business Review. 2004, 82(10): 49-59.
  23. Foucault M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Vintage, New York, 1979.
  24. Foucault M. Fearless Speech, Zone Books, New York, 2001.
  25. Ball SJ. Education Policy and Social Class. Routledge, 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015179
  26. Hanson J. Educational developers as researchers: the contribution of insider research to enhancing understanding of role, identity and practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2013, 50(4): 388-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.806220
  27. Milligan L. Insider-outsider-inbetweener? Researcher positioning, participative methods and cross-cultural educational research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2014, 46(2): 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.928510
  28. Humphrey C. Insider-outsider. Action Research. 2007, 5(1): 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307072873
  29. Webster-Deakin T. Exploring the fluidity of relationships and methodology as an ‘insider’ action researcher. Educational Action Research. 2020, 29(5): 722-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1748677
  30. Onwuegbuzie AJ, and Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research, Research in the Schools. 2006, 13(1): 48-63.
  31. Patton, MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, London, 2015.
  32. Ely M. Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles, Routledge, London, 1991.
  33. Coffey A and Atkinson P. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Strategies, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA, 1996.
  34. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006, 3(2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  35. Saldana J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, London, 2016.
  36. Pinsky D. The sustained snapshot: Incidental ethnographic encounters in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Research. 2013, 15(3): 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112473493
  37. British Educational Research Association 2011, Ethical Guidelines or Educational Research, British Educational Research Association, Cheshire.
  38. Krueger R and Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, Sage, London, 2014.
  39. Drever E. Using Semi-structured interviews in Small-Scale Research, The SCRE Centre, Glasgow, 2003.
  40. Lichtman M. Qualitative Research in Education: A Users Guide, Sage, London, 2006.
  41. Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London, 1972.
  42. Habermas J. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Polity, Cambridge, 1987.
  43. Elwood SA, Martin DG. “Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research. The Professional Geographer. 2000, 52(4): 649-657. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00253
  44. Nunkoosing K. The Problems With Interviews. Qualitative Health Research. 2005, 15(5): 698-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304273903
  45. Chen SH. Power Relations Between the Researcher and the Researched: An Analysis of Native and Nonnative Ethnographic Interviews. Field Methods. 2010, 23(2): 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x10387575