Doing insider research

Insider research refers to when researchers conduct studies on populations of which they are also members (Kanuha, 2000). In this study I was doing insider research because I belonged to the target research group: professional Sri Lankan women. There were both advantages and disadvantages of being an insider to the group researched. In this section I will talk about

these more and explain the strategies I adopted to overcome the obstacles of insider status.

Being an insider certainly gives easy access to groups and allows greater understanding of the target population than a non-native researcher (Corbin Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Despite these merits insider research has its potential problems. In the case of my study the most significant challenge I encountered was when respondents assumed that I already knew of what they were talking about and therefore failed to explain their experiences fully (see Karra and Phillips, 2007). Comments such as „you know what I am talking about don‟t you‟ were common. In some instances I noticed that I annoyed a couple of women by asking them to explain statements they assumed that I would understand as a native Sri Lankan woman. In such situations I explained to participants that my research position required me to capture their exact interpretations in their own words and that their interpretations may differ to mine.

This explanation encouraged most women to talk in depth and detail without thinking about whether they were telling me about something I already knew.

The second problem I encountered in doing insider research was overlooking important aspects of my study since I found it obvious (see Karra and Phillips, 2007). For instance my respondents repeatedly talking about how important it was to be a woman of good moral character to survive in workplaces in Sri Lanka was not at all exceptionally interesting or unique to me when I started to analyse the first few interview transcripts. On the contrary it was just the way it was for me. I realised my tendency to overlook remarkable aspects of my data only when I discussed the initial data with my supervisor who pointed out aspects of my data which stood out from the extant literature. As Fay (1996) has stated, others outside the research experience might be able to appreciate the broad picture, and conceptualise the experience better than the insider researcher. I was indeed fortunate enough to identify my tendency to be oblivious to certain data due to my insider status at an early stage of the

research process. According to Asselin (2003) it is best for the insider researcher to gather data by assuming that she knows nothing about the area of research. However I feel that this is easier said than done. In my case I took great effort to discuss my data with other colleagues as much as possible. I also constantly compared my data to existing literature and tried to draw out the differences and similarities between the Sri Lankan, western and other South Asian contexts. In other words I attempted to extract the unique features of my data on professional Sri Lankan women‟s career experiences.

8.11 Reflexivity

Reflexivity is being aware of how the researcher influences the research process, and acknowledging the impossibility of the researcher remaining outside the research. Reflexivity thus involves exploring „the ways in which a researcher's involvement with a particular study influences, acts upon and informs such research‟ (Nightingale and Cromby, 1999: 228).

There is increased awareness that „how knowledge is acquired, organized, and interpreted is relevant to what the claims are’ (Altheide and Johnson, 1994: 486). Scholars recognise the importance of being reflexive about how they interpret their data (see Devine and Heath, 1999; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1997; Olesen et al., 1994). After all, research interpretations are valid only if the researcher is able to demonstrate how they were reached (see Mason, 1996).

There are broadly two types of reflexivity: personal reflexivity and epistemological reflexivity. Personal reflexivity involves reflecting upon the ways the researcher‟s values, experiences, and beliefs have influenced the research (Willig, 2001). Epistemological reflexivity involves thinking of how the assumptions about the world made by the researcher in the course of the research, and the research design of the study have shaped the findings of

the research (see Willig, 2001). In the following paragraphs I will talk about my experiences of personal and epistemological reflexivity in relation to this research study.

In the context of personal reflexivity, I attempted to be conscious about how my emotions towards respondents and their stories, and my insider knowledge and experience in the Sri Lankan context influenced the way I analysed and interpreted my data. For instance I noticed that I shared opinions with certain participants and was unconsciously emphasising these in my research (see Corbin Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). However I noticed this tendency quite earlier on in the study and therefore took care to ensure that my personal feelings towards respondents and their opinions did not affect the way I interpreted my data. Looking for contradictions in the data and minority views also helped me avoid this bias in research.

As I stated before in the previous section, my insider knowledge and personal experiences of the Sri Lankan context led me to emphasise certain strands of my data and overlook others (see Karra and Phillips, 2007). For instance a couple of respondents talked about gender discrimination and work-life balance in Sri Lankan organisations. Both topics were dear to me due to my own experience. During conversations with my PhD supervisor who is a very experienced qualitative researcher, I noticed that I was dwelling on the data relating to these two areas and somewhat paying less attention to areas such as „respectable femininity‟ which was a significant theme running throughout my entire data set but not remarkable to me.

After identifying this tendency, I paid careful attention to all the details in my data as Karra and Phillips (2007) advises: even the most insignificant details. Furthermore, as noted before, I always attempted to discuss my data with fellow colleagues as much as possible to identify aspects of my data that others find interesting, unique and/or significant.

With respect to epistemological reflexivity, despite the theoretical position I adopted (social constructionism) understanding individuals‟ accounts as socially and culturally situated (see Burr, 2003) I found it difficult to go beyond women‟s words to understand the sociocultural significance of their words. This could be due to my educational background in mathematics which influenced me to think in rather straightforward terms. I saw my respondents‟

utterances as seen as clear pathways into their lived experiences (see Mauthner and Doucet, 2003) and therefore struggled to think beyond their words. My supervisor pointing out my tendency to skim through the data and emphasising the need to look at the total picture and move from description to theorisation helped me do justice to the theoretical position of my study.

With reference to the methodology, my sample comprised only professional women in Sri Lanka which represents a small segment of the country‟s total population. I was aware that all my findings of this socially privileged group of women were not necessarily generalisable across the Sri Lankan population. I reminded myself of this constantly in the process of writing up my findings. In my study, respondents‟ statements were note recorded rather than digitally recorded and the data was analysed by predominantly one researcher. In this sense there was much scope for bias since it was mainly my view which framed the entire research.

However as I mentioned before, I attempted to discuss my findings with others as much as possible to ensure that I drew in other viewpoints as well. Apart from my supervisor I engaged in many discussions with fellow PhD researchers from Loughborough University and Warwick University and academics from Sri Lanka. These discussions were indeed extremely helpful. Nevertheless as Corbin Dwyer and Buckle (2009) argue although researchers attempt to be reflexive they may not realise how they unconsciously experience events.