Insider – Outsider Research

80

As Paul Hodkinson states, enquiries into insider research have ‘become particularly prevalent in the study of youth cultures, not least at the doctoral level’ (2005: 131), and as David Bridges suggests ‘the relationship between researcher and researched had become a matter of intense controversy’ (2001: 371). It therefore seems imperative to situate my work in relation to these debates. Having experienced life as a student who did drink and now abstains from alcohol it can be argued that I can be placed as an insider and as outsider in both respects. I could also be an insider as a ‘student’ but an outsider as a postgraduate and as older than the majority of undergraduates. This is important since, as Dwyer and Buckle suggest, ‘the personhood of the researcher, including her or his membership status in relation to those participating in the research, is an essential and ever-present aspect of the investigation’ (2009: 55). I had expected that it would be beneficial to be considered as, to some extent, an insider sharing a ‘specified social status’ rather than a ‘non-member’ as an outsider (Merton, 1972: 21), and in many respects it was, however I also realised that it was a useful research tool at times to act naïve as students would illustrate answers with more detail. Having insight into the culture I was researching was useful as ‘one must not only be one in order to understand one; one must be one in order to understand what is more worth understanding’ (Merton, 1972: 16-17). Furthermore, as Hodkinson proposes, ‘longstanding calls for the “matching” of interviewers with respondents suggest that in addition to its potential benefits in terms of access, insider status may enhance the quality and effectiveness of qualitative interviews’ (2005: 138). Hodkinson states that this is because having had comparable experiences, feelings, motivations and affiliations to participants, insider researchers have an ‘extra pool of material with which to compare and contrast what they see and hear during the research process’ (2005: 143).

Whilst Dwyer and Buckle believe that ‘the insider role status frequently allows researchers more rapid and more complete acceptance by their participants. Therefore, participants are typically more open with researchers so that there may be a greater depth to the data gathered’

81

(2009: 58), there are those that claim otherwise. For example, Burgess asserts that ‘being a stranger, an outsider in the social setting, gives the researcher scope to stand back and abstract material from the research experience’ (1984: 23). I believe that since my role was not fixed as ‘insider’ I was able to utilise the openness of participants and also maintain a level of critique; as Martin Hammersley suggests both positions have advantages and disadvantages:

the chances of findings being valid can be enhanced by a judicious combination of involvement and estrangement. However, no position, not even a marginal one guarantees valid knowledge and no position prevents it either. There are no overwhelming advantages to being an insider or an outsider. Each position has advantages and disadvantages, though these will take on slightly different weights depending on the particular circumstances and purposes of the research (Hammersley, 1993: 219).

In line with this the success of my fieldwork has depended upon a number of factors. For example I felt that the very nature of observing distanced me from those I was studying, and I did not feel comfortable approaching students in nightclubs or at events, nor with obtaining potentially drunken participant consent for an interview. Observation consent was granted by gatekeepers, such as student union staff members and police, as it is impossible to gain formal, informed consent of all people ‘in the crowd’ at an event such as a club night or end of term event.

I do believe, however, that a certain level of insider knowledge pertaining to the study site and drinking culture was vital in understanding and analysing my data. As Hockey argues, there are advantages to insider research such as ‘the relative lack of culture shock or disorientation, the possibility of enhanced rapport and communication, the ability to gauge the honesty and accuracy of responses, and the likelihood that respondents will reveal more intimate details of their lives to someone considered empathetic’ (1993: 199). As is discussed in more detail below

82

I believe that I built a good level of rapport with participants, was empathetic and that most participants responded well to this. I have also been aware, however, of the assumption that can emerge from ‘insider’ knowledge and been mindful of the fact that youth cultures and groupings are diverse, loosely bounded and transient ‘something that would make the proximity or distance of social researchers variable and hard to predict’ (Hodkinson, 2005: 133). I have also attempted to avoid the pitfalls proposed by academics who suggest that insiders may have trouble critically observing events and situations, which they take as unquestionable truths compared to an impartial outsider (Hellawell, 2006: 486). Therefore as this research, for me, blurs the boundaries between “insider” and “outsider”, I am inclined to favour the argument of Dwyer and Buckle (2009) that there is a “space between”. Further that ‘the researcher should be both inside and outside the perception of the “researched”’ as Hellawell (2006: 487) contends. Whilst I have been able to identify with participants I have also had to maintain control over the research process and this has set me apart. As Hodkinson states that whilst it is widely accepted that researchers outside of their subject culture may “go native” and struggle to assess their data critically, ‘it seems equally likely that those who begin in an insider position and at least partially “go academic” may find themselves in a strong position to both empathise and to scrutinise’ (2005: 144). As mentioned above it was useful to utilise my position as partial insider and partial outsider to build rapport with participants whilst maintaining a level of critique. Furthermore, working with university staff members and police officers I felt I had to appear more professional and situate myself as outside of UDC. Merriam et al claim that there are inherent complexities in respect to insider/outsider status and recent discussions have acknowledged that the ‘boundaries between the two positions are not all that clearly delineated. In the real world of data collection, there is a good bit of slippage and fluidity between these two states’ (2001: 403). The role of the researcher, and situating oneself with one’s research, is therefore important in qualitative methods as ‘the researcher plays such a direct and intimate role in both data collection and analysis’ (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009: 55) and it is this subject that I move on to now.

83