Insider research

This subsection considers an important research method used in this project, which I believe contributes to knowledge of research techniques. It describes how generally, insider research can give a greater insight into the contributors’ testimonies, but more significantly for this study, also considers and critiques the relatively rarely used method of ‘intimate insider research’ (Taylor, 2011: 5) specifically used here to collect their evidence. Firstly, I turn to the insider research technique to discuss its beginnings and use.

154

to confront issues of trust within the researcher/researched relationship

(Brewer, 2000). The presence of someone perceived as an outsider, may erect barriers between the research participants and the researcher in interviews which restrict openness, and may adversely affect the quality of evidence gathered.

Conversely, insider research enables the researcher to draw on collective concepts that are shared with the research participants, enabling a greater degree of trust and understanding to be developed between them. Bozzoli (2006:159) lists these as consisting of common perceptions of ‘…space,

community, boundary, property, history, hierarchy and culture’. These common concepts she contends, are shared at both broad and local levels, where issues of class and local knowledge enable the participants and researcher to create an empathetic and intimate environment during interviews, which is conducive to sociological research. In such an intimate setting, what is taken for granted between the two parties is frequently considered to be as important as what is regarded as unusual (Bozzoli, 2006).

The data collected using this method can also possess a richer quality, and have a greater depth than otherwise possible (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). But the very concept of insider research is a contentious one, because the term is used to describe projects where the researcher has a direct involvement or connection within the research setting. This involvement is described by Adler and Adler (1987) as consisting of three insider researcher roles: peripheral members; active members and complete members, in each of which the

researcher participates to varying extents in the research setting. Consequently, the position in which this places the researcher, has been subject to criticism for lacking neutrality, creating ethical issues, and also because the insider

155

researcher’s greater familiarity can lead to a loss of objectivity (Unluer, 2012). Another difficulty arising from being too close to the research is that it can prevent the researcher from seeing the broader, overall view of the research project. Similarly, due to familiarity with the area of research, the insider researcher may make assumptions regarding the meaning of events, and not seek clarification during the interviews. He/she may also assume that they already know the participants’ opinions on the issues being discussed (Unluer, 2012). One specific problem that I encountered was that because the narrators assumed that as I had prior knowledge of what they were recalling, they

occasionally gave superficial responses in interviews.

To offset these disadvantages, I adopted a responsive approach. Whenever assumptions of knowledge or of events arose during the interviews, I placed myself in the position of an ‘outsider’, and questioned whether someone without my specialist knowledge of the incident being recalled would be able to

understand its meaning, and prompted the participant for clarification. Where participants recalled events that I had witnessed first-hand, or related stories that I had heard told many times before, I asked the participants to explain not to me, but as if to an unseen audience.

My role as an insider researcher also requires some explanation, because it does not fit conveniently within current understandings of the method, as in this thesis I have researched a series of historical recollections rather than actively participating in the research setting. Therefore, my role does not easily

correspond to Adler and Adler’s (1987) recognised categories for this research method, as my research focus is on the past and not the present. Also,

156

find in the literature, and debate often centres on issues of power (Horn, 1997). The role has even been described as not static, but ‘…fluid and changing’ (Adler and Adler, 1987: 10), with ‘outsiders’ becoming ‘insiders’ due to frequent exposure over the research timeframe, or dependent on which aspects of life, work or social, are being researched (Rabe, 2003).

However, the participants in this research are drawn from my personal circle of friends and work colleagues in recent, or previous employment, and I have actively worked alongside them all at various times. Under these particular circumstances, the construct of insider research can be better understood in the context of knowledge, in which the researcher is perceived as possessing insider knowledge which outsiders do not have (Rabe, 2003). This creates a shared commonality between the researcher and the researched, from which the research can begin, and so affords entry to otherwise closed groups (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Therefore, from this understanding in this research, as an ex-apprentice, I consider that I can definitely be identified as a type of insider researcher

However, the problematic issue of my role failing to conveniently fit any of those identified by Adler and Adler (1987) still remained because I was specifically using as a research sample, my own former work colleagues and circle of friends to recall past events. During my research into suitable methods for use for this study, I discovered a particular type of research technique which offered a solution to this predicament. This little used method originated in feminist research and research into ‘queer culture’, and is known as ‘intimate insider research’ (Taylor, 2011: 5).

157

as ‘friend-informants’ (ibid., 2011: 5). Because of its novelty, little is written about this method in the literature as noted by McDermid, Peters, Jackson, and Daley (2014), and so its use in this thesis adds to our knowledge of it as a research method. Consequently, Taylor’s (2011) article is mainly cited here, because it is the most informative and provides the most relevant discussion of the method’s use.

Whist some friendships may arise during the course of the research project as informant-friendships, Taylor (2011) makes explicit the difference between this term, and that of friend-informants. She describes the latter as pre-existing friendships, and the former as friendships made in the field, which are subject to problems such as power imbalance, professional motivation and personal gain. The ‘intimate insider researcher’ (Taylor, 2011) role has some distinct positive advantages over other methods of insider research, but naturally also has some disadvantages, and these are now discussed.

As a positive, Taylor (2011) observes that it makes access to, and selection of the research sample easier. Another welcome aspect of intimate insider

research, is that any perceived inequalities between the researcher and researched are reduced, although as Taylor (2011) concedes they are never really absent in the research context. The greater equality between researcher and informant is a consequence of them sharing a culture, identity and most importantly, ‘…a personal history that pre-dates the research engagement’ (ibid., 2011: 8) which distinguishes this method from other types of insider research. This is certainly true for my participants as we have shared many years of friendship. We have worked together, socialised together, been to union meetings and on picket lines during strikes together, and as Taylor (2011) argues, the sharing of experiences cultivates varying degrees of intimacy.

158

Such levels of intimacy I believe, were greatly beneficial to this research, and enabled interviews to be conducted in a conversational manner. Because of our friendships, I am familiar with the respondents’ gestures, body language, non- verbal language, self-image, and intended meanings. The last point is most useful, because meanings in interviews may be obscured by difficult, technical language or trade jargon, or by unspoken shared understandings and

knowledge. As an example, in this research humour was very much evident in the interviews. Knowledge of the contributors’ personalities and sense of humour allowed me to decide whether the participants’ answers were ironic or sincere, and greatly improved analysis and understanding of their evidence. The intimate insider researcher method is also subject to specific disadvantages other than those posed by ethics, or the lack of neutrality and objectivity

previously mentioned (Unluer, 2012). I, like Taylor have questioned whether I may have ‘…given away too much regarding my argument or hypothesis’ (2011: 15) during careless moments, and wondered if this has influenced my

participants’ evidence. Also, when the narrative of the researched and the researcher are interlinked, the researcher is ‘…forced to look both inward and outward…and to acknowledge the intertextuality that is part of both the data gathering and writing process’ (ibid: 2011: 9). Thus, because the research was into a social field in which I still have occasional contact, it contains a degree of uncomfortable self-interpretation.

Additionally, along with questions of objectivity, the ‘friend-informant’s’ natural empathy with the ‘intimate insider researcher’ (Taylor, 2011: 5) may produce results of the kind meant to please them, and so creates a ‘cosy’ research relationship. Taylor (2011) offers some advice to counter this by not exclusively relying on familiar informants for her evidence, and using a mix of both friends

159

and unacquainted informants to provide balance instead.Thisis partly because informants that ‘…originate from and act within the same culture-are likely to share opinions, values and logics of taste’ (2011: 15), and so will not provide a wide range of evidence.

Allegations of a ‘cosy’ research relationship in which the evidence recorded is consequently unreliable, are able to be dealt with from a critical social research perspective (Henn, et al, 2009). Yow (2006) contends that all historians view history from a personal perspective, with much that is commonly accepted as being objectively true merely being unchallenged opinions. The ontological and epistemological perspectives of this thesis position knowledge as not being objective, but as being constructed by persons within a social dialogue instead (Robson, 2002; Bryman, 2004), and the evidence collected for this research created knowledge in this way. Therefore, the ontological and epistemological positions selected for this thesis, suggest that the evidence gathered in the interviews from my ‘friend-informants’ (Taylor, 2011: 5) has as much validity as that collected by any other research method.

Difficulties are also acknowledged with the ability of the intimate insider researcher to create sufficient intellectual, emotional and physical distance between themselves and the ‘friend-informants’ to objectively analyse the research evidence. However Taylor (2011) recommends as coping strategies, that the researcher periodically physically removes themselves from the field, and uses Bennett’s (2003) view that the researcher needs to ‘unlearn’ insider knowledge, attitudes and values to achieve the required distance.

But, most significantly, Taylor’s (2011: 5) research into ‘queer culture’ is of an extremely personal nature, and includes continuing intimate contact with her

160

friend-informants, whereas my research is unequivocally with friends and colleagues that I only see on occasion. Nevertheless, despite these misgivings, in common with Taylor (2011: 15), I share the opinion that ‘…I believe I have still managed to achieve clarity of vision’ within this research. My belief is based on my directness of purpose during this research, which genuinely sought knowledge with which I could clarify some long-held personal contemplations that are reflected in the research questions.

Lastly in this subsection, I reveal a singular aspect of this study; that is as part of the data gathered for this research, my own experiences were recorded in an interview conducted by one of the participants, codenamed Alec. This positions me as both researcher, and researched. Clough and Nutbrown (2007:70) provide a justification for this position by arguing that the research and researcher are inseparable and go as far as observing that ‘…our identity’ (emphasis as in original) provides ‘...a driving force in our research foci’. They give further support for this dual position by declaring that we can all be viewed as the blueprints for our own research methodology and as such, that it can even be intellectually dishonest to separate ourselves and our ‘voices’ from the research.

This subsection has described at length the insider research technique, most specifically the ‘intimate insider research’ method used in this thesis. It has examined and critiqued the process used in this research, and has provided a justification for its use through the quality of evidence obtained from my ‘friend- informants’ (Taylor, 2011). The next section moves on to examine the interview structure and data analysis.

161