Methodology
2.3 Positionality Insider research
An important element of any ethnographic study is the ability of a researcher to gain the acceptance of those whom they are researching. A number of ethnographers have discovered that ‘insider’ status has greatly aided them in attaining this. However, this section will suggest that the ‘insider/outsider’ dichotomy is not as straightforward as sometimes presented.
Insider status can be attained through a number of means. For some, such as Gololobov (2014a, 2014b), this was acquired long before the period of research began. Gololobov had been a founding member of the first punk band in Kransodar, Russia. Whilst he spent a number of years away from Russia and was therefore less connected to the punk scene at beginning of his research, he retained something of a ‘punk celebrity’ status. On his return, even young punks knew of him and the role he played in his band. This experience positions him as a ‘returning insider’ (Kremakova, 2014). Gordon (2005) similarly traded on his personal – and his band’s – contacts and involvement with the Leeds and Bradford punk scenes in his research.
Other ethnographers, particularly those with multiple field sites, discuss ‘performing’ their ‘insider’ status; Hodkinson (2002) for example, had been a goth for some time before embarking on research and therefore felt able to take part in social norms in the scene in a recognisably 'insider' manner. ‘As well as having a suitable appearance, the manner in which I
behaved in clubs – dancing, requesting songs from DJs and socializing – made meeting people, arranging interviews, taking photographs and gaining advice far easier than they might otherwise have been' (5). Leblanc (1999) similarly notes that her appearance was important to gain the understanding and acceptance of her participants. Whilst she identified herself to potential participants primarily as a researcher rather than a punk, she said, 'my appearance retained elements of my past involvement with the subcultures, including often dyed hair, punk clothes, and tattoos. … This [identification of “old punk”] eased my establishment of rapport with punks' (22).
Where we can understand Gololobov (2014b) and Gordon (2005) as ‘insiders’ to their scene, thereby having greater knowledge of the specifics of subculture in that particular location, Hodkinson (2002) and Leblanc (1999) are instead insiders to their subculture, not always knowing the local bands, celebrities, or hangouts, but certainly trading in the same general subcultural knowledge of style and practice.
For all that these ethnographers utilised the insider position to aid entrance to subcultural spaces and acceptance therein, it was not necessarily wholly positive for their research. Gololobov (2014b) discusses the
drawbacks of ‘over-rapport’ with participants, where the researcher is unable to gain participants’ elaboration on subjects which are considered to be ‘shared knowledge’. Moreover, further difficulties arise for ethnographers who feel a responsibility to those in the scene, a problem made more acute the closer those relationships are.
The discussion of insider/outsider status is further problematised when we realise the instability of these terms. ‘Insider’ is a simplification, suggesting that all subcultural members share in one particular identity and set of practices, thereby erasing differences between individuals in a group (Carby, 1982; Hodkinson, 2005). Duneier (1999) suggests that full
acceptance with research participants is a ‘rarity’ (338). Song and Parker (1995) elaborate that a researchers’ position could simultaneously highlight commonality and difference with participants, suggesting a more nuanced approach to understanding researcher positionality based on ‘partial and unfixed modalities of identification’ (254). Popov (2009) reinforces that ‘identities of both the researched and the researcher are [constantly] (re)constructed throughout fieldwork interactions’ (94).
It is important to note that just as identifications as ‘insider’ are partial and unfixed, they are also subject to spatial differences. Kempson (2015) writes about how participants themselves experience varying degrees of insider status as they move through subcultural spaces (in this case
zinefests) in different locations. In some spaces, particularly where they might be known to many others there, participants may identify as an insider, whereas by travelling to a zinefest elsewhere they might know fewer people and therefore feel more isolated. By understanding the spatial implications of differential insider/outsider status, we understand why Leblanc (1999) and Hodkinson (2002) felt the need to ‘display’ their subcultural affiliations to those who didn’t know them.
Discussions of ‘insider’ status in ethnographic research tend to reify the position of the ‘insider’ researcher with little regard of the complexity with which such an identity operates. Hodkinson (2002) suggests that this reification is dangerous, noting that successful and nuanced ethnographies are produced by researchers who position themselves as ‘outsiders’ (such as Duneier 1999). A better approach would recognise the multiplicity of identity and intersubjectivity of selfhood, both in regards to research participants and researchers. By drawing on theorisations that place individuals in a series of communication interlocks (Fine and Kleinman, 1979) and recognising that identities are produced in communication with (and with regards to) others, we recognise that researcher positionality is far more complex than a finite ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ status. Acknowledging this ‘connectedness’ of
individuals and the ‘implications of relational constructs of self’ (Joseph, 1996: 119), leads us to an even greater imperative to consider positionality in conducting fieldwork.
My path into punk
I first started to get interested in punk music around the age of 14 with popular bands such as Green Day and The Distillers attracting my attention. Through friends, a devotion to BBC Radio 1'sJohn Peel Evening Sessionsand The Punk Show, and research into other bands on the Internet I gained a wider interest in and knowledge of less mainstream punk and the ideas
surrounding it3. I went to my first punk gig at 16 and fell in love with the
energy at shows. At University I started to put shows on in the local town and went to gigs more regularly.
Whilst I had first bought a guitar when I was 15, it mostly sat
gathering dust for several years. It wasn’t until after my fieldwork – during which I had received much encouragement from research participants – that I formed (or joined) my first (and second, and third) band(s)4. The success of
these bands and continued dabbling in gig promotion meant that I regularly ‘left’ my desk-bound ‘day job’ of writing about punk to ‘be’ a punk in the evenings5.
My position in the Dutch scene
When I embarked on my fieldwork my knowledge of punk was largely shaped by my location in the UK, and my local, Midlands scene; I didn't know much of the Dutch punk scene beyond its biggest bands. However, the
cultural context of the Netherlands was not new to me, having lived there as a young child and periodically visiting throughout my childhood.
3Most memorably at the time was the Rock Against Bush campaign in 2004, through
which punk bands, led by Fat Mike of NOFX, campaigned for young people to register to vote. Later, through a local vegan hardcore promotor group I came into contact with wider anarchist punk politics.
4Not Right, Fear & Slothing, and Die Wrecked respectively.
5Indeed, my fieldwork further impacted on my own subcultural practices; I set up
the Revolt Feminist Library and Distro shortly after writing Chapter 6 in which I discuss similar practices amongst participants.
In some senses, then, I had some shared ‘insider’ knowledges, social and cultural reference points, and was able, contextually to perform
subcultural affiliation in the manner of Hodkinson (2002), Leblanc (1999) and Haenfler (2004). Moreover, being of a similar age to many participants, and having accessed punk first through commercial pop punk provided a shared trajectory with many (see Chapter 3). This provided me with insight into the contentious ‘commercialisation debate’ in punk.
However, myDutchpunk knowledge was lacking, and during interviews I didn't always have knowledge of every band or artist that participants mentioned6. In some cases participants saw this as an
opportunity to share their knowledge of Dutch punk, playing me excerpts of favourite bands, sharing their collections, et cetera. However, others used this lack of knowledge to challenge my subcultural capital, to question whoI was to be studying Dutch punk. I was occasionally questioned in what felt like a rather ‘confrontational’ manner as to whether I really didlikepunk and if so, what bandsdidI know7. The role of researcher and participant taking
turns to ‘display’ subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995) within interviews was a (naïvely) unexpected element that affected the way in which interviews were produced.
6Although this improved the longer I was in the field.
7These challenging moments were dissipated quickly enough with answers
outlining a number of well-known and well respected favourite bands, as well as a punk cliché of displaying subcultural capital with reference to obscure bands: my own opportunity to share some small local UK bands with participants.
Events such as gigs left me feeling – certainly initially – more obviously an outsider. Whilst the hallmarks of the events were familiar – crowded and sweaty rooms, loud bands, queues at the bar, moshing (or sometimes static) crowds, leaflets and posters being handed out for the next event – it didn’tfeellike ‘my’ scene. The faces were unfamiliar, the bands not always to my taste, and my own anxiety about how quickly I should reveal my ‘researcher’ status underpinned many early interactions with others.
However, the longer I was in the field, the less unfamiliar my position felt and the more comfortable I became. Whereas at first I had wondered if others at the gigs found my presence there odd, soon I realised that these were not closed spaces in which only ‘the usual crowd’ were present. Given the mobility of the Dutch punk scene (see Chapter 4), and the turnover of people in the scene (particularly in tourist hotspot Amsterdam), ‘new’ faces were common and as such never marked me out as particularly noteworthy8.
As I got to know more participants I more often went to shows where there were friendly faces. I remained conscious that I was there for research, and they there for fun, and thus was attentive to not taking up too much of their time. Whilst I therefore never shook the feeling of being an ‘outsider’ by dint of my role as a researcher (Hodkinson, 2005), I certainly felt more
comfortable in the scene as my fieldwork progressed.
8As a white woman speaking Dutch I seemed no different to other travelling Dutch
punks. Whilst the punk scene has more men than women, women were always present. The internationalism of the Netherlands, particularly in Amsterdam, meant that the presence of people of colour and those who spoke in other languages was not unheard of, but this would certainly have been a clearer marker of ‘outsider’ status.
The longer I spent in the field, the more I realised how the mobility of the Dutch punk scene might affect other gig attendees’ positionality. When I got on a train and travelled for an hour to go to a gig, I was taking part in their practices; when I turned up in a different city and felt I didn’t necessarily know many people, there were others in the same position. Mobility, as suggested by Kempson (2015), complicated the insider/outsider dichotomy as much for participants as for me.