“Insider” versus “Outsider” Research Discourse;
Debunking the Binary Myth

Written for Qualitative Inquiry with Özge Savaş

The debate on the strengths and weaknesses of “insider” versus “outsider” research in the social sciences has been an ongoing discourse with compelling arguments on both sides. Those who argue for “insider” research cite comfort in interviews, intimate and direct familiarity with the subject matter, fluency with the language of the issue or demographic, and a unique perspective that may allow the researcher to explore specificities that an “outsider” may not think to research. Those who advocate for “outsider” research argue that the “outsider” may be more acutely aware of their bias, and may be able to see issues that the community itself may overlook. Those advocating for “outsider” research are most often positivists and post-positivists who claim that outsiders are more objective. Sue Wilkinson & Celia Kitzinger (2013) explain mainstream psychology’s obsession with objectivity well;

Although some feminist psychologists were interrogating— and challenging—notions of ‘‘objectivity’’ decades ago (Fine, 1994; Unger, 1983; Wilkinson, 1988), traditional mainstream psychology remains (more than any other social science) deeply committed to a concept of objectivity that treats insider research as contaminating the production of knowledge. (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013)

In positivist and post-positivist research paradigms, “[o]bjectivity is viewed as necessary and the researcher is expected to assume a detached, observer role, one in which values must be controlled to avoid biasing results”(Haverkamp & Young, 2007). However, under Constructivist–Interpretivist, Critical–Ideological, and feminist paradigms, bias is recognized as unavoidable and instead of attempting to ward off bias, reflexivity is called for. The practice of reflexivity recognizes that bias is inevitable, and while it should be avoided wherever possible, it must be accounted for in the research and analysis process. Reflexivity is crucial for ethical social science research, especially qualitative, and/or interactive research methods where the researcher has a larger and more complex impact on the data collection and interpretation.

Insider research has its downsides too. A researcher who conceives of themself as an insider may have trouble recognizing points of bias and blindness. An insider may have trouble being critical or may be stuck in the same patterns or blinded by the same things as their subject(s). As well, if there is a push for insider research to be the dominant form of research, there is a risk of continuing the over-prevalence of research done by and applying only to WIERD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, And Democratic) White and male individuals rather than moving towards the much-needed diversification of the field of psychology. Another issue is that if a researcher sees themselves as an insider, they may have trouble identifying where their personal narrative and experience ends and the subject(s) begins. The insider researcher may assume similarity where it doesn’t exist.

No lived experience or shared demographic is a monolith. As such, beyond studying the self (a technique that Wilkinson & Kitzinger refer to as “Incorporating”), no one researcher is truly only an insider. Similarly, in social science, it is safe to assume that both the researcher and the subject(s) are human beings who share social, cultural, linguistic, and biological similarities despite any differences. To assume that one is entirely an outsider or entirely an insider to any experience is to misunderstand humanity, and to apply a binary where one does not exist. To operate under a binary understanding of insider and outsider identity is to erase the complex specifics and reality of group and individual identity, narrative, and lived experience.

One big aspect of the practice of reflexivity is to recognize one's positionality. In other words, to understand in which ways one is an insider and an outsider. Ideally, a research team has individuals of varying levels and forms of insider and outsider knowledge and experience. Together, a team of researchers with diverse backgrounds and understandings are able to help balance each other out. Assumptions and downsides come on both sides of the equation, and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of one's positionality as an insider and an outsider simultaneously can help a researcher do their best work.

Works Cited

Haverkamp, B. E., & Young, R. A. (2007). Paradigms, Purpose, and the Role of the Literature. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 265–294. doi.org/10.1177/0011000006292597

Ponterotto, & Grieger. (2005). Intersection of Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science Parameters. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2013). Representing Our Own Experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 251–255. doi.org/10.1177/0361684313483111