In/out/side: Positioning the Researcher in Feminist Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers issues of and that arose in context of a feminist qualitative research project on experiences of academics, especially women, in faculties of social work, education, pharmacy and dentistry. Members of research team had connections to four fields, and originally believed that their insider status in that regard would facilitate access to participants, rapport in interviews, analysis of data and communication of results. The article identifies some of problems and puzzles that emerged around determination of who is an insider or outsider and who has greater insights in which situation. One possibility is that insider-outsider question cannot be fully resolved, but that we can try to work creatively its tensions.As a sociologist, I am used to that uncomfortable feeling of distancing myself from what is happening around me, whether it be a party, a meeting, or a dinner with relatives -- all potential grist to mill of sociological analysis. As a woman, I have been in many situations where I have been acutely conscious of being in a world dominated by men. What does it mean to be an outsider or insider? Might it simply be a fleeting aspect of subjectivity, like discomfort at start of a social occasion? Alternatively, when does it mark all one's perceptions and actions? When is it a key to insightful analysis? When does it stand in way of clear thinking? How do we even know when we are inside or outside or somewhere in between?This paper is about issues of insiderness and outsiderness that arose in context of a feminist qualitative research project on academic life. Although some quotations from project data are used to illustrate arguments, results of study itself are not featured here as purpose is to focus on a particular issue rather than to report study findings, some of which can be accessed elsewhere (see, for example, Acker & Feuerverger, 1996; Acker, 1997, 1999a; Wyn & Acker with Richards, in press).Questions around insider/outsider standpoints are readily found in sociological writings, especially those concerned with methodology and epistemology of qualitative research. For example, a major concept for Max Weber (1947), a founder of sociology, was Verstehen, which is sometimes translated as understanding. It concerns extent to which we can imaginatively project ourselves into position of another person, in order to try to comprehend reasons that person has for her/his actions. Comprehending a situation and explaining it to others is at heart of qualitative research, though it has been much troubled in recent years by an increased sensitivity to problems inherent in such an exercise (Britzman, 1995). Several other classical sociologists (Simmel, 1908/1971; Schutz, 1944) have considered role and special perceptions of the stranger, and in early 1970s, Robert Merton (1972) directly tackled question of insider and outsider perspectives in research. More recently, Patricia Hill Collins (1991) has developed concept of the outsider within with regard to Black women sociologists, and James Banks (1998) has identified a number of possible insider/outsider categories. Feminist researchers regularly raise questions about positioning of researcher and researched (Stanley & Wise, 1983, 1990; Smith 1987; Cook & Fonow, 1990; Reinharz, 1992; Harding, 1993; Edward & Ribbens, 1998).Despite work that has gone before, in some ways my colleagues and I felt that we were in new territory. One reason for this belief is that we were conducting team research. Team research has its shares of disasters but many consider its strengths to outweigh its problems (Woods, Boyle, Jeffrey & Troman, 2000). Nevertheless, it is one thing to reflect critically upon one's own self in relation to one's work, and quite another to reflect upon relationships among colleagues in a research team and upon colleagues' relationships to other academics we are studying. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.149 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".