Bisturí, tetas y barbas

Before further discussion, a definition of the researcher’s position needs to be made (Nilan 2002). In this research, my positionality is that of an insider, yet an outsider (see Shahbazi, 2004). I share the same cultural and ethnic background as the participants, yet I am an outsider because I am a woman and the research participants are men (see Dowling 2000). As a female, I stand as the sexual ‘other’ to the male participants (see Bolak, 1996). As the sexual ‘other’, I belong to the category that has cultural expectations of subservience, and the gender that has less participation in the top echelons of the society and the workforce.

I was forty years old at the time of the interviews with the forty men who are considered to be the modern elite of PNG, with some even standing out as ‘big

men’ in society. The participants were categorised as modern, because of the modern attributes of men with status in society: the educated, employed and in positions of influence, both in the government and private sector. They were also categorised as the elite and ‘big men’ firstly because of their level of education; secondly because of their position in their job; thirdly, because of their ability to earn money and be part of the growing affluent class; and lastly because of the status gained from all the above and with that status, they are able to contribute to customary events that their family and relatives in the village engage in. Given these modern attributes of the participants, they are traditionally, superior

because they are men. On the contrary, this puts me in the traditionally defined position as an inferior, the ‘other’.

I make this point because a modern PNG man is first, a product of culture and second, a product of the modern society where their decisions in the modern workplace are influenced by cultural forces and their village contributions is influenced by their modern social class. Thus, the participants in this project operate between these two modes: the traditional cultural and the modern mode. Through that modern mode, they saw me as a modern educated woman like themselves, but beyond that, they could have still seen me as their inferior in society if they switched to their cultural modes and saw me through their cultural lenses. I stand as the ‘other’ who is the researcher.

The following variables can be used to illustrate the differences and therefore, the ‘otherness’ of the position of the researcher and the participants: sex, marital

status, level of education, position and title. The ‘other’ in feminist research is principally based on Simone de Beauvoir’s (1968 cited in Johnson-Bailey 2004) concept as female other to man’s primary being. This term has been extrapolated to mean the ‘different’ when compared to the ‘norm’ (Johnson-Bailey 2004).

Firstly, the sexual ‘otherness’ poses me, the researcher, as an outsider, although I share the same ethnicity and cultural background with the research participants. I am sexually different to the participants and therefore, do not share the same gender experiences of the men, and neither do participants share my female gender experience. Yet, as Dowling (2000) argues, the researcher is ‘never simply an insider or an outsider’ (p. 3).

As an insider, I am a well educated woman, know the cultural norms and patterns of socialisation of these participants and their positions and I am in a position to judge if the responses affirm or reject these cultural configurations of patriarchy and masculinity. Being an insider, that knowledge about culturally sensitive issues and ways to relate to men of status proved to be inhibitive and created cautiousness and apprehension towards the phrasing of questions and the urge to delve deeper into knowing their thoughts. Further, my cultural awareness of my position as a researcher studying men required me to cross boundaries of comfort into male territory, male institution like the ‘haus man’

Secondly, the marital status of the participants and myself was different (see appendix 1), in that all participants except one are married while I was not. This sets the participant and researcher further apart because socio-culturally, a mature aged woman is expected to be married and engaging in private interviews with married men can be seen as transgressive of cultural norms.

Thirdly, the educational level is different in that most of the participants are very well educated at university level and their education has enabled them to get jobs that give them status among their colleagues and the society. The level of

education has also endowed some participants with titles of ‘Dr.’ (both in

academia and medicine). However, the fact that I am well educated like most of them, made them regard me as a colleague rather than not.

Below is a table that illustrates the points of difference between the participants and me as the researcher. This difference has posed the researcher in an unequal position to the male interviewees46: