My own background and identity is relevant to the research, though largely absent from publications due to limits of word length and focus. In this section (albeit still
limited by word length and focus) I reflect on some of the ways my position and identity has impacted on my research projects.
I am a white British woman, at the time of these projects in my mid-thirties. I have a full-time academic position in a Russell Group University, though I arrived at this via a professional route (landscape architecture) rather than an academic one, and my teaching remit has more roots in practice than in my research activity. I am a south to north migrant within my own country. I have some experience of
overseas living in a cross-cultural context: in my twenties I spend a year teaching and volunteering in Pakistan and India, as well as sporadic global travel. I have never had to move for reasons other than my own choice, and have had many advantages of access to education, adequate resources and means of participating in various communities. In terms of ‘checking my privilege’ it is important to be clear that I am, and am visible as: white, educated, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied and wealthy.
It is notable that in the academic field (and professional practice) of landscape architecture the vast majority of writers and practitioners are white. Researchers working on migration issues have a different profile, and there is a much higher presence of people from migrant backgrounds, both first and second generations. The latter area is much more engaged and explicit on issues of researcher identity, and there is a thread of discussion within the literature on the relevance of
positionality, in particular insider positioning where a researcher shares the ethnic identity of a participant group (Voloder and Kirptchenko, 2014). Having a white non-migrant identity and undertaking research or writing on themes of migration, ethnicity or race is a clear step into representing experiences different from one’s own, and can be criticised simply for that. A reviewer for a book in which I contributed a chapter titled ‘Gardens of Ethnicity’ (Rishbeth, 2005) criticised the editor for not choosing a writer from a non-white ethnic background. Given the significant absence and marginalisation of academics and writers of colour I do not consider this a spurious comment, and support the challenge to promote diverse voices and expertise. But it still felt like a discriminatory critique. In my area of research, my whiteness is brought to the table.
Below I outline working approaches that acknowledge intersectionality and recognise the limits of insider/outsider binaries. I find these both conceptually and methodologically helpful in negotiating research practice as a white academic working in contexts of urban superdiversity and experiences of migration.
Many of the methodological challenges of qualitative research centre on the researcher’s role in understanding and honestly representing the people and
contexts of the research (Macpherson, 2011). There are specific issues raised when researching on, for, or with, communities that are commonly marginalised in civic power relationships, for example relating to race, age, (dis)ability, class,
educational background. If the researcher shares that identity it can provide a relational bridge, allowing for conversational shortcuts and starting from a point of affiliation (Tolia-Kelly, 2004). There is also an (often tacit) assumption that there is greater authenticity in the research ‘voice’ when it speaks from an insider position.
Taking seriously the dynamics of intersectionality is essential in looking at identity and power dynamics. One of the problems of privileging an ‘insider’ research role is the tendency to essentialise one axis of identity while downplaying others. Even if researchers have shared ethnic or racial backgrounds with their participants, they may have different educational backgrounds, family or class contexts, different gender or sexual orientation. The notion of a truly ‘insider’ academic researcher is in almost all cases a limited concept and fails to acknowledge the heterogeneity of all communities. Academics who research their ‘own’ ethnic community are often the first to highlight this in their reflections (Mohammad, 2001; Voloder, 2008), and find assumptions formed by participants about their viewpoints and values are no less problematic than they might be for researchers with less recognisable common ground. Sometimes, working as an ‘outsider’ gives space for the
researcher to ask the obvious questions, and demands a more explicit laying aside of assumptions and prejudices, an important process within qualitative research.
My experience and practice of fieldwork has indeed been informed, not solely by identity but importantly by experiences. As a qualitative researcher, intuitively you choose to bring different experiences to engage reflectively with others
(collaborators and participants). In my case this includes having lived in Asia, of doing youthwork, of having a father with disabilities, of having a religious faith, of being an a-typical academic from a design background, of being a woman. In particular gender has been important, and working with other women has given me some insight into the dynamics of ‘insider’ solidarity. In these intersections I contextualise and evaluate the research process, as do other researchers with different issues regarding identity and experience, and recognise the equal complexity of participants’ lives. Being present as a whole person within the research process, while also taking on the role of attending wholly to the experience of others, is a necessary tension of relational research, one that simultaneously enriches and challenges.