In all research endeavors, it is important for researchers to be aware of their roles in their research studies. This is particularly important when conducting a grounded theory study since the researcher him/herself is used as an instrument in building a theory (Creswell, 2011). In their discussions of the researcher’s role as an insider versus outsider, Maykut and Morehouse (1994) argued that the researcher’s roles and perspectives can be paradoxical since “it is to be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and meantuned-ing systems of others—to tuned-indwell—and at the same time to be aware of how one’s own biases and preconceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand” (p.
123). The notion of the dichotomy of insider versus outsider status of the researcher, however, has been challenged, since the dualistic conceptualization of the role of researcher is viewed as overly simplistic and often it is hard to fully understand whether one is inside or outside or somewhere in between (Acker, 2000). Dwyer and Buckle (2009) also contended, “holding membership in a group does not denote complete sameness within that group; likewise, not being a member of a group does not denote complete difference.” (p. 60) Based on this notion, Acker (2000) suggested that one should find a way to work creatively and in fact, attempt to find a way to be both an insider and an outsider.
Kanuah (2000) proposed the hyphen of “insider-outsider”, and argued that this paradoxical and ambiguous third space should be a “path and dwelling place” for researchers (as cited in Dwyer &
Buckle, 2009, p.60). According to Dwyer and Buckle, what allows researchers to be ‘insider-outsider’ is being aware of the way in which we are different from others, while at the same time being aware of the ways in which we are similar.
In this research study, my standpoint in terms of membership was located in the very ambiguous and ambivalent place of the ‘space between’ (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). I have
experienced living with chronic pain myself. In addition, I have worked with people with chronic pain both as a clinician and a research team member prior to this study. Therefore, I came to this study with a substantial level of knowledge and experience in the topic as an insider. However, in this
study I was a researcher who aspired to implement classical grounded theory principles, which emphasizes the inductiveness of the theory building process and researcher’s role as an outsider.
What made the situation even trickier was the multiple roles I had to play throughout the study process. I not only administered all quantitative measurement sessions, conducted qualitative interviews, and analyzed the study data, but also was the clinician who employed the DMT
intervention. Hence, I was faced with an inherent tension of conducting research “within the cultural context of one’s own people” (Kanuha, 2000, p. 444) while seeking to maintain a role as an outsider, and playing an insider-outsider role fairly seemed to be a very challenging task.
To find a balance in this ‘space between’ and successfully carry out a legitimate grounded theory study, I first acknowledged that complete neutrality is impossible (Rose, 1985). It was helpful to understand that,
researcher bias… is just another variable and a social product. If the researcher is exerting bias, then this is a part of the research, in which bias is a vital variable to weave into the constant comparative analysis. (Glaser, 2002, para. 12)
With an understanding that the reality we study as well as our position as researchers are in fact ambiguous and complicated, I realized that to be in command of what I am doing, I needed to appreciate and be aware of my own bias as a variable and try my best to understand the multilayered complexity of its role in the research process. I understood that in order for me to become a self-aware insider-outsider, constant self-reflection to be conscious of my own personal biases and perspective and practicing fluidity to balance on the spectrum of insider-outsider role would be critical. To this end, I utilized three techniques, namely, theoretical memos, self-interview and artistic exploration. I wrote memos about my interpretation and understanding of the data as well as any hypothesis and theoretical concepts as they emerged. I asked myself interview questions from the very beginning as a way of identifying my perspectives and bracketing. I used visual and movement-based artistic exploration of the themes, categories and my emotional responses to the data in order to gain awareness and insight.
Since I had learned from the phase I data that the issue of stigma, validation and acceptance could be critical factors in building relationships for people with chronic pain, I decided to disclose my position as an insider to the study participants. I also shared my own movement-based narrative with them after the participants performed theirs.It appeared that my membership role was perceived as positive to the participants as well as positively influenced the therapeutic process of the
participants. Some participants expressed that knowing that I was “one of them” helped them to ease their fear of being judged and allowed them to feel comfortable to unveil their own vulnerability. One person said that it helped her to perceive the therapist role and position not as an authoritative leader but an empathetic facilitator. Another participant compared this effect to the process of rehabilitation of people with addiction. She said that having a therapist who has a first-hand experience of what they are going through can have a positive impact on the therapeutic experience. There were positive aspects of being an insider-outsider in my part as well. I recognized that a lot of data the participants were reporting were not unfamiliar to me and that this evoked personal memories, strong emotional responses or identification with the participants at times. I also recognized that the breadth and depth of understanding and knowledge I had about these data might not be easily accessible to “outside people”; this made me feel that I was in a privileged position to analyze these data.
However, to practice a rigorous insider-outsider role I used memos to ensure that data was grounded on participants’ journals and session discussion content so that any inappropriately presumed relevancies could be corrected for through constant comparison. What I tried to do was to respect grounded theory as a perspective methodology (Glaser, 2002), meaning instead of exploring data with an interpretive approach, I tried to raise participant data to a conceptual level and
conceptualize the observed patterns through constant comparison.