The Continuum of Being Outsider as a Researcher

Both Matthews and Cramer (2008) and Gratton and Odonnell (2011) used digital tools and so creative ways of data collection in their studies. Both studies overcame the problem of distance by using digital tools. Specifically, Gratton and Odonnell (2011) overcame the problem of physical distance and suggested the use of networked space over geographic space in data collection. Matthews and Cramer (2008) overcame the norm-referenced boundaries to reach gay community.

On the other hand, in both studies researchers had outsider position. Even though Matthews and Cramer built a partnership with an insider at some point of their studies, they were still outsider. When we compare the researcher’s position as being outsider in these two studies, I saw that they were not the same. This brought me the following question: Can being outsider as a researcher be interpreted along a continuum? If so, how can we describe this continuum?

To answer this question, I tried to imagine how Gratton and Odonnell’s study might have been different if they went to Canada in person. They would still been an outsider, however, they would have chance to observe the participants everyday lives, not only the part of their lives that they intentionally showed in videoconferencing. I also remember from my own video conference experiences that since the tool allows you to see on the screen, you can check yourself, your position, your behaviors, etc. instantly. However, in face-to-face interaction I do not have chance to get this feedback unless the person that I am talking with gives me a reaction. Thus, being outsider-researcher in videoconferencing and being outsider-researcher in face-to-face interaction by being physically in the place is different. 

I am not sure whether we can explain this difference by re-conceptualizing the outsider position of the researcher along a continuum. If we can, it would reflect the dichotomy of typical vs. adjusted. In other words, one side of this continuum reflects that outsider-researcher will observe participants’ typical actions - “plausible range of possible typical actions” because the outsider-researcher cannot reach certainty about typical actions/behaviors/conversation/etc. The opposite side of the continuum indicates that outsider-researcher will observe participants’ adjusted actions/behaviors/conversation/etc. 

This continuum is the image that I conceive while reading the papers. So, it may not be true in a general sense.

Gratton, M. & O'Donnell, S. (2011). Communication technologies for focus groups with remote communities: A case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qualitative Research, 11(2) 159-175.
Matthews, J. & Cramer, E. P. (2008). Using technology to enhance qualitative research with hidden populations. The Qualitative Report, 13(2), 301-315.