The topic of challenges or double-edged sword of insider research is very interesting. It is an awareness and critical reflection of the positions, roles & duties of a researcher which could be regarded as conflicting and/or confounding in some areas.
Research I think originated from a curiosity in knowing more and better the world where we live with things and happenings in it and we ourselves as the being. In a very board sense, we research things that all relate to us with which we would have a specific position, role and duty anyway. It is hard to have a research irrelevant to us. The distance by all means, short or big, is comparative. The insiderness depends on specific emphasis and focus on certain attributes. Whether it is a strength or weakness depends very much on the criteria of good research, the actual implementation of the research and how explicit and clear it makes in its presentation or narrative.
Thus the two papers prompt me to revisit the criteria of good research.
(1) Researcher’s reflexivity in identifying any bias, preconception, single perspective which could bring forth subjectivity
(2) The access to the research subjects and data may create opportunity for easy access but it may not contribute to generalizability or generalization
(3) Ethics – whether or not the research is properly done without infringing any stakeholders or constituting any violation of personal or data privacy, abuse of power and authority etc.
All these areas would affect the validity and reliability of the research with which the implementation is crucial and needs to be made more explicit if not transparent.
By nature, research itself is good and should aim good. Thus this is regardless of the insiderness. As we should encourage everyone to embrace the idea and practice of research. It is also a professional reflective practice for learning and continuous development.
Fox’s Criteria of Good Research regarded research as one of the means to discover the truth and he dated three basic approaches to accomplish that. They are authority, logic, and controlled observation. He also argued that there were a lot of limitations and so research rarely reveals the whole truth. He suggested to view research findings as a means of approximating the truth instead. In this sense, I think it is no harm to have insider or outsider doing research as research itself is a mean to get closer to the truth. He had concerns on quality of the research as well. “Since research efforts vary widely in quality, the question of how much confidence can be placed justifiably in the findings of a particular research is one of the considerable importance.”
Thus he listed out 7 criteria which in his eyes as something of common-sense to differentiate “research that merits a good deal of confidence” from those with findings acceptable with reservations.
(1) A clearly defined and stated research purpose or problem (the least ambiguity)
(2) Research procedures be described in sufficient details for repeating the research
(3) A carefully planned procedural design of the research for data and results yielded as objective as possible
(4) Report with complete frankness from the researcher on any flaws in the procedural design and estimation on their effects on findings
(5) Data analysis should be adequate to reveal its significance; and methods of analysis should be appropriate
(6) Conclusions be confined to those justified by the data of the research and limited to those for which the data provides an adequate basis
(7) Greater confidence in the research is warranted if the researcher is experienced, has a good reputation in research, and is a person of integrity
Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2007). In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic Research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (1), 59-74.
Fox, J. H. (1958). Criteria of good research. The Phi Delta Kappan, 39(6), 284-286.
Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (1), 1-17.
Dear Amia EdD 