Reflection/Commentary on a Past Article: “The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research”

Thinking back on this publication:

How did it fit into your career path?

How did it impact your work?

How did it impact the field?

Where there any surprises that came from this publication?

What is the one thing that you think has changed the most in this area since you published this article?

The 20th anniversary of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology is an appropriate time to revisit our article The Space Between: On Being an Insider–Outsider in Qualitative Research (Corbin Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). We are honored to have our article selected for inclusion in this Special Issue. When reflecting on this article, the number of times it has been cited and the breadth of researchers with whom it has resonated were certainly surprises, as we did not anticipate the topic and the article to be so influential. Due to the acknowledged subjective nature of qualitative research, it is critical that researchers be reflexive because, as we noted in our article, “we are firmly in all aspects of the research process and essential to it” (p. 61). We explicitly and implicitly situate ourselves throughout the research process but in particular in data collection and analysis. This led us to want to consider our methodology in parallel to using it to explore our research questions. Consequentially, the article has had a lasting impact on our work. It has heightened our awareness of our status as insiders–outsiders as we conduct our research. When we considered our membership roles in our recent collaborative research on memorial tattoos (Buckle & Corbin Dwyer, 2017), our continuing occupation of the third space, the space between, was reaffirmed. One of us was more of an outsider to the tattoo community but an insider to the study of grief and loss, while the other was the opposite—more of an insider to tattoo culture but an outsider to thanatology. We contemplate the ways in which these different but complementary identities, and our shared identity as qualitative researchers, inform the specific information we gather and our analysis of the information.

The many citations of this article demonstrate that it added to the field by highlighting the important issue of researcher positioning and engaged the broader qualitative research community in reflecting on their “space between” status. In our article, we challenged the dichotomous perspective of insider–outsider and argued instead for a third space that allows researchers to occupy the position of both insider and outsider. Researchers can only ever occupy the space between, as we cannot fully occupy one or the other of those positions. More qualitative researchers are exploring moving beyond an insider–outsider dichotomy in their specific field of research (e.g., Kerstetter, 2012), including “a hybrid insider/outsider position” (Paechter, 2013). Other qualitative researchers have explored how to negotiate “fluid identities” (Razon & Ross, 2012) and “multipositionalities” (Ryan, 2015). As we wrote, “Surely the time has come to abandon these constructed dichotomies and embrace and explore the complexity and richness of the space between entrenched perspectives. As qualitative researchers we are uniquely equipped for the challenge” (p. 62). Indeed, qualitative researchers continue to take up the challenge, which appears to be the one thing that we think has changed the most in this area since we published the article: the attention to the impact of the “space between” status in conducting qualitative research. We are grateful to the International Journal of Qualitative Methods for giving us the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.