Typologies for Insider/Outsider Positionalities of Migrant Researchers: Conceptual Tools for Studying Migrant Populations

Abstract

Regarding debates over researcher insider/outsider positionalities in the field of migration studies, many scholars have proposed various explanations. Some scholars studying migrant populations note that migrant scholars who share identities such as nationality, language, religion, race, ethnicity etc. with their study participants are usually perceived as insiders. Other scholars, however, contend that dynamics of insider/outsider positionalities are situationally shaped during researcher-participant interactions in fieldwork. There is now wide consensus among many scholars that shared social identities between researchers and study participants do not automatically position researchers as insiders. Drawing on secondary literature and my fieldwork encounters, this paper contributes to these debates by proposing typologies for migration researchers to use as analytical tools. The three typologies that map out insider/outsider dynamics during researcher-participant encounters in fieldwork are presuming ethnic insiderness/outsiderness, presuming national insiderness/outsiderness and the indeterminate fieldwork context. This paper argues that researchers’ insider/outsider positionalities should not be viewed as pre-determined or fixed formations but as uncertain and situationally constituted. I further argue that migration researchers should not enter the fieldwork with an assumption of automatic insiderness or outsiderness but that they need to view their insider or outsider positionalities as emerging during encounters with research participants.

Introduction

Expectations are not based on reality. They are observations, expected realities ¹ , or beliefs of what you think will happen. – Jay Shetty

The only thing that should surprise us is that there are still some things that can surprise us. – Francois de La Rochefoucauld

When carrying out qualitative research that involves human participants such as conducting interviews and focus group discussions, researchers are positioned as either insiders or outsiders depending on how they are perceived and interpreted by study participants in fieldwork encounters ² (Berger, 2015; Pechurina, 2014; Ryan, 2015). Many scholars have now acknowledged that being perceived as either an insider or an outsider by research participants determines how research will proceed (Kusow, 2003; Matejskova, 2014; Moroşanu, 2015; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014).

Within the field of international migration studies, many qualitative scholars and researchers have argued that researchers’ perceived shared or unshared identities or characteristics with participants influence their insider/outsider positioning (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018). Some of the identities and characteristics include nationality, ethnicity, tribe, clan, religion, social class, language, racial identity, age, gender, educational level, marital status, political views, ability/disability, citizenship status etc. (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Decoo, 2022).

How research participants ³ perceive researchers as either insiders or outsiders affect whether researchers will be accepted or rejected by participants; and it also affects whether access and rapport will be easier or difficult to obtain (Crean, 2018). Researcher positionalities can also structure and inform the overall research process from the conceptualization stage, through data collection to the interpretation of data (Ryan, 2015). In other words, qualitative researchers’ perceived insider or outsider positionalities and subjectivities ⁴ tremendously colour and influence the whole research process and the resultant knowledge produced (Decoo, 2022; Ryan, 2015; Witcher, 2010).

Even though there is some tendency to believe that co-ethnic ⁵ or co-national ⁶ researchers have an advantage over non co-ethnic or non co-national researchers due to their presumed shared social identities with participants (Olson, 1977), many migration researchers have recently rejected this position (e.g., Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Decoo, 2022; Kusow, 2003; Moroşanu, 2015; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014). These researchers have argued that co-national/co-ethnic researchers’ perceived insiderness/outsiderness is not determined by their shared group identities. They argue that other identity markers and characteristics may also shape their insiderness or outsiderness during fieldwork encounters (Kusow, 2003; Moroşanu, 2015; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014).

For example, migration scholars suggest that researchers who do not share group identities with study participants might be positioned as insiders by participants depending on how they are perceived during fieldwork interactions (Keikelame, 2018; Pechurina, 2014). By contrast, co-ethnic or co-national researchers who share group identities with participants could be treated as outsiders by their co-national/co-ethnic participants due to a myriad of factors surfacing during field research encounters (Clingerman, 2007; Cukut-Krilic, 2011).

More recently, understandings of migrant researchers’ perceived insider/outsider positionalities as unfixed have prompted migration scholars to conceptualize researchers’ insider/outsider positionalities as fluid and situational rather than as stable formations (Keikelame, 2018; Pechurina, 2014; Ryan, 2015). Notions of insider/outsider positionalities are important for the field of international migration because they highlight and reveal the ways in which the research process is framed and shaped by how migration researchers are perceived and positioned by their research subjects (Crean, 2018). For example, some scholars suggest that being positioned and perceived as an insider by research participants tends to facilitate unhindered and smooth field research experiences (Crean, 2018).

A central conceptual component in analyzing insider/outsider positionalities is reflexivity, a concept that refers to how qualitative researchers self-reflect on the extent of their influence on the research process (Taylor, 2011; Van der Riet, 2012). Reflexivity is self-awareness and self-evaluation in relation to a researcher’s systems of thoughts, knowledge, philosophies, identities, characteristics, epistemologies, worldviews etc. and how such factors influence a study’s processes and outcomes (Edmonds-Cady, 2012; Eppley, 2006).

Researchers’ identities and subjectivities shape how they are positioned by participants and hence researchers use reflexivity to write about how such factors have influenced their research process (Crean, 2018; Edmonds-Cady, 2012; Ryan, 2015). The many authors cited in this paper have employed reflexivity to share their experiences of how they were perceived and positioned by research participants during their interactions in fieldwork. The scholars have also reported on the ways in which their perceived insider/outsider positionalities shaped and influenced the overall research process (e.g., Crean, 2018; Edmonds-Cady, 2012; Eppley, 2006).

Within this paper, I have also employed the practice of reflexivity to reflect on how I was perceived and positioned by my study participants during my fieldwork in Johannesburg, South Africa. Reflexivity helped me to be transparent about my experiences and interactions with study participants in relation to the concepts of insider/outsider positionalities and this practice gave rise to the construction of the three typologies proposed within this paper.

Using secondary literature and my own fieldwork encounters as sources of data, this paper contributes to theoretical and methodological debates on insider/outsider positionalities by proposing three typologies. Migration researchers may use the three typologies I developed as conceptual frameworks to analyze and interpret experiences of insider/outsider dynamics in their fieldwork experiences. The three typologies proposed for this paper are, presuming ethnic insiderness/outsiderness, presuming national insiderness/outsiderness and the indeterminate field work context. The term ‘indeterminate’ is here defined as a fieldwork that is unpredictable, dynamic and fluid. Drawing on these typological frames, I understand the insider/outsider dichotomy ⁷ in migration research as a false divide and a misguided binary system. I argue that the rigid and fixed insider/outsider binary should be dismantled and replaced with conceptualizations of insider/outsider positionalities as indeterminate, unpredictable and situationally-shaped. The main research question that frames this article is what meaningful typologies can be constructed from the literature on insider/outsider positionalities in migration research?

The focus of this paper, which is on the construction of insider/outsider typologies, is framed within the field of qualitative studies and analyses how insider/outsider dynamics fluidly play out within researcher-participant interactions such as in interviews and focus group discussions (Crean, 2018; Decoo, 2022). Qualitative research approaches that feature researcher-participant interactions and hence dynamics of insider/outsider positionalities include, phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, narrative research and oral history. Qualitative researchers who employ the above qualitative approaches may adopt the three typologies proposed within this paper to frame and analyze researcher positionalities in fieldwork encounters.

The contents within this article are organized as follows: first I will discuss different analytical concepts various researchers used to make sense of insider/outside positionalities, then an analysis of insider/outsider positionalities in migration studies will follow. Next, I will report on how I was perceived by research participants during my fieldwork encounters. This will be followed by an analysis and discussion of the three typologies developed for this paper namely presuming ethnic insiderness/outsiderness, presuming national insiderness/outsiderness and the indeterminate field research context. The last section concludes the paper.

Analytical Concepts for Insider/Outsider Positionalities in the Literature

Even though little work exists on typologies to capture insider/outsider dynamics, various researchers analyzing insider/outsider positionalities have developed interesting analytical concepts and categories to make sense of their insider/outsider experiences in fieldwork encounters (e.g., Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Decoo, 2022; Dwyer & Buckle, 2009; Gagan, 2020; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014; Taylor, 2011; Witcher, 2010). Most of these scholars critiqued conceptualizing insider/outsider positionalities as fixed categories shaped by fixed perceived social identities such as ethnicity or nationality. And these scholars have framed researcher insider/outsider positionalities as fluid, processual, dynamic and contextually informed.

For example, Nowicka and Cieslik (2014) used the concepts of ‘methodological nationalism’ and ‘dissonance’ to critique fixed and rigid understandings of insider/outsider researcher positions. Using the analytical term of methodological nationalism, they suggest that researchers who share nationality or national origin with research participants are not always embraced as insiders by participants. Employing the notion of dissonance, Nowicka and Cieslik (2014) argue that there is usually a contradiction between how researchers initially position themselves and how they are positioned in fieldwork situations by participants. Nowicka and Cieslik (2014) view category- or identity-based insider/outsider conceptualizations as a ‘container thinking’.

Similarly, Matejskova (2014) developed the analytical terms of ‘deep situationality’ and ‘interstitial spaces’ to frame insider/outsider researcher positionalities as temporarily constructed where situational factors shape researchers’ perceived postionalities. Particularly, using the term ‘deep situationality’, Matejskova (2014) rejects understandings of insider/outsider positionalities as formations determined by commonalities in fixed or seemingly stable identity categories between researchers and participants.

Nowicka and Ryan (2015) propose the analytical concept of ‘uncertainty’ to describe the uncertain and unpredictable positionality of co-ethnic or co-national migrants’ researchers even though they share nationalities or ethnicities with study participants. Nowicka and Ryan (2015) argue that besides shared ethnicity or nationality, other identity markers and situational factors tend to shape and inform insider/outsider positionalities of co-ethnic/co-national researchers.

Dwyer and Buckle (2009) challenge traditional understandings of insider/outsider researcher positionalities as mutually exclusive and instead conceptualize insider/outsider positionalities as ‘the space between’. Dwyer and Buckle (2009) understand the term ‘the space between’ as perceived positions of researchers in which researchers oscillate between insiders and outsiders in fieldwork encounters with study participants.

In his research work on military veterans, Davis (2018) suggests that he was perceived and positioned simultaneously as an insider and an outsider by his study participants. Davis (2018) proposed the analytical metaphor of ‘standing in the middle’ to explain the ways in which his insider/outsider positions were unstably shifting in the fieldwork situation. Davis (2018) also used the term ‘fluid’ to describe his unfixed perceived insider/outsider positionalities.

In her research study of Black Africans in South Africa, Keikelame (2018), a self-defined ‘Black African researcher’, proposed the metaphor of ‘The Tortoise under the couch’ to make sense of her shifting insider/outsider positionalities in the fieldwork encounters. Keikelame (2018) also employs the analytical concepts of ‘serendipity’ and ‘unexpectedness’ to describe the unexpected and surprising manifestations of her insider/outsider positionalities.

In her study of Black South African young mothers living with HIV AIDS, Adeagbo (2020), a non-South African Black female mother researcher, coined an analytical category of ‘outsider within’ to argue that even though her gender, race and motherhood positioned her as an insider, the sensitivity of the research topic, age and academic status made her to be perceived as an outsider.

Based on his field research experiences, Gagan (2020) developed an analytical concept which he termed ‘in-betweener’ to describe his insider/outsider positionalities as formations located on a continuum rather than existing as polar opposites or as a dichotomy. Gagan (2020) suggests that it is empirically inoperable and unrealistic to conceptualize insider/outsider researcher positionalities as fixedly mutually exclusive.

Yakushko et al. (2011) developed the concept of ‘insider outsider’ to argue that researchers’ shared identities with their participants does not always make them to be perceived as automatic insiders by their participants due to other factors arising during fieldwork encounters. They argue that a supposed insider researcher (e.g., due to shared nationality or ethnicity) should not consider their group identities as a ticket to their insiderness.

The above analytical categories and concepts situate insider/outsider researcher positionalities as unfixed and fluid constructions that emerge during fieldwork situations. The following section examines how migrant and migration researchers experienced insider/outsider positionalities in fieldwork interactions with research participants.

Insider/Outsider Positionalities in Migration Research

As Nowicka and Cieslik (2014) suggest, there is a widespread tendency among migration scholars and researchers to assume and frame identity categories such as nationality ⁸ , ethnicity, race, gender, class etc. as units of analysis when analyzing insider/outsider positionalities. On the other hand many migrant and migration scholars have also rejected group categories as the only determinants of researchers’ perceived insider/outsider positionalities (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Decoo, 2022; Kusow, 2003; Moroşanu, 2015; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014; Taylor, 2011; Witcher, 2010). Below, I discuss migration and migrant researchers who shared their experiences with perceived insider/outsider positionalities characterized by uncertainity, fluidity, unpredictability and contexuality.

Carling, a migration scholar of Norwegian origin defines outsiders as researchers who belong to the majority or host population doing research on migrant groups; while insiders are those who belong to migrant groups being studied (Carling, et al., 2014). Carling notes that in his study of Cape Verdeans migrants in the Netherlands, his positionality occupied a ‘third space’ because he was neither an insider (a member of a migrant group) nor an outsider (a member of the host society). At the same time, Carling intimates that he was viewed as an insider by his Cape Verdean research participants due to his fluency in Cape Verdean language (Kriolu) and Cape Verdean cultural knowledge (Carling, et al., 2014). The field research experience of Carling suggests that even though a researcher does not share ethno-national identities with their study participants, such dissimilarities in social categories do not automatically make researchers to be perceived as outsiders (Carling, et al., 2014).

Erdal, a Norwegian-speaking female of Polish background researcher found that in her research of South Asian migrants, she was regarded as an insider despite not sharing ethnic and national identities with her participants. Erdal noted that her South Asian migrants viewed her as an insider because of shared migration experiences with her participants (Carling, et al., 2014). But in her study of Polish immigrants, Erdal revealed that despite her shared ethno-national origin with her Polish migrants, they perceived her as an outsider due to cultural differences which reflected the Norwegian majority population (Carling, et al., 2014).

In her study of Tamil and Pakistani migrants, Erdal noted that despite not sharing nationality and ethnicity with her study participants, she was positioned as an insider by her Tamil and Pakistani participants due to experiences of motherhood with her participants (Carling, et al., 2014). In addition to shared motherhood with her participants, Erdal also suggested that due to her migration experiences, she was accepted and positioned as an insider by her Pakistani migrants in Norway. Shared religion also made insider positionality possible for Erdal because when she self-identified as Catholic, her Tamil participants, who were also Catholic, accepted her as an insider and it was easier for Erdal to gain trust and access among them.

When studying Muslim male migrants in Norway, Ezzati, a woman of Iranian background, was embraced as an insider by her Muslim participants because she looked Muslim even though she was not (Carling, et al., 2014). In her study of Iranian immigrants, however, Ezzati, despite her shared Iranian ethno-national identity with the participants, was perceived as an outsider by them due to her adopted Norwegian language and culture (Carling, et al., 2014). Ezzati’s study of Brazilian, Moroccan and Ukranian migrants living in Norway suggested that even though she did no share nationality or ethnicity with them she was perceived as an insider due to her non-White European physical appearance and migrant background (Carling, et al., 2014).

Dress code also informed insider positionality during field research encounters. For example, in her interview interactions with a Muslim Imam in Norway, Ezzati wore clothing that made her look a conservative Muslim woman and as a result she was able to gain easy access and rapport with her participant (Carling, et al., 2014). In another example, despite not sharing ethnic or national identity with his Cape Verdean research participants, Carling was perceived as an insider due to his clothing style that reflected the cultural tradition of his study participants (Carling, et al., 2014).

In her study of White Irish migrants in the UK, Ryan (2015), a White Irish herself, reveals that despite sharing nationality and race with her participants, her age and gender shaped how she was positioned by her Irish co-nationals (Ryan, 2015). Ryan notes that shared ethnicity or nationality do not automatically position researchers as insiders or outsiders; instead other characteristics and situational factors inform researchers’ positionalities (Ryan, 2015).

In another study of Romanian migrants in the UK, Moroşanu (2015), a migration researcher of Romanian origin, reports that even though she shared nationality and language with her participants, she was not positioned as an insider by her study participants. Moroşanu (2015) explains that due to unforeseen factors such as her gender and educational background, she was perceived as an outsider.

In his study of Somali migrants in the US, Kusow (2003), a Somali-American scholar reports that his positionalities were shaped during fieldwork encounters with his co-national participants rather than his shared fixed identities such as Somali nationality, Muslim religion or Somali language. Kusow (2003) noted that he experienced challenges with access and rapport among his female participants due to cultural factors. Kusow (2003) argues that shared social identities such as nationality or national origin do not make co-national or co-ethnic migrant researchers automatic insiders.

A migration scholar, Bott (2010), relates that in her study of British migrants in Spain, she found that though she shared British nationality with her Black participants, she was perceived as an outsider due to her White racial identity. She also noted that in her study of female British migrants in Spain, she was positioned as an outsider due to other factors such as her age and her social class as an academic (Bott, 2010).

The above literature suggests that social categories such as ethnicity or nationality do not pre-determine migrant researchers’ perceived insider or outsider positionalities; on the contrary, contextual elements and characteristics that manifest during researcher-participant interactions in fieldwork tend to shape how researchers are viewed by research participants. As the above examples also illustrate, the fieldwork situation was experienced by the researchers as indeterminate, unpredictable and fluid where researchers’ preconceptions or predictions about their perceived insider/outsider positionalities were challenged and even contradicted. For example, even though many of the researchers entered the fieldwork with some convictions about their insider/outsider positionalities due to commonalities or dissimilarities in identity categories with research participants, contextual factors determined and informed their perceived positionalities. The present paper is an attempt to contribute to these debates and researchers’ experiences by developing typologies which migration researchers can employ when analyzing insider/outsider positionalities in fieldwork situations. Below, I share my own fieldwork experiences as a non-South African researcher conducting research on South African Coloured people in Johannesburg, South Africa.

My Own Fieldwork Encounters

My Expected Positionality before the Fieldwork

Before I met and interacted with the research participants, I anticipated that I would automatically be regarded as an ‘outsider’ due to my background. In the year 2021, I embarked on a research study on Coloured ⁹ community in Westbury suburb, Johannesburg, South Africa, focusing on their perceived racial marginalization under the Black-majority rule. I am a non-South African academic living in South Africa. My non-South African name and surname, inability to speak any of the South African indigenous languages ¹⁰ , my English accent, non-South African citizenship and my physical appearance signify my foreign origin.

Before I interacted with the participants, I believed that in addition to the above markers which I thought would position me as an outsider, my unfamiliarity with Westbury community would make it difficult to establish trust and create rapport. In addition to not visiting Westbury, I also have never been to any so-called Coloured areas in South Africa. And as a result, I did not have any insider knowledge of the lived experiences and cultural worlds of Coloured people in South Africa. I was a stranger to the Coloured research participants in Westbury. Taking into account the fact that I was a non-South African and non-Coloured who does not speak Afrikaans ¹¹ , I entered the fieldwork seeing myself as an outsider.

Therefore, due to the above markers that signified me as a foreigner, prior to interacting with the participants, I had an expectation that I would be perceived and positioned as an outsider. I anticipated that I would experience difficulty gaining access and building rapport with the research participants. I surmised that because I was not a South African citizen, a non-Coloured and a Makwerekwere, ¹² I would be automatically unwelcome by the research participants. My fears that I would be unwelcome by the participants was based on how we Black ¹³ African foreigners living in South Africa experience everyday xenophobia, discrimination, hate and prejudice by many South Africans. There is widespread anti-Black and anti-foreigner sentiment and violence in South Africa and xenophobia is not only prevalent among ordinary South Africans but also among many public officials. Xenophobia is a pervasive and recurrent problem in post-Apartheid South Africa targeting largely Black African migrants. It was in light of widespread societal xenophobia in South Africa that I thought that I might not be welcome among the South African research participants. I even thought that as South Africans, the participants would refuse to share their experiences with a foreign researcher.

However, my fears and suspicions were challenged when I met and interacted with the research participants in Westbury, Johannesburg. Even though I anticipated that I would automatically be regarded and positioned as an outsider by the study participants, I was embraced and warmly welcome by the research participants during our interactions.

My Encounter With Research Participants

When I met and interacted with the research participants, I found out that my foreign origin and non-Coloured identity were not viewed as problematic by the research participants. Even though I had feared that due to rampant societal xenophobia, I would have difficulty with access and rapport, the fieldwork experiences were positive, contrary to my expectations. Expected issues with trust, access and rapport were resolved by an academic colleague who facilitated contact between myself and the research participants. The academic colleague who worked at my University and who was also known to my study participants and the community in Westbury agreed to introduce me to the community leaders, who were the gate keepers, and other study participants in Westbury. The colleague assured me that based on her experiences, the community leaders were friendly and would help in participant recruitment and that I should not be concerned about access and rapport.

The colleague contacted the community leaders in Westbury and explained to them about the main purpose of my research study which was to explore experiences of racial marginalization ¹⁴ of Coloured people in Westbury, Johannesburg. The community leaders and other members of the Westbury community then told the colleague that they were willing to meet with me and be interviewed. The colleague provided me with the phone numbers of the community leaders and advised that I contact them to make an appointment to meet.

I then telephoned the community leaders and introduced myself and the topic of my research study in detail. The community leaders were welcoming and promised that they would speak to members of the community and ask potential participants if they would be willing to participate in the study. Through the help of the community leaders, recruitment of other participants was possible. The community leaders also formed part of the research participants. The community leaders then advised that I come to Westbury to start with the interviews.

When I met the participants in Westbury, I was warmly received as a welcome guest and was briefed about Westbury and the many challenges faced by the community. The participants repeatedly told me that I should feel at home and be comfortable. The community leaders and other research participants were curious to know about me and asked me about where I came from, how long I had stayed in South Africa, how I found South Africa and other questions to make me feel comfortable. One of the community leaders, a female, played a great role in the recruitment of research participants from Westbury. Another male community leader drove me around Westbury in his car to familiarize me with the geographic setting and telling me about the history of the area and its people. The research participants reiterated and assured me that they regarded me not as a foreign national but as one of them and an African brother and that I should be comfortable around them.

In my interactions with the study participants, since the participants knew that I was not a South African researcher, I noticed from their body language and their words that they did their best to make me feel comfortable, relaxed and at home. As I have stated above, the cooperation and hospitality I received from the participants was something I did not foresee and anticipate. Some of the research participants invoked our shared continental ‘African’ identity to emphasize our unifying African commonality over other markers that separated us such as nationality, ethnicity or racial identity. One woman particularly said, ‘Your being a non-South African does not matter as we are all Africans’. The friendly facial expressions and smiles of my interviewees made me feel not only comfortable but also that I was part of the community. I did not feel an outsider because my interviewees did not consider and treat me as an outsider. None of my interviewees expressed any negative or xenophobic attitude towards me. A majority of my interviewees told me that they viewed me as one of them and not as a foreigner or an outsider. And such welcoming comments were extremely reassuring to me and allayed my prior fears and suspicions.

The warm and welcoming reception I received from my research participants broke down my prior subconscious characterization of South Africans as xenophobic and further made me realize that our common humanity superseded identity categories that separated us. As I have stated above, I had previously assumed that my foreign origin and non-South African citizenship status would automatically position me as an outsider and hence could experience difficulty in gaining access and building rapport. This suspicion was, however, challenged in the context of my interactions with the participants. To reiterate, in my interview encounters with participants, I was treated and positioned not as an outsider but as a welcome guest insider and received excessive hospitality and cooperation: I was not made to feel an outsider. As a non-South African researcher conducting research on members of the host society, I did not encounter problems with access and rapport despite not sharing nationality, ethnicity, language or race with the research participants.

My fieldwork experiences with Coloured South Africans in Westbury illustrates that not sharing ethnicity such as Afrikaans language, Coloured race, Coloured culture or nationality (South African identity) did not position me as an outsider by my participants. During the fieldwork interview encounters between myself (a foreign academic) and the participants (South African citizens), citizenship status or racial identity did not matter; instead, our common humanity and common African identity unified us. My experience with the research participants illustrates that even though I had preconceptions about my expected positionality (an outsider), the fieldwork situation presented itself as an indeterminate field or space where unanticipated factors informed my insider/outsider positionalities than commonalities or dissimilarities of identity categories.

Below, based on secondary literature and my personal experiences I outlined above, I formulate three typologies to capture dynamics of insider/outsider positionalities experienced by migration researchers before and during fieldwork situations. The first typology named presuming ethnic insiderness/outsiderness suggests that prior to interactions in the fieldwork, researchers tend to presume that their ethnic, racial, tribal, clan-based, religious, linguistics commonalities/dissimilarities with their participants determine their insiderness or outsiderness. The second typology named presuming national insiderness/outsiderness proposes that prior to interactions with participants in the fieldwork, researchers perceive nationality/national-origin commonalities/dissimilarities with research participants inform their perceived insider or outsider positionalities. The third typology named the indeterminate fieldwork context, postulates that insider/outsider researcher positionalities unpredictably manifest during fieldwork situations rather than as a result of fixed identity categories such as nationality or ethnicity.

Presuming Ethnic Insiderness/Outsiderness

Prior to entering the fieldwork, many of us qualitative researchers and particularly those of us who are migrant researchers may assume and take-for-granted that our common ethnic, cultural, linguistic, racial, tribal or clan backgrounds would automatically make us insiders (Moroşanu, 2015). For example, a migrant researcher of Kembata ethnicity (an Ethiopian ethnic group) conducting a study among ethnic Kembata migrants living in South Africa might automatically assume that their shared Kembata ethnicity would make gaining access and rapport easier.

The same researcher might also assume that their linguistic and cultural commonalities with the participants would render them automatic insiders. Here, shared values, practices, mores, histories, worldviews and customs associated with the Kembata ethnic group are viewed as markers of one’s insiderness (Crean, 2018).

Let’s take another dimension of ethnic identity which is ethno-racial identity. Ethno-racial identity here describes groups of people classified along general phenotypic characteristics who also share other attributes such as experiences of racial discrimination and marginalization. For example, in the racially stratified American society, an African migrant researcher conducting research among African-American participants might assume that their shared racial identity and common experiences of racial discrimination would make them automatic insiders. On the other hand, a White migrant researcher in the US conducting a study on African-Americans might subconsciously assume that their racial status as a White researcher would make access and rapport difficult to obtain due to racial differences.

The effects of ethno-racial commonalities or dissimilarities on a migrant researcher’s perceived insiderness or outsiderness surfaced in my field research encounters in South Africa before interacting in the fieldwork with Coloured participants. Before entering the fieldwork, I presumed that because I did not belong to the Coloured racial group in South Africa, I would experience difficulty with access and rapport. Some qualitative researchers have noted that ethno-racial based presumptions of insiderness/outsiderness are one of the factors that shape perceived insider/outsider positionalities in migration research (Fletcher, 2014).

Migrant researchers coming from religiously organized social systems may view their religious identity as a dominant and powerful factor in shaping perceived insiderness/outsiderness when conducting a study on migrants with similar or different religious identities. Despite sharing nationality or national origin, religious differences might be seen as a dividing factor by researchers. A Hindu migrant researcher of Indian origin in the US conducting research on Hindu migrants (from India) might perceive their insiderness positionality as a given or advantageous as opposed to if their participants were Muslim Indians.

Ethnicity-based presumptions of insider/outsider researcher positionalities operate as sub-national forms of perceptions where, for example, researchers’ shared national identity with participants are trumped by differences in sub-national ethnic differences. Even though a migrant researcher and their study participants share national-origin based identity, they might not share an ethnic group within the broader nationality-based identity. Just because a researcher and their study participants share (or do not share) a national identity, does not mean that their perceived insider/outsider positionalities are predetermined as ‘insiders’. There are numerous sub-national systems of self-identifications such as clan, tribe, race, caste, region, ethnicity, language and religion that also shape how migrant researchers perceive themselves regarding their insider or outsider positionalities (Wray & Bartholomew, 2019).

A sense of ethnic identification may also function beyond national boundaries where boundary-transcending social identity markers such as religion and ethno-linguistic social identity markers operate as unifying identificational forces. Therefore, a sense of group commonalities at the global/international can occur for researchers conducting research on religiously and ethno-linguistically affiliated participants despite differences in national origins. A Tanzanian Muslim researcher might feel a sense of insiderness when conducting a study on Kenyan Muslim research participants when the topic of research is focused on Islamic practices even though they do not share national identity.

Researchers may also feel a sense of shared identity based on ethno-linguistics even though they do not share nationality or national origin. For example, in diasporic settings, migrant researchers of the Kunama ethno-linguistic group in Eritrea may feel a sense of insider positionality when researching Kunama Ethiopians. Or a migrant researcher in the UK of an Ethiopian Afar ethno-linguistic group may perceive themselves as insiders when conducting research on Eritrean Afar migrants residing in the UK.

As the above actual and hypothetical examples suggest, therefore, ethnicity as a unit of analysis needs to be treated distinct from the unit of analysis of nationality or national origin when analyzing insider/outsider positions due to its complex and multidimensional characteristics. Also as the above examples illustrate that shared ethnicity may be seen as a more prominent and significant factor than shared nationality when considerations of insider/outsider positionalities are taken into account in the context of migration.

Presuming National Insiderness/Outsiderness

Similar to ethnicity, nationality or national-origin based factors may also be viewed as important considerations in researchers’ perceptions of their insiderness or outsiderness. Here the concepts national, nationality or national-origin point to social identities based on territorially-framed political formations such as Sudan, China, Germany, Brazil and so on. Such nations constitute within them numerous sub-national social categories such as culture, ancestry, region, language, religion, social class, race, culture, caste, tribe, clan, custom and so on. Therefore, the term ‘nationality’ refers to a supra-ethnic form of self-identification or category of classification.

Before entering the fieldwork and interacting with research participants, qualitative migrant researchers might assume that their shared nationality or national-origin with research participants would automatically allow them to be perceived as insiders (Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014). For example, a Kenyan migrant researcher conducting research on Kenyan migrants in the US might immediately assume that their shared nationality as Kenyan would make her/him an automatic insider. The Kenyan researcher may then assume that they can gain easy access and build smooth rapport with their study participants due to their shared national identity as Kenyan (Clingerman, 2007; Cukut-Krilic, 2011).

On the other hand, before entering the field research, migrant researchers whose participants do not share nationality or national origin with the researcher might automatically assume that they might be viewed as outsiders and could experience problems linked to access and rapport (Cukut-Krilic, 2011). Within the field of international migration, many migrant researchers initially assumed that they would be regarded as insiders by their co-national participants prior to the fieldwork interactional context (e.g., Bott, 2010; Kusow, 2003; Moroşanu, 2015).

Let’s present a pertinent hypothetical example: A migrant researcher of Ethiopian origin residing in Canada and conducting a study on Brazilian migrants may presume that they would be viewed as an outsider by their Brazilian research participants due to differences in national origin. A migrant researcher from China residing in the UK might assume that they could have difficulty recruiting research participants from Nigeria due to differences in national origin. In migration research, therefore, commonalities or differences in nationality or national origin between migrant researchers and research participants play a significant mediating role in informing researchers’ presumptions of their insider or outsider positionalities.

Differences in nationality and national-origin and the ways in which such social identities intersect with researchers’ presumptions of perceived insider/outsider positionalities was also apparent in my own fieldwork experiences in Johannesburg, South Africa. Before I met and interacted with Coloured South Africans, I had assumed that due to my non-South African status, I would be positioned as an outsider by the research participants. It was due to this perception that I decided to approach the study participants through a South African academic colleague to facilitate access and rapport with the study participants and attenuate being perceived as an outsider.

However, as I will argue in the next section, in fieldwork encounters, migrant researchers’ presumptions of their insider or outsider positionalities prior to interacting with participants tends to be challenged by situational factors during fieldwork. The next section discusses the unpredictable and indeterminate nature of the fieldwork context in which insider/outsider positionalities are shaped by unforeseen factors during actual field research interactions between researchers and research participants.

The Indeterminate Fieldwork Context

The third part of the typological complex which I term the indeterminate fieldwork context describes a fieldwork situation in which insider/outsider positionalities of migrant researchers tend to be situationally shaped, unpredictable, contextual and uncertain (Berger, 2015; Crean, 2018).

The indeterminate fieldwork context suggests that co-ethnic/co-national migrant researchers should not presume that their shared nationality and ethnicity with study participants would automatically make them insiders. This is because there are numerous situational factors that can make their presumed insider/outsider positionality questionable and problematic.

The term indeterminate fieldwork context supports and enriches related analytical concepts and idioms proposed by other migration scholars such as Nowicka and Cieslik’s (2014) metaphor of ‘methodological nationalism’, Nowicka and Ryan’s (2015) ‘uncertainty’, Dwyer and Buckle’s (2009) ‘the space between’, Flores (2018) ‘standing in the middle’, Adeagbo’s (2020) ‘outside within’, Gagan’s (2020) ‘in-betweener’ and Yakushko et al.’s (2011) ‘insider outsider’. These scholars developed such analytical terms to emphasize the uncertain, unpredictable, fluid, shifting, situational and undetermined nature of insider/outsider researcher positionalities in migrations research and the field of qualitative research more generally.

Migrant researchers who do not share ethnicity or nationality with study participants also should not take their supposed outsider positionality as hampering access to and rapport with study participants as other unexpected and situational factors could position them as insiders (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Ryan, 2015; Taylor, 2011). As noted above, the fieldwork situation in research is more fluid and contingent on various contextual factors and hence not sharing a social identity with research participants does not make one an automatic outsider (Crean, 2018).

The word indeterminate here suggest that migrant researchers’ insider/outsider positionalities should not be conceptualized as predetermined, unchanged or fixed formations but as perceived positions that come into being in the context of interactions between a researcher and participants. Most researchers, therefore, should enter the fieldwork without being certain how they would be positioned and perceived by their research participants as their insider/outsider positionalities tend to manifest during fieldwork interactions (Bourke, 2014; Crean, 2018).

Many migrant researchers and scholars have also noted that in their fieldwork experiences, they found their insider/outsider positionalities to be indeterminate and contextually shaped (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014). Researchers suggest that in regards to insider/outsider researcher positionalities, the fieldwork determines and informs in unexpected and surprising ways how they were perceived by participants (Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018). Such scholars denounce insider/outsider positionalities as fixed formations but as contextually contingent and dynamic phenomena that oscillate and change throughout researcher-participant encounters (Crean, 2018; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014).

For example, despite shared nationality, some migrant researchers were perceived and positioned as outsiders by participants while other researchers who did not share nationality were interpreted and positioned as insiders by participant during fieldwork encounters (e.g., Camenisch, 2022; Crean, 2018; Nowicka & Cieslik, 2014; Nowicka & Ryan, 2015; Taylor 2011). Such scholars suggest that due to various unexpected situational factors, their insider/outsider positionalities manifested in unpredictable and complex ways.

The indeterminate, unpredictable and situational character of insider/outsider positionalities was also evident in my own fieldwork experiences with Coloured South Africans in Johannesburg. Even though I did not share nationality, race, ethnicity, language, citizenship status and experiences with my research participants, contrary to my pre-encounter expectations, I was positioned as a welcome guest insider. To reiterate, my foreign origin and citizenship status did not compromise access or rapport with my participants. My positionality emerged during the actual fieldwork encounters and interactions with research participants rather than existing as fixed and pre-determined.

Migration or migrant researchers writing about their experiences of insider/outsider positionalities may apply the analytical concept of ‘indeterminate fieldwork context’ to make sense of their unpredictable and unforeseeable positionalities in actual fieldwork encounters (Beals, et al., 2020; Ryan, 2015).

I hope the three interrelated components of the proposed typology complex discussed above will be useful analytical tools for migrant and migration scholars who analyze dynamics of their insider/outsider positionalities. Researchers may also apply the typologies proposed within this paper alongside other relevant analytical concepts to enrich and capture the complex ways in which researchers’ insider/outsider positionalities express themselves during researcher-participant encounters and interactions.

Conclusion

More recently in the field of migration studies, many scholars have noted the fluid and unpredictable nature of insider/outsider researcher positionalities and that commonalities or differences in nationality or other identities do not automatically position researchers as either insiders or outsiders. However, migration researchers have rarely proposed typologies in regards to insider/outsider positionalities as tools for migration scholars to apply.

This paper contributes to methodological debates on insider/outsider researcher positionalities in the field of international migration studies and other fields in the social sciences and humanities by proposing three typologies namely presuming ethnic insiderness/outsiderness, presuming national insiderness/outsiderness, indeterminate field work context. Based on these typological frames, I suggest that migration scholars should move beyond thinking of commonalities or differences in social identities such as nationality and ethnicity as predicting a researcher’s insiderness or outsiderness. This paper conceptualizes migrant researchers’ perceived insider/outsider positionalities not as pre-determined and fixed formations but as uncertain and situationally constituted manifestations.

Beyond the field of international migration, the typologies proposed within this paper can be utilized and applied by other scholars in various field of research located within various disciplines and fields where researcher-participant interactions occur within the fieldwork context. For example, during on-on-one interviews, where researchers and study participants share or do not share social identities such as ethnicity or nationality, researchers belonging to any scholarly field may apply the typologies proposed in this paper

Researchers and scholars, therefore, may apply the three analytical typologies to account for and make sense of their situationally and contextually shaped perceived insider/outsider researcher positionalities in fieldwork encounters with study participants. Future studies may develop alternative analytical categories or typological frames that reflect their specific insider/outsider experiences in the fieldwork. The typological frames proposed within this paper are broad categories of analysis and that more specific typological categories that reflect specific empirical experiences are needed to enrich the extant theoretical/conceptual literature on insider/outsider positionalities in migration studies and beyond.