Reflexive Researcher: Navigating Positionality While Interviewing Participants in a Close-Knit Community for a Deeper Exploration of Their Lived Experiences

Abstract

The positionality of a researcher influences the research design, data collection, interpretation, and analysis. However, managing positionality shift is complex as the boundary between researcher and participants is fluid. Drawing on an autoethnographic approach, this paper discusses my experiences using reflexivity in managing positionality shifts while conducting interviews in my close-knit community as part of the qualitative methods for my PhD research project. The PhD project assesses the impact of COVID-19 on social, economic, physical, and psychological well-being in Bhutan. It is based on a mixed-method convergent design within which the interviews were included to gather qualitative data from 52 key informants in Bhutan for a comprehensive understanding of their lived experiences. Insights drawn from the experiences of interviewing participants showed that the researcher’s positionality, even if they belong to a close-knit community, shifts between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ statuses depending on the context. Complex and multiple social dimensions shape the decisions of participants to situate a researcher’s positionality, which impacts the research uniquely and unexpectedly, especially in data collection and interpretation. The reflection underscores the significance of reflexivity as a tool to navigate positionality tensions in managing ethical rigour, enhancing cultural and contextual sensitivity, and practising agility to foster trust in gathering authentic insights. Reflexivity also enhances the transparency of the qualitative methods to ensure credible and in-depth data for the phenomenon under investigation. The paper also aims to benefit qualitative researchers in managing positionality shifts with fluid boundaries between the researcher and participants while exploring deeper meanings of participants’ lived experiences.

Introduction

A researcher’s positionality refers to the researcher’s ‘assumptions’ regarding their situatedness in relation to the research participants (Wilson et al., 2022) and the research itself (Bulk & Collins, 2023). Positionality can be insider or outsider. An insider researcher refers to those who belong to the group they study (Breen, 2007, p. 167) and share similar backgrounds (Porisky & Glas, 2022). In contrast, the outsider researcher is not a member of the self-defined groups they study (Breen, 2007, p. 167) and does not share a similar background (Porisky & Glas, 2022). The background of the researcher and participants can be shaped by political, social, and ideological assumptions (Carter et al., 2014), location, ethnicity (Jacobson & Mustafa, 2019), gender, age, social class, economic status (Milner IV, 2007; Muntinga & Duijs, 2021), privileges (Bourdon, 2022) and power dynamics (Chin et al., 2022). In addition, researchers’ background is shaped by other implicit assumptions and unexamined dimensions such as personal experiences, political views and professional beliefs (Berger, 2013). Thus, necessitating comprehension of factors shaping positionality beyond the overt facets of backgrounds.

Scholars argue that the researcher’s background, which shapes positionality, has a significant impact on the research approach, interpretation of data, and the entire research process (Bourdon, 2022; Holmes, 2020; Kham, 2024; Wilson et al., 2022), including research methods, questions, and participant identification (Fenge et al., 2019). Since qualitative data represents situated knowledge (Kaaristo, 2022, p. 744), researchers need to be cognizant of the influence of positionality on findings and the nature of interpretation (Bukamal, 2022; Goundar, 2025). Each position, however, influences research in distinct ways. Fleming (2018) conducted a study as an insider researcher on work-integrated learning research and observed better access to and rapport with participants, the ability to draw deeper understandings during interviews, and access to inside knowledge. However, the complexities, judgment and emotional flurry that occur challenge insider researchers in unique and unexpected ways (Bulk & Collins, 2023). On the other hand, outsider researchers may have an opportunity to critically assess information as they are detached from the norms and assumptions of the group (Porisky & Glas, 2022) and get meaningful discussions that may not be offered to insiders (Porisky & Glas, 2022). Yet, they should not be too far removed from the group as they can be viewed suspiciously (Liu & Burnett, 2022) and face issues in gaining the trust and confidence of the participants (Fleming, 2018), resulting in limited access to information and constrained interpretations (Porisky & Glas, 2022) because of being oblivious to the local experiences and knowledge.

Positionality is, however, an inevitable and constitutive element of all research (Wilson et al., 2022), which must be acknowledged (Holmes, 2020). It is fluid and can shift between insider and outsider (Baily, 2025; Swyer & Buckle, 2009) depending on the context and how participants perceive researchers’ identity and role (Bayeck, 2022). This brings the discussion to the concept of relational understanding of positionality, where the positionality of both participants and researchers (Milner IV, 2007), and the nature of interaction between researcher and participants (Bayeck, 2022; Kamlongera, 2021), shape the approach of inquiry to understand how knowledge and experiences are situated (Reich, 2021).

The influence of positionality on research is understood through reflexivity (Bourdon, 2022), where the researcher engages in observing oneself-observing (Bochner & Ellis, 2016), including the use of the standpoint of others (Poole & Germov, 2023, p. 6). It involves reflection of the self as a researcher as well as that of the research participants (Milner IV, 2007), because knowing both self and other becomes integral to self-understanding (Bayeck, 2022; Carter et al., 2014). This process offers the researcher the opportunity to distance themselves from the predetermined theoretical categorisation that influences their worldviews (Carstensen-Egwuom, 2014) and engage in questioning the assumptions to address these complexities (Wilson et al., 2022). Thus, allowing room for new insights (Bochner & Ellis, 2016). In short, reflexivity refers to self-awareness and critically examining the researcher’s positionality in the context of research (Johnson et al., 2020) and in relation to participants (Lian, 2019), while identifying strategies to address issues related to the researcher’s roles (Wilson et al., 2022) and the sensitivity of research topics or questions (Karcher et al., 2024). Addressing positionality through reflexivity can enhance the researcher’s ability to explore the depth of participants’ lived experiences, understand the life context that supports humanistic interpretation (Bochner & Ellis, 2016) and prevent emotional distancing from participants.

Distance from participants can also be influenced by identity complexity, which results from the interaction of various identity categories, such as race, class, gender, and socioeconomic status (Crenshaw, 1989). These categories become intertwined, forming an intersectional identity that leads to unique and varied experiences for each individual (Wyatt et al., 2022) and creates a sense of oppression or privilege (Crenshaw, 1991). Therefore, researchers need to be reflexive about the role of power in the research process (Reich, 2021) due to its influence on researcher vulnerability and epistemic authority of participants (Raheim et al., 2016). To achieve this, intersectionality can be used as a tool to examine how power and social structures (e.g., education, profession, and socio-economic status) shape and influence intersectional identities (Wyatt et al., 2022), which requires attending to the participants’ context for reflexivity (Wyatt et al., 2022). It helps identify detailed categories that shape identities, allowing reflexivity to enhance open and honest discussion.

Reflection on positionality is also key to embracing the role of a researcher in collecting, analysing and interpreting data (Baily, 2025) and maintaining a transparent account (Moravcsik, 2019; Niu, 2024). The transparency on positionality enables a researcher to critically assess their own roles in ensuring a trustworthy practice (Fleming, 2018) and credible work (Secules et al., 2021). Therefore, social science researchers (including master’s and PhD students) are often made to assess their positionality (Beigi, 2025; Goundar, 2025; Holmes, 2020) to examine their situated, fluctuating and felt experiences in a transparent manner.

Accordingly, this paper aims to explore these complexities through accounts of my positionality to understand its potential influence on the qualitative method of my PhD research, which involved interviewing 52 key informants in Bhutan - a small and close-knit community (Kuensel, 2018). My PhD research is based on a mixed-methods convergent design that integrates qualitative and quantitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact of COVID-19 in Bhutan on economic, social, physical, and psychological well-being. Since the mixed methods approach applies to my broader PhD project, in this paper, I focus my discussion on key informant interviews to collect my qualitative data. While I approached the interviews as an insider researcher, the participants attributed a different research role to me based on multiple social dimensions. The paper discusses my experience in practising reflexivity to navigate these complex positionality shifts and understand their impact on the research, especially on data collection and interpretation. The reflection commences by outlining methods and delving into personal experiences and insights as part of the findings. This paper presents a detailed reflection on the use of reflexivity (in a close-knit community setting) to manage positionality shifts due to fluid boundaries between researcher and participants (Baily, 2025) during interviews, which were conducted to explore the deeper meanings of participants’ lived experiences, and to ensure ethical rigour.

Methodology

This paper is part of my broader PhD research, which aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of people in Bhutan. More specifically, the PhD research explores the extent of impacts on well-being, assessment of response strategies, and identification of recommendations to improve policies and practices in the post-pandemic era based on lessons learned from the pandemic experiences.

The broader methodological design of the PhD is based on the mixed-methods convergent design, where qualitative and quantitative data collected from different sources are corroborated for analysis and discussion (Sharma et al., 2023). Within the qualitative methods, data were identified from four different sources: key informant interviews, news archives, scholarly outputs, and government documents. To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of findings, the rigour and credibility of data collected from each source have to be ensured (Alele & Malau-Aduli, 2023).

I approached key informant interviews using the autoethnographic research method to manage positionality while collecting and interpreting interview data. It involved a deeper reflection of my personal experiences (Jensen-Hart & Williams, 2010) when engaging with 52 key informants (who played active roles in the fight against COVID-19 in Bhutan) to explore their lived experiences. Reflexivity as a tool to practice positionality was identified because researchers become an integral part of the research instrument to reflect their pragmatic stance while (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022) conducting qualitative research, including interviews (Muthanna & Alduais, 2023). It also enhances the rigour of qualitative research (Sveinson et al., 2025).

Key informants refer to those who have a comparatively high level of insight into issues under study (Pahwa et al., 2023). Therefore, participants (key informants) were recruited through purposive sampling by identifying only those who were working for more than five years in the most disrupted sectors such as economy, education, governance, health, and psycho-social spaces. Selection criteria also included individuals actively involved in the formulation or implementation of the pandemic response strategies. The participant selection process was carefully designed to ensure balanced representation across regional, sectoral and gender demographics. Participants included politicians, bureaucrats, corporate executives, law enforcement officials, NGO officials, university executives and lecturers, teachers, medical experts, counsellors, and local government leaders who were actively involved in the management of the crisis across the country. Interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams between September 2023 and May 2024, with each session taking approximately 60 minutes. It was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews to share the lived experiences of the participants. The transcription function was enabled, and sessions were recorded, with the consent of the participants, to ensure the quality of transcription and analysis (McMullin, 2023). Ethics Approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee prior to commencement of the study.

The sensitivity of the research questions was evaluated at the outset, with careful consideration given to how this might influence on participant dialogue and the overall quality of the data collected. The research questions exploring the impact of the pandemic on well-being were deemed multifaceted, involving new and conflicting evidence (Vickery et al., 2022) coupled with the pressure to make speedy decisions while managing the crisis (Brubacher et al., 2024; Khalid et al., 2023). All these phenomena affected the transparency and quality of policy decisions (Vickery et al., 2022), which could prohibit participants from sharing their experiences openly. It also included the potential risk of eliciting strong emotions among participants when recalling past experiences (Sanjari et al., 2014) who dealt with issues of isolation, mental health problems, social breakdown, domestic violence, health issues and depression (Tremblay et al., 2021). Therefore, preparatory strategies were identified, such as reflexive journaling (Karcher et al., 2024) for the researcher and providing referral resources for participants (Whitney & Evered, 2022, p. 3) with contact details for professional support. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring their anonymity and the confidentiality of their responses to encourage open and honest responses (Allmark et al., 2009; Badampudi et al., 2022; Newman et al., 2021) and with options to opt out (Nii Laryeafio & Ogbewe, 2023) when they find it difficult to continue.

The key informant interviews are considered effective in obtaining the key knowledge, specialised information, relevant experiences and insider insights (Lanfer et al., 2024; Lokot, 2021; Pahwa et al., 2023) that are crucial to the topic under investigation. However, it involves inherent sensitivity due to power and privilege held by the key informants (Lokot, 2021; Pahwa et al., 2023) and practical adaptability issues in the engagement of busy participants (Lanfer et al., 2024). It thereby necessitated me, as the researcher, to critically reflect on the power and privilege of the key informants (Lokot, 2021) through transparent reporting (Pahwa et al., 2023, p. 1253) to acknowledge factors that may influence data collection and subsequent interpretation.

The autoethnographic research method also involved critical self-reflexivity, which requires researchers to assess and acquire knowledge of their self-background (Yip, 2024). Carter et al. (2014, p. 362) assert that “researchers need to begin with their own story as they seek to understand the stories of others”. It is also argued that “you have to position yourself somewhere in order to say anything at all” (Hall, 1990, p. 88 as cited in Kham, 2024, p. (2) or to take a stand. Rigorous analysis to know about the self as an interviewer is also crucial in getting the respondents to disclose their deep experiences and feelings (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Accordingly, I assessed my situatedness in relation to the participants, with the outcome outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

My Background as an ‘Insider’ Researcher

Based on the above self-knowledge, I felt well-positioned to prepare for an in-depth exploration of culture and issues the participants may raise, which, according to Fleming (2018) is deemed an insider researcher. Furthermore, I believed that the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity would help me secure deep personal experiences (Dougherty, 2021, p. 481) as participants could relate to me well and feel comfortable sharing their opinions and thoughts. However, I was also prepared should some participants consider me an outsider researcher based on gender, ideology, age, and location of my current residence.

Building on this self-background, I reflected on my positionality by using what is called ‘emotional recall'— recollecting emotional moments based on detailed accounts of my experiences engaging with participants during interviews (Bochner & Ellis, 2016). Interview transcripts were used as a stimulus for reflexive analysis. Records of perceptions and emotional journeys during data collection complemented these transcripts. I employed reflexive thematic analysis (Byrne, 2021) of the interview transcripts to organise the discussion points.

My Experience and Findings

While assessing the relationship between me as a researcher and the participants, I realised that, as expected, many considered me an insider researcher. The participants shared information with resonance and ease. However, some of the participants were candid enough to make me think that I was an outsider researcher with subtle differences in our backgrounds. I, therefore, saw myself traversing between insider-outsider positionality with varying experiences, as discussed in the following.

Navigating the Complexities of an Insider Researcher

As expected, many participants showcased trust, rapport and cultural alignment with me, which led me to reflect on three key areas:

Firstly, participants were open enough to share unfiltered information, including data that they felt were sensitive to disclose. Three of them expressed that they were sharing all classified information, and I, as the researcher, should handle the information sensibly.

“I am sharing all the sensitive information of my country, and I am leaving it to you to make good use of it” [Participant 23].

However, five participants requested not to be cited or quoted directly after sharing some specific information that they deemed sensitive to disclose publicly.

“The newspapers are also not aware of it, so I would like to request you to use it only if very necessary. If it is not very necessary, it could be toned down or don’t use it at all because it is not out there in the media, it is classified information. So, I would like to caution on that and maybe don’t explicitly mention about that…” [Participant 36]

One participant appeared more open in the beginning by stating:

“There is no problem with confidentiality, and even if you disclose, it is fine because it is the work that we do, and we just tell people what we do and the challenges we face…” [Participant 52].

However, as the interview progressed into resource allocation, which involved discussing political decisions, the participant cautioned me not to mention the specific clause that was critical of what the government did.

This situation left me in a tricky position to maintain the delicate boundary between research transparency and participant confidentiality – the two conflicting ethical considerations. On the one hand, there was the risk of overlooking the sensitivity of the information and confidentiality (Saidin & Yaacob, 2016, p. 850), while on the other, transparency had to be ensured, which, according to Moravcsik (2019) is also a fundamental ethical obligation.

One participant shared that:

“Although my name is not reflected there, it has to come from somewhere…” [Participant 36]

The participant indicated that the source of the information was obvious. However, the views and information the participant shared had crucial insights that were worthy of mentioning explicitly. It presented me with a new set of dilemmas. Having to maintain confidentiality and at the same time presenting rich and detailed accounts of experiences turned into a complex challenge (Kaiser, 2009). Since ethical problems in qualitative research emerge mostly due to the breach of confidentiality and anonymity (Dougherty, 2021), protecting the identity of research participants becomes crucial (Kaiser, 2009).

Therefore, as an insider researcher, I found myself encountering an ethical conundrum of ‘protection versus paternalism’, which is a trade-off between the value of research to the community and evading harm to participants (Reid et al., 2018). My instinct forced me towards the consequentialist approach to ethics of avoiding potential harms to participants (Kostovicova & Knott, 2020), and I was forming an opinion that the right thing for me to do would be to refrain from using any information or quotes (Allmark et al., 2009) for which participants cautioned me to ensure confidentiality. This is because breaches in confidentiality can destroy the researcher-participant relationship and impair the public trust in researchers (Kaiser, 2009). At the same time, ensuring the respect, well-being and safety of participants is an ethical good (Drolet et al., 2023; Jackson, 2021) that serves as a foundation for qualitative research. Therefore, I had to withhold some key and sensitive data that only a specific participant had been privy to, even if they could add value to the list of my findings. It gave rise to, as Bulk and Collins (2023) shared, making a judgment about what I should consider as the right thing, which, in this case, will compromise the value and integrity of my data (Saunders et al., 2015, p. 617). Therefore, for ethical rigour (Sveinson et al., 2025), two fundamental questions emerged: Should I protect confidentiality over transparency? Or is there a way to strike a balance between the two conflicting ethical interests?

Secondly, there was this assumption that I would know all the details. Participants were taking me as an insider researcher and started assuming that I was well aware of all the issues and problems. Four participants were upfront about mentioning it out loud. The first one began by sharing,

“…and because you have been here when COVID was happening, so you yourself know a lot about it.” [Participant 13]

Another participant was more forthright in stating:

“Just to give you a context, I know that you are someone who knows very much, very well about how we do things here. But at the same time, for the sake of this research, as part of the data collection, I will still, you know, share some…” [Participant 15].

To this participant, the interview was only for the sake of fulfilling the research protocol. One participant mentioned the phrase ‘as you are well aware’ [Participant 10] six times and made it an opening statement each time the participant began with a new discussion point. This assumption could increase the risk of missing the nuances. Therefore, as Swyer and Buckle (2009) dub, I needed to keep my eyes wide open and assert the approach to interviews with epistemological humility and unbiased inquiry. That was the time I realised I had to be more reflexive to avoid the assumptions without contesting the participants and, at the same time, continue to dig for their perspectives.

Thirdly, regarded as an insider researcher, participants expressed their views in both Dzongkha (the national language of Bhutan) and English, based on their convenience. However, it presented a challenge during translation. Some lexical resources in the Bhutanese language, which are deeply rooted in Bhutanese culture and spiritual way of life, were too complex to be translated accurately into English. A total of 12 participants, or 23% of the total participants, used various local expressions. Therefore, a careful interpretation of the deep meanings and cultural sensibilities tagged to the vernaculars was required. Often, some of the profound concepts and expressions like Tha Damtshig, Lay Judre, and Mitakpa are not replaceable or even closely represented by any similar terminology in English. For instance, the term ‘tha damtshig’ roughly translates to ‘ultimate vow’ in English, which has its reference to the Buddhist vow ‘Samaya’ (Whitecross, 2010). However, it is used in various contexts: in human relationships, it could mean ‘commitment to the obligation of love, honour and loyalty’, while in the political context, it could refer to ‘loyalty to state and political allegiance’ (Whitecross, 2010). Therefore, the risks of losing those essences need to be addressed. The decision of Bhutan’s parliament to stick to Dzongkha during interpretive discrepancies of legal documents drafted in both Dzongkha and English (Simoni, 2010, p. 43) portrays the magnitude of the issue.

Therefore, the use of reflexivity in terms of paying attention to the cultural sensitivity of the research (Bukamal, 2022) has become necessary. A study in Bhutan found that people are culturally sensitive, and when there is recognition of cultural differences, Bhutanese feel appreciated. It has also led to the growth of mutual understanding with a deeper sense of belongingness, integrity and respect (Thinley & Maxwell, 2013, p. 13). Retaining the specific key local terminologies with deeper meanings and expressions to avoid losing the essence through translation could ensure a respectful representation of expression in the Bhutanese context. This was identified as one of the major benefits of being accepted as an insider researcher – the ability to understand the cultural nuances and intrinsic values of local expressions.

Navigating the Complexities of an Outsider Researcher

My assumptions about situating myself as an insider researcher were challenged by some participants. One of the participants pointed out that:

“We are divided along religious lines. We are divided along political lines. We are divided along professional lines, you know. So although we are a small country, there are a lot of divisions, and there are a lot of diverse opinions.” [Participant 22].

It exposed my conceptual baggage and made me realise that a researcher’s background (Johnson et al., 2020) and their nuanced judgement (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022) are based on individual perception (Holmes, 2020; Porisky & Glas, 2022). Therefore, my perception of my positionality varied from that of the participants. I also discovered that participants’ positionality, too, was significant in shaping the nature of interaction with me as a researcher (Chen, 2023). This reflection on outsider positionality led to the identification of three key areas of discussion:

Firstly, power dynamics played an important role in the interactive relationship between the researcher and participants (Hsiung, 2008, p. 220). While the researcher directs the interview, the participants exert their power in constructing the knowledge by deciding what to reveal (Reid et al., 2018). Therefore, the asymmetry of power or inequality of relationships needs to be stabilised to ensure that participants are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged (Allmark et al., 2009; Jackson, 2021; Raheim et al., 2016). However, participants from rural areas saw me as an influential person because of the level of my education (a PhD candidate in Australia) and because I have worked in the capital city of Bhutan, with possible access to key regulators and policymakers. Therefore, a ‘superior-inferior’ knowledge position (Raheim et al., 2016) emerged. Their approach to the interview was not to contribute but ‘to learn’ [Participant 13] from me. Thus, weakening their epistemic authority (Kaaristo, 2022). One participant expressed that their objective in participating in the interview was to build connections up the hierarchy. This, however, weighed down on them with a subtle influence of the power dynamic (Niu, 2024). For instance, a participant from a remote school shared about the well-being challenges faced by parents, teachers, and children during lockdowns. They were also sharing experiences on how parents and teachers disciplined children during the crisis to abide by the COVID-19 protocols. They initially expressed candidly and with ease, but suddenly started twisting and toning down statements, realising that what was being shared was contrary to the government policy. The participant began by painting a picture that spanking and physical punishment were prevalent at the school, and then suddenly twisted the statement to make it appear like it was rare. The participant appeared suddenly nervous, talking diplomatically and framing the points with more caution, sharing:

“… Parents now realise the need for physical punishment….but these days, the teachers are not spanking also. Earlier, they used to spank us a lot. These days, even if students get into some mischief, … teachers are also not into beating the students like during our time. People now understand about it and are also aware of the consequences. Still, when they have to look after so many students at a time, and students know that we will not beat them. It is very difficult to discipline them. Some students are hyperactive, and some are very different, and we have to look after all kinds of students. Sometimes even if we do not want to punish them, teachers lose patience and manhandle in very few cases.” [Participant 50]

The participant was now providing contradictory information, probably realising that I was coming from Thimphu (the capital city), which is closer to regulators and decision-makers. It gave rise to my identity based on the place of work (Bukamal, 2022, p. 330), which can also add to the social and ecological complexity (Jadallah, 2024). So, the participant did not feel safe appearing oblivious to national policies. This situation gave me the tendency to influence the participant to be candid, which Dougherty (2021) described it as an act of coercion. Therefore, I needed to be neutral in my approach by critically assessing my personal opinions (Niu, 2024), avoiding to impose my personal beliefs and perceptions (Berger, 2013), and focusing on the deeper meaning of feelings and expressions that transcended the words and sentences exchanged in the interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Thus, checking my own biases so that I would not coerce participants into speaking what I wanted to hear and, at the same time, continue to shape the conversation to a fruitful outcome without having to reject the final data as tainted or defiled. However, the question of how to treat the specific but contradictory information provided by the same participant remained to be addressed.

Conversely, an unexpected twist emerged during interviews with participants from positions of power. They began by sharing that they came on board only “to help” (Participants 4 & 21). So, it led me to feel grateful for making their time available to support me and my work. The ‘inferiority-superiority’ knowledge position (Raheim et al., 2016) shifted in favour of participants, rendering me a sense of ‘outsider’ positionality and vulnerability. Intersectionality theories argue for understanding the role of power, especially in constructing relationships with those researched (Adams, 2021), and therefore, attention needs to be paid to managing the power relations between the researcher and the participants (Niu, 2024). I was required to be sensitive to the emotions that would rest on how the power difference was respected. At the same time, this superiority-inferiority position had to be navigated with the utmost care, as it could affect the nature of interaction and information they share (Lian, 2019, p. 10). I could feel the tendency to drag myself towards self-censorship, which was an acknowledgement of preconceived views in pursuit of mere positive outcomes (Dougherty, 2021), to interpret data in favour of government policies and compromise on critical thinking. These power imbalances helped me reflect on how specific ways of thinking become the truth and how alternative perspectives get marginalised (Phillips, 2023). Therefore, as suggested by Phillips (2023) an option was to remain critical of my own perspectives, with the aim to level the researcher-participant hierarchies, possibly by introducing humour (Kaaristo, 2022), to strive for a more collaborative environment (Beigi, 2025) in creating and constructing knowledge together.

Secondly, social identity emerged as another discussion point. I saw myself as being on a mission as a citizen of a country, carrying out research to benefit my country. I approached the participants as part of them, trying to explore areas of development that will benefit the country by informing policymakers and practitioners of the findings of my research. However, one of the participants was upfront and posed questions:

“Just to be upfront, what is the incentive for me to tell you or share my experience? What is the incentive for me to give you my knowledge? I am giving you my time.” [Participant 3]

Though the participant was generous to volunteer and sit through the interview, another potential participant also posed the same question during email correspondence. When I responded that the participation was voluntary and there was no financial incentive to the participants, the potential participant stopped responding, and the interview could not be conducted. It made me rethink my intersectional identity. I realised that we can be different along with what Carter et al. (2014) dub as ideological assumptions, which shape one’s identity. As per Jadallah (2024) and Bukamal (2022), the place of work and residence shape our identity and affect the dynamics of social complexity. Therefore, having moved to Australia and becoming a student seemed to have changed my identity, and I did not relate well with the participants, given their identity as government employees still in Bhutan.

Thirdly, the professional category was also seen as another area that influenced my positionality. I perceived myself as an experienced person, having worked on various initiatives with many agencies in Bhutan. I approached with the notion that I had some familiarity with the working culture of organisations in Bhutan and would be able to relate with almost all of the participants. All I needed to explore would be the deep and diverse perspectives of the participants based on their lived experiences. This, too, was challenged when one of the participants shared directly with me,

“You have not worked in education, and you will not know anything” [Participant 16].

The participant shared this view despite knowing that I worked in the education sector for a very long time. However, I was in the administrative category, and the participant was in the teaching category. This situation helped me understand that researchers who do not fall into their core professional category could be considered outsiders even if they belonged to the same (education) sector. Therefore, the professional category could also determine one’s intersectional identity. This view was reconfirmed by a participant who moved the final stroke, expressing outwardly:

“…you are looking from the outside, you know, not from within. That’s why we need a third eye. Normally, you know to look at how we are doing and what we are doing because, within ourselves, we feel that we are okay, and we are doing fine. But then you know we need someone to look from outside.” [Participant 21]

Therefore, reflecting on their expression, they saw me as an outsider researcher – student pursuing PhD research only for the sake of academic enhancement and learning, which I did not expect. While it helped me shape my narratives with the remaining participants to let them know that this research was conducted with serious intention and in good faith, it helped me identify multiple identities that I had not foreseen at the start of the research. In short, as I engaged with different participants, my research positionality also evolved, and an intersectional identity emerged that was not foreseen at the time of commencement.

Moreover, reflecting on participants’ reasons for situating me as an outsider researcher helped me realise that my positionality and ‘situatedness’ continued to evolve based on location (Holmes, 2020; Piedra, 2023) and context (Kham, 2024). It also provided me with an opportunity to develop an awareness of the complexity of intersectional identity (Kham, 2024) because of the intertwined nature of various identity categories (Muntinga & Duijs, 2021) such as race, class, gender and socioeconomic status (Crenshaw, 1989). These categories do not exist in isolation; rather, they are highly interconnected, creating a compounded and unique identity that can redefine one’s position of privilege or disadvantage (Crenshaw, 1989). Therefore, treating these identity categories as mutually exclusive classifications of experience and analysis can be problematic because it distorts the multidimensionality of experience (Crenshaw, 1989). To navigate this complexity, I acknowledged the role of intersectionality in synthesising participants’ multiple identity categories that either conferred power or evoked a sense of oppression, which enabled me to consciously reflect on my shifting positionality based on the granular dynamics of participants’ identity categories. I refer to the understanding of systemic power hierarchies influenced by academic qualifications, proximity to influential groups, and professional categories, which influenced my identity and positionality during the interview process.

The focus on intersecting power dynamics also helped me avoid generalisations and recognise each lived experience as a distinct perspective influenced by the deeper structural inequalities that go beyond superficial observations of overt identities. I learned about the unique experiences due to intersectional identity, sometimes feeling privileged and at other times a bit oppressed, both of which had uniquely influenced the data collection and interpretation. This recognition of the role of social power that suppresses or excludes individuals based on differences (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1242) enabled me to gain a greater level of awareness to work on strategies such as focusing on humility and commonality to shift towards an ‘insider’ position to facilitate participants in engaging openly. This approach fostered continuous reflexivity on the interviewing process, which is beyond viewing the interview as just a tool to collect data (Zhang et al., 2021). It helped me constantly reflect on how the researcher-participant hierarchy shapes my positionality, and its influence on the way I listen, interpret, and interact with different participants to facilitate their engagement openly.

Conclusion

I conclude my discussion with four key insights. Firstly, a researcher’s positionality heavily influences the collection and interpretation of data. As an ‘insider’ researcher, I found it easier to grasp cultural nuances, local expressions and lexicons with deeper meanings that could not be translated accurately into English. While I gained access to good-quality information, including officially classified information, I also saw the risk of missing the granular details, as participants assumed that I would be familiar with discussion points. However, when the position shifted to ‘outsider’ status, I found that it affected the participants’ willingness to share information honestly and openly. Therefore, challenges are obvious if researchers get embedded in data without being aware of the influence of their positionality.

Secondly, a researcher’s positionality is inherently shifting between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ statuses based on specific contextual nuances and negotiated constructs shaped through interaction with participants. This shift in the researcher’s position affects data collection and interpretation in unexpected ways.

Thirdly, reflexivity as a tool helps understand the relational complexities to navigate positionality tensions by critically assessing self-background and its influence on the research. Being a reflexive researcher was helpful for me in understanding the differences, taking others’ identities with sensitivity, and practising agility to foster free and open discussion. I learned to remain critical of my own perspectives to avoid influencing participants’ views and be aware of the influence of my positionality in fostering trust to explore the lived experiences of participants that are deeply personal and emotional to them.

Fourthly, positionality is a complex construct due to multiple layered identities shaped by numerous factors beyond nationality, culture, and professional category. Such intersectional identities could lead to power imbalances that situate the researcher as an ‘outsider’ even if they share a lot in common. Therefore, power dynamics, social identity and professional category played a key role in shifting my positionality. The use of intersectionality enabled me to enhance cultural and contextual sensitivity by assessing the granular category of multilayered identity to assess my positionality. I learned to avoid generalising myself as an ‘insider’ researcher, even within a small and close-knit community with a common cultural background.

This autoethnographic piece hopes to benefit qualitative researchers to enhance research credibility and ethical rigour in managing the positionality shifts with fluid boundaries between researcher and participants. The paper also pointed out possible areas of further research on two challenging questions: How do we treat contradicting data provided by the same participant? And how do we navigate when confronted with the dilemma of choosing between two fundamental ethical obligations - confidentiality versus transparency?