Background, Research Question and Research Objective 

This paper reports on an aspect of a transatlantic research collaboration between two university-level schools of education - one in Ireland and the other in the United States of America. The purpose of the collaboration was to qualitatively explore the following question: What is the role of doctoral education, across contexts, in addressing collective responsibility and a shared vision for social justice? During the inquiry, the concept of positionality - and differing understandings of the extent to which insider positionality, in particular, can impact social justice research - emerged as a critical theme. In reporting on this theme, the objective of this paper is two-fold. First, the paper aims to elaborate on how doctoral students problematised insider positionality. Then, as the corollary to this objective, it seeks to de-problematise the concept by reframing it in plural-fluid rather than singular-fixed terms. This paper aims to support research supervisors, both in Europe and beyond, in guiding doctoral students to define, characterise, and critically examine their positionality through a structured framework that promotes reflexivity and transparency in reporting.The paper directly contributes to the conference theme, Charting the Way Forward: Education, Research, Potentials and Perspectives, by offering new perspectives on how positionality can inform and enhance research practices in education and social justice.

Theoretical and Conceptual Understandings of Positionality

Positionality has sometimes been viewed in binary terms (Huberman and Miles, 2002; Zou, 2023), with researchers often characterised as being either insiders or outsiders (Wilson et al., 2022). Insiders are ostensibly understood to be culturally ‘native’ or to have a direct connection with the organisational system being researched (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007) or the phenomenon under investigation (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Outsiders, frequently pitched as occupying the counter position (Bruskin, 2019), are more detached from the inquiry and do not have a direct connection to the inquiry site or phenomenon under investigation (Zou, 2023). Insiders argue that they are better positioned to know the inequities within systems because their lived experience enables them to speak ‘with moral authority and legitimacy’ (Banks, 1998, p.6). This is especially true in cases where insiders are part of marginalised groups and where the culture has been embedded by those in more privileged positions (Kinitz, 2022). For this reason, insider research has been linked, historically, with the civil rights (Banks, 1998) and feminist (Garung, 2020) movements, adopting an ‘emancipatory episteme’ with the core mission of removing discriminatory, systemic barriers (Sharma, 2019, p.1). However, outsiders argue that insiders, researching from that vantage, can be blinded by group loyalties and only the dispassionate eye of the outsider can objectively depict what is happening in reality (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Fundamentally, both arguments are underpinned by different epistemological positions around the nature of what makes knowledge valid (Chhabra, 2020). In his seminal work on the ‘Sociology of Knowledge’, Merton (1972) rejects these extreme positions and argues both insider and outsider positionalities are always present and needed ‘in the process of truth seeking’ (p.36).

Others have similarly argued that discourses which position insiderness and outsiderness as mutually exclusive, are faulty (Labaree, 2002). The reality is far more ‘messy’ (Vicars, 2008, p.97) and researcher positionality can change within the same project, depending on the situation or context being explored at any given time (Holmes, 2020). This has led some to conceptualise insiderness in terms of degrees, with Chavez (2008, p.475) making a distinction between the ‘partial’ insider and the ‘total’ insider. Building on these conceptual distinctions, this research set out to explore how such complexities of insiderness manifest in practice and how they can be systematically examined and articulated.

This research is situated in the qualitative domain and is methodologically framed by Borton’s (1970) reflective model. This model, which enabled the researchers to harness their insights as experienced research supervisors across two continents, is underpinned by addressing three cue ‘what’ questions. These cues facilitate the structured generation of knowledge through iterative, focused reflection and deliberation on a specific topic, practice, or activity - in this case positionality. Question 1 - What? The first question in Borton’s (1970) model centres on what is already known about a topic and what it might mean. What have others said? What has happened? What do we consider to be true? and so on. In this paper, the first question is addressed by presenting a detailed account of what the broader research literature is saying in relation to positionality and how the concept is evolving on the basis of new data and new experiences - in particular in the social justice sphere. Question 2 - So What? Considering the positionality literature, the second question is applied to data gathered in a transatlantic qualitative research exercise which the authors were involved in. In this exercise, twenty doctoral students participated in two Research in Progress Seminars (RiPS) which took place via Zoom and lasted 90 minutes each. The focus of each RiPS was on students probing problems of practice in social justice research. At each seminar, two doctoral students presented their research – one Irish student and one American student. The other students observed and responded to the presentations, using an array of pedagogical tools, including Jamboards, Mentimeters, and Questionnaires. Data were divided into three categories: 1.) Presenter data - PowerPoint presentation and speaking notes from the doctoral students who presented at each RiPS session 2.) Observer data - textual inputs gathered from doctoral students who observed the presenters, using the pedagogical tools outlined in the previous section 3.) RiPS Entry/Exit questionnaire data Presenter and observer data were subsequently coded and then analysed thematically. Question 3 - Now What? The third question in Borton’s (1970) model focuses on what we need to do next to improve our understanding. What do our learnings mean for future practice? In this paper, this question is addressed by combining insights drawn from the literature with the sequential analysis of the data. The process involved the iterative application of Borton’s (1970) questions as analytical lenses, to facilitate a systematic exploration, re-examination and reframing of positionality.

This research illustrates that doctoral students had a somewhat superficial understanding of insider positionality. While they often perceived themselves as insiders, their positionality was more complex than the simple insider/outsider dichotomy, which they had construed. For example, one of the presenting students who was a first generation immigrant and positioned themselves as an insider, had participants who may have regarded the presenter as an outsider - a second generation immigrant and an LGBTQ+ immigrant. This research also evidences two central dilemmas that insider doctoral students face as they engage with their research. The Proximity Dilemma highlights the insider researcher’s challenge of balancing their personal investment and experience with a topic they feel passionate about, against the need to maintain objectivity. In essence, how can they meaningfully integrate their personal perspective as an insider without risking the perception of bias or compromising the integrity of their research? The Power-Empowerment dilemma centres on how a researcher can effectively use the power of research within existing systems to advance equity, while avoiding the paradox of perpetuating inequities by operating within those very systems and from a position of comparative privilege. In other words, how can researchers navigate the tension to ensure their work disrupts rather than reinforces systemic inequities? Building on the positionality dilemmas and the limitations of simplistic views of positionality, significant implications are presented in this paper. It proposes a shift from a binary understanding of positionality, to positionalities in the plural, which are conceptualised as dynamic and fluid. The paper introduces continua to map these positionalities and offers a more nuanced and flexible framework for understanding the complexities of insider and outsider perspectives. This reframing of positionality has important scholarly implications, within European and international research contexts, supporting more inclusive approaches to education and research in diverse and interconnected societies.

Banks, J. (1998), “The Lives and Values of Researchers: Implications for Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp.4-17. Borton, T. (1970), Reach, Touch, and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. McGraw-Hill Paperbacks: California. Brannick, T., and Coghlan, D. (2007), “In defense of being “Native”: The case for insider academic research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.59-74. Bruskin, S. (2019), “Insider or outsider? Exploring the fluidity of the roles through social identity theory”, Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp.159-170. Chavez, C. (2008), “Conceptualizing from the inside: advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.474-494. Chhabra, G. (2020), “Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research”, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp.307-317. Dwyer, S. and Buckle, J. (2009), “The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.54-63. Garung, L. (2020) “Feminist Standpoint Theory: Conceptualization and Utility”, Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 14, pp.106-115. Holmes, M. (2010), “The Emotionalization of Reflexivity”, Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 139-154. Huberman A. and Miles M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, SAGE Publications. Kinitz, D. (2022). “The emotional and psychological labor of insider qualitative research among systemically marginalized groups: Revisiting the uses of reflexivity”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp.1635-1647. Merton, R. (1972). “Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp.9-47. Sharma, P. (2019), “Shades of silence: doing mental health research as an ‘Insider’”, Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, Vol. 10, pp.1-12. Vicars, M. (2008), “Is it all about me? How queer!”, Sikes, P and Potts, A. (Ed.), Researching Education from the Inside, Taylor and Francis, New York, pp.33-47 Wilson, C., Janes, G. and Williams, J. (2022), “Identity, positionality and reflexivity: relevance and application to research paramedics”, British Paramedic Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.43-49. Zou, G. (2023), “Beyond “insider” and “outsider” in the field: reflections on the roles of human geographers in shifting contexts”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 22, No.1, pp.1-11.