Insider or outsider? Exploring the fluidity of the roles through social identity theory

Signe Bruskin

doi:10.1108/joe-09-2017-0039

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the fluidity of the fieldwork roles “insider” and “outsider.” The paper aims to move the discussion of insiders from an a priori categorized status and contribute to the literary insider–outsider debate by unfolding the micro process of how the role of an insider is shaped in situ. Grounded in empirical examples, the paper illustrates how the researcher’s role is shaped through interactions with organizational members and by context.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on an ethnographic study in an IT department of a Nordic bank and draws on empirical material generated through a combination of data: shadowing, interviews, observations and documents. Excerpts from fieldnotes are included to invite the reader into “the scenes” played out in the field and are analyzed in order to illustrate the shaping of roles in situ.FindingsThe study finds that, independent of the researcher’s role as sponsored by the organization, the interactions with organizational members and context determine whether the researcher is assigned a role as insider or outsider, or even both within the same context.Originality/valueThe paper contributes with a new discussion of how the roles of insiders and outsiders are fluid by discussing the shaping of the roles in situ. By drawing on relational identity theories, the paper illustrates how interactions and context influence the researcher’s role, grounded in empirical examples. In addition, the paper discusses what the assigned roles enable and constrain for the ethnographer in that particular situation.

Highlights

The role of insider has been a topic of interest within the fieldwork literature for decades and remains a topical theme
The literature of insiders has circulated around the pros and cons of being an insider, moving into a bigger field of scholars writing about their own experiences as sponsored by the organization or doing ethnography for the business
The insider–outsider debate still lacks an empirical discussion of how these roles are shaped and assigned in situ, unfolding the labeling of roles

Summary

Introduction

The role of insider has been a topic of interest within the fieldwork literature for decades and remains a topical theme. Organizational ethnography is not new, but the amount of studies of organizations has increased over the years (Cefkin, 2009). When the researcher is doing research for the business, the researcher is often categorized as an insider because of their affiliation with the organization, as sponsored by the organization (Fayard et al, 2016). This particular form of ethnography does not exhaust insider methodology, its growth does mean that debate of insiders is more relevant than ever

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion