‘I don’t want to be presented as some sort of freak-show … but you’re “one of us”’: Stigmatized groups and decisions to participate in insider/outsider research | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Fandom Studies, The
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2046-6692
  • E-ISSN: 2046-6706

Abstract

Drawing on a piece of mixed-methods research ( = 488), this article uses thematic analysis to examine the responses of women who form part of a stigmatized group (fans of male/male [m/m] sexually explicit media) as to whether and how the investigator’s perceived status as a community insider affected decisions to take part in a wider research project. While there exists a substantial body of work on insider/outsider research, much of it is either reflexive or theoretical in nature, focusing on the nature of the research process and the integrity of the data; very little work systematically asks people taking part in qualitative research how their knowledge of the investigator’s insider/outsider status influenced their decision to take part. While participants in this study acknowledged the existence of both acceptable outsider researchers and unacceptable insider researchers, it is clear from the data presented here that researcher positionality can play a key role in successful recruitment. The results of this study highlight that we need to think not only about how our positionality affects participant responses in qualitative work but also how it affects decisions to take part in studies in the first place. This is of particular importance when we are investigating hard-to-reach, stigmatized or marginal populations with already limited participant pools.

© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jfs_00049_1
2022-03-01
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler, P., and Adler, P.. ( 1987), Membership Roles in Field Research, Newbury Park, CA:: Sage Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcoff, L.. ( 1991;), ‘ The problem of speaking for others. ’, Cultural Critique, 20, Winter, pp. 5–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronson, J.. ( 1994;), ‘ A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. ’, Qualitative Report, 2:10, pp. 1–3.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Asquith, D.. ( 2016;), ‘ Crazy about one direction: Whose shame is it anyway?. ’, in L. Bennett, and P. Booth. (eds), Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture, New York:: Bloomsbury;, pp. 79–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bacon-Smith, C.. ( 1992), ‘ Enterprising Women’: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth, Philadelphia, PA:: University of Pennsylvania Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barratt, M. J., and Maddox, A.. ( 2016;), ‘ Active engagement with stigmatised communities through digital ethnography. ’, Qualitative Research, 16:6, pp. 701–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, L., and Booth, P. J.. (eds) ( 2016), Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture, London:: Bloomsbury Academic;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonner, A., and Tolhurst, G.. ( 2002;), ‘ Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. ’, Nurse Researcher, 9:4, pp. 7–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Booth, P.. ( 2013;), ‘ Augmenting fan/academic dialogue: New directions in fan research. ’, Journal of Fandom Studies, 1:2, pp. 119–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, V., and Clarke, V.. ( 2006;), ‘ Using thematic analysis in psychology. ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Busse, K., and Hellekson, K.. ( 2006;), ‘ Introduction: Work in progress. ’, in K. Hellekson, and K. Busse. (eds), Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, London:: McFarland;, pp. 5–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cotterill, P., and Letherby, G.. ( 1993;), ‘ Weaving stories: Personal auto/biographies in feminist research. ’, Sociology, 27:1, pp. 67–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Daggett, C.. ( 2015;), ‘ Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: Antiheroes for outcasts. ’, Participations, 12:2, pp. 45–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Deller, R. A.. ( 2018;), ‘ Ethics in fan studies research. ’, in P. Booth. (ed.), A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies, London:: John Wiley;, pp. 123–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLyser, D.. ( 2001;), ‘ Do you really live here? Thoughts on insider research. ’, Geographical Review, 19:1&2, pp. 441–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, N.. ( 2006;), ‘ The seagull imperative. ’, Australian Community Psychologist, 18:1, pp. 40–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dwyer, S. C., and Buckle, J. L.. ( 2009;), ‘ The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. ’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8:1, pp. 54–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans, A., and Stasi, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Desperately seeking methodology: New directions in fan studies research. ’, Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 11:2, pp. 4–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fathallah, J.. ( 2016;), ‘ Transparency and reciprocity: Respecting fannish spaces in scholarly research. ’, Journal of Fandom Studies, 4:3, pp. 251–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fay, B.. ( 1996), Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach, Cambridge:: Blackwell;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Freund, K., and Fielding, D.. ( 2013;), ‘ Research ethics in fan studies. ’, Participations, 10:1, pp. 329–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gerrard, N.. ( 1995;), ‘ Some painful experiences of a White feminist therapist doing research with women of colour. ’, in J. Adleman. (ed.), Racism in the Lives of Women, Binghamton:: Harrington Park Press;, pp. 55–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heineman, J.. ( 2016;), ‘ Schoolgirls: Embodied practices among current and former sex workers in academia. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Reno:: University of Nevada.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Heron, J., and Reason, P.. ( 1997;), ‘ A participatory inquiry paradigm. ’, Qualitative Inquiry, 3:3, pp. 274–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hills, M.. ( 2003), Fan Cultures, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jaeger, M. E., and Rosnow, R. L.. ( 1988;), ‘ Contextualism and its implications for psychological inquiry. ’, British Journal of Psychology, 79:1, pp. 63–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jamison, K. R.. ( 2015), An Unquiet Mind, London:: Pan Macmillan;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jensen, J.. ( 1992;), ‘ Fandom as pathology: The consequences of characterization. ’, in L. A. Lewis. (ed.), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, London:: Routledge;, pp. 9–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kvale, S.. ( 2006;), ‘ Dominance through interviews and dialogue. ’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12:3, pp. 480–500.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee-Treweek, G., and Linkogle, S.. (eds) ( 2000), Danger in the Field: Risk and Ethics in Social Research, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Madill, A.,, Jordan, A., and Shirley, C.. ( 2000;), ‘ Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist, and radical constructionist epistemologies. ’, British Journal of Psychology, 91:1, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Merton, R. K.. ( 1972;), ‘ Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. ’, in R. K. Merton. (ed.), Varieties of Political Expression in Sociology, Chicago:: University of Chicago Press;, pp. 9–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Minkler, M.. ( 2005;), ‘ Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. ’, Journal of Urban Health, 82:2, pp. ii3–ii12.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Morrissey, K.. ( 2008;), ‘ Fanning the flames of romance. ’, MA dissertation, Washington, DC:: Georgetown University.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Neville, L.. ( 2018), Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys: Women and Gay Male Pornography and Erotica, London:: Palgrave;.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ross, L.. ( 2017;), ‘ An account from the inside: Examining the emotional impact of qualitative research through the lens of “insider” research. ’, Qualitative Psychology, 4:3, pp. 326–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Scott, S.. ( 1998;), ‘ Here be dragons: Researching the unbelievable, hearing the unthinkable. A feminist sociologist in uncharted territory. ’, Sociological Research Online, 3:3, pp. 98–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Stack, E., and McDonald, K. E.. ( 2014;), ‘ Nothing about us without us: Does action research in developmental disabilities research measure up?. ’, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11:2, pp. 83–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Talbot, K.. ( 1999;), ‘ Mothers now childless: Personal transformations after the death of an only child. ’, Omega, 38:3, pp. 167–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, J.. ( 2011;), ‘ The intimate insider: Negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. ’, Qualitative Research, 11:1, pp. 3–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Tindall, C.. ( 1994;), ‘ Issues of evaluation. ’, in P. Banister,, E. Burman,, I. Parker,, M. Taylor, and C. Tindall. (eds), Qualitative Methods in Psychology, Buckingham:: Open University Press;, pp. 142–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Vanwesenbeeck, I.. ( 2017;), ‘ Sex work criminalisation is barking up the wrong tree. ’, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 46:6, pp. 1631–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Wolgemuth, J. R.,, Erdil-Moody, Z.,, Opsal, T.,, Cross, J. E.,, Kaanta, T.,, Dickmann, E. M., and Colomer, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Participants’ experiences of the qualitative interview: Considering the importance of research paradigms. ’, Qualitative Research, 15:3, pp. 351–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Zinn, M. B.. ( 1979;), ‘ Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological, and political observations by an insider. ’, Social Problems, 27:2, pp. 209–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Zubernis, L., and Davis, K.. ( 2016;), ‘ Growing pains: The changing ethical landscape of fan studies. ’, Journal of Fandom Studies, 4:3, pp. 301–06.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Neville, Lucy. ( 2022;), ‘ “I don’t want to be presented as some sort of freak-show … but you’re ‘one of us’”: Stigmatised groups and decisions to participate in insider/outsider research. ’, Journal of Fandom Studies, 10:1, pp. 39–55, https://doi.org/10.1386/jfs_00049_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jfs_00049_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): insider research; pornography; qualitative methods; sex; slash fiction; stigmatized groups

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error