Recently, I attended a talk by Aditya Pratap Deo, a history professor at St Stephen’s College, Delhi. This session, held at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, focused on his book “King, Spirits, and Memory in Central India: Enchanting the State”1. Professor Deo, a direct descendant of the former rulers of Kanker in Chhattisgarh, discussed accounts related to the ancestral deity practices of the region’s communities. He highlighted tales of historical polity wherein the region was shared as much by gods as by law courts. The political power was shared between the raja and the people. His book probed history as a knowledge practice regarding the understanding of authority and sovereignty2.
This engaging and insightful session made me wonder about a researcher’s positionality in studies. For example, was Professor Deo considered an insider or an outsider by the common people of that region—an insider because he knew them closely as a raja, or an outsider because, since he was a raja, he was not part of the common people? How did it intersect with Professor Deo becoming an academic, which may have distanced him from the people, although he belonged to their community? Sure enough, others from the audience also raised these questions, in response to which Professor Deo shared his observations.
Identity and Positionality
The starting point here is the identity of a researcher, which intersects with their positionality, i.e., the researcher’s place within the social structure3. The researcher must understand how their values, beliefs, experiences, and perspectives may shape their interactions with participants and influence the research outcome. Identity and positionality acknowledge that research is never neutral. Every researcher brings their subjectivity and worldview that affect research in several important ways. These two key elements shape a researcher’s comprehension of their field of work and make them pursue ethnographic work in a particular way, such as what questions are asked (or not asked), and how the observations are interpreted, among others.
Suppose the researcher is an outsider. Although they possibly possess the required detachment, their status influences the extent to which participants may share their experiences with them. The researcher’s interpretations are also likely to be influenced by their cultural lens, which might be reflected in context-specific meanings. In contrast, if the researcher is an insider, their cultural ties with participants may lead to trust and, hence, perhaps, obtaining more details on a range of related issues. However, such a researcher may struggle to maintain the distance needed for conducting a particular study.
Broad Strokes versus Fine Lines?
Consider a researcher/author who was seen as an outcast during childhood, and their family faced socio-economic discrimination. How would this researcher approach the caste system as a research question? Would this expression remain the same if they belonged to an upper caste? If not, how would it differ? On the other hand, consider a researcher who does not have firsthand experience of the caste system in the region in question. They would likely probe this topic differently from researchers born and brought up in that region. Hence, how much of a researcher’s interpretation or an author’s writing can, thus, be said to have an objective standpoint? It seems impossible for a work to exist truly independently of the researcher’s/author’s feelings and perceptions.
What about the situation where the researcher is both an insider and an outsider4? Such a researcher is likely better positioned to understand local nuances while also bringing critical perspectives to the table. However, this researcher may face conflict or tension while trying to maintain the balance between dialectics like emotionality and critique.
Some important questions arise: What exactly is identity? Does a researcher/author define their own identities? Or is their identity an interplay of “individual” and “others?” How do identities give rise to expectations? Further, how do positions of power influence research? What happens when the researcher is an influential figure versus a common person? Finally, what is objectivity in research? Who can do whose research? Perhaps, understanding “who” is speaking may provide crucial insights into discourses at any point in time.
The Reader
Research and its interpretation rely on the researcher’s/author’s history and culture of the place in question, among other parameters. The stories may likely change if the researcher were an insider, versus an outsider, versus both. But what about the role of the reader? How would they look at the researcher and the latter’s work? How should one approach the issue of the reader being an insider, an outsider, or both? Also, readers from, for example, different socio-economic backgrounds, genders, and regions may deal with the narration differently. Such aspects may also vary with the changing attitudes of society over time (wherever applicable). Approaching the work cannot exist independently of the reader’s feelings and perceptions. As Culler noted, “the meaning of the text is the experience of the reader” (p. 63)5. Thus, it is not just the researcher’s/author’s identity and positionality but also that of the reader that appears to “control” a story, like two sides of the same coin.
In summary, the conundrum of being an insider, an outsider, or both is an important, complex, and multifaceted issue—not just with respect to the researcher/author but also the reader! It is a decision between a sense of distance and belonging. Its awareness may provide insights into the interpretation and impact of the work, influencing how the research/text is conceived, received, and resonates with others.
References
Deo, A. P. (2021). Kings, Spirits and Memory in Central India: Enchanting the State. Routledge India.
Deo, A. P. (2025). Kings, Spirits and Memory in Central India: Enchanting the State (Book Talk). HSS Seminar Series, Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Gandhinagar.
Bayeck, R. Y. (2022). Positionality: The Interplay of Space, Context, and Identity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.21: 1–9.
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.8(1): 54–63.
Culler, J. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
***
Apeksha Srivastava is pursuing her Ph.D. at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar, India. She was a visiting researcher at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (USA) from April to July 2024. Her research area lies at the intersection of Science Communication and Psychology.