Exploring the Insider-Outsider Perspective in Interpreting Indigenous Built Heritage: A Case of Sahariya Tribe in Madhya Pradesh

Volume: 08 | Issue: 01 | Year 2025 | Subscription
International Journal of Architectural Heritage
Received Date: 04/30/2025
Acceptance Date: 05/08/2025
Published On: 2025-05-15
First Page: 18
Last Page: 24

Journal Menu


By: Mekhla Parihar and Priyaleen Singh.

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Planning and Architecture, 4 – Block B, Indraprashta Estate, New Delhi, India.
2. Professor, Department of Architectural Conservation, School of Planning and Architecture, 4 – Block B, Indraprashta Estate, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

Globally, cross-cultural research has become important especially for understanding marginalized and vulnerable voices allowing researchers to find answers resonating with these communities’ lived experiences. A very critical concept in cross-cultural research is the insider-outsider positionality as subjective interpretations contribute towards determining the notion of heritage and influence the outcome of the qualitative research. This paper examines the above-mentioned duality in establishing built heritage of tribal communities in Indian context. In this article, I untangle this binary using ethnographic research conducted with Sahariya tribe in Madhya Pradesh. I discuss the significance of being an insider and the opportunities it provides to connect and participate in the everyday lives of the tribal people, outside of textbook learning. An insider status enables a researcher to develop a deeper understanding of the sociocultural construct and helps in more sensitive and nuanced research. I further comment on the challenges of an insider researcher and the need to build trust for a wholistic collaboration. Finally, I extend epistemological insights for future cross-cultural ethnographic studies working with indigenous communities and the impact of the insider status on conducting successful fieldwork.

Keywords: Insider-outsider duality, tribal heritage, cross-cultural research, Sahariya, ethnography

Loading

Citation:

How to cite this article: Mekhla Parihar and Priyaleen Singh Exploring the Insider-Outsider Perspective in Interpreting Indigenous Built Heritage: A Case of Sahariya Tribe in Madhya Pradesh. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 2025; 08(01): 18-24p.

How to cite this URL: Mekhla Parihar and Priyaleen Singh, Exploring the Insider-Outsider Perspective in Interpreting Indigenous Built Heritage: A Case of Sahariya Tribe in Madhya Pradesh. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 2025; 08(01): 18-24p. Available from:https://journalspub.com/publication/ijah/article=18623

Refrences:

  1. Liamputtong P. Cross-cultural research and qualitative inquiry. Turk Online J Qual Inq. 2010;1(1):16–29p.
  2. Costa M, Carneiro MJ. The influence of interpretation on learning about architectural heritage and on the perception of cultural significance. J Tour Cult Change. 2020;19(2):230–249p. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1737705
  3. Chhabra G. Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research. Scand J Disabil Res. 2020;22(1):307–317p. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.696
  4. Suwankhong D, Liamputtong P. Cultural insiders and research fieldwork: Case examples from cross-cultural research with thai people. Int J Qual Methods. 2015;14(5):1–7p. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621404
  5. Merton RK. Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. Am J Sociol. 1972;78(1):9–47p. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776569
  6. Banks JA. The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educ Res. 1998;27(7):4–17p. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027007004
  7. Atal Y. Managing multiplicity: The insider-outsider duality. EPW. 2001;36(36):3459–3466p. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4411088
  8. Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
  9. Narayan K. How native is a “native” anthropologist? Am Anthropol. 1993;95(3):671–686p. https://www.jstor.org/stable/679656
  10. Chawla D. Subjectivity and the “native” ethnographer: Researcher eligibility in an ethnographic study of urban Indian women in Hindu arranged marriages. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(4):13–29p. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500402
  11. Darkwa E. Beyond binary boundaries: Exploring the complexities of insider versus outsider paradox in indigenous research. Int J Res Publ Rev. 2024;5(11):908–918p.
  12. Parikh A. Insider-outsider as process: Drawing as reflexive feminist methodology during fieldwork. Cult Geog. 2019;27(3):437–452p. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474019887755
  13. Hennink MM. Language and communication in cross-cultural qualitative research. In: Liamputtong P editor. Doing Cross-Cultural Research. Dordrecht: Springer. Soc Indic Res Ser. 2008;34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_2
  14. Ahtif MH, Gandhi N. The role of language in cross cultural bonds. JAMRSSS. 2022;3(4):007–016p. https://doi.org/10.47616/ jamrsss.v 3i4.321
  15. Forster A. We are all insider-outsiders: A review of debates surrounding native anthropology. Student Anthropologist. 2012;3(1):13–26p. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.sda2.20120301.0002
  16. Clark T. Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qual Soc Work. 2010;10(4):485–502p. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325009358228
  17. Singh S, Wassenaar D. Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research. S Afr J Bioeth Law. 2016;9(1):42–46p. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL .2016. v9i1.465
  18. Herndon M. Insiders, outsiders: Knowing our limits, limiting our knowing. The World of Music, Emics and Etics in Ethnomusicology. 1993;35(1):63–80p. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/43616457