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

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

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

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

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

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