Insider/Outsider Issues for Development Researchers from the Global South

Giwa, A.

doi:10.1111/gec3.12219

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(113 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…My concern in this paper is about non-Western researchers from the Global South, based in research and academic institutions in the West, and who navigate the conflict field in Global South settings with the help of local research brokers (Sangarasivan 2001, Lunn 2014, Parashar 2014, Crawford et al 2017. The difficulties for Global South researchers based at 'foreign' and Western institutions are compounded by how they are perceived in the Global South field sites and the complex relationship they share with brokers and their research subjects (Lunn 2014, Hoffman and Tarawalley 2014, Giwa 2015, Schiltz and Büscher 2018. They are both 'insiders' and 'outsiders', viewed as 'native informants' or as privileged class of natives who can benefit the brokers and research subjects.…”

Section: Research Brokersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…War journalists have always relied on brokers who operate in the war land/ human scape and facilitate interviews and travels. They also develop complex relationships with brokers in the field, some of which have been documented in written texts (Middleton and Cons 2014, Giwa 2015, Sharma 2018. Increasingly, university-based academics and researchers have also been collecting data in conflict zones, 1 and many have reflected on their methodologies, positionalities and privileges (Helbardt, Hellmann-Rajanayagam and Korff 2010, Bush and Duggan 2013, Duggan and Bush 2014, and to a lesser extent on data collection processes especially related to navigating a tough, dangerous and foreign terrain (Helbardt et al 2010, Hoffman andTarawalley 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research Brokers, Researcher Identities and Affective Performances: The Insider/Outsider Conundrum

Parashar

2019

Civil Wars

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reflects upon the role of brokers in facilitating research in conflict zones, which the researcher identifies as 'native' areas of research in the Global South. Researchers from the Global South, based in academic and research institutions in Western locations and having received funding from foreign agencies, conduct field research in conflict geographies which they maybe native to, or may have inhabited for long periods of time. Brokers facilitate research in these 'native' areas of research, leading to difficult encounters between the researcher, research subjects and brokers themselves. I analyze the intimate and uncomfortable affective encounters between researchers and research brokers from the Global South who share national or cultural identity, language and above all, spatial nativity and familiarity.

show abstract

Section: Research Brokersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Brokers, Researcher Identities and Affective Performances: The Insider/Outsider Conundrum

Parashar

2019

Civil Wars

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, a growing number of students and researchers from the Global South who have been trained at Northern institutions return to their home countries for fieldwork (Giwa ). I consider myself to be part of this group of people – I have pursued graduate studies at a Canadian university and returned to my home town to do fieldwork.…”

Section: ‘Field’ or ‘Home’mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Honestly, I often felt lost navigating the various in‐between sub‐identities (see also Giwa ) that emerged during my supervisor's visit. My parents’ involvement further complicated the situation.…”

Section: ‘Tour Guide’ ‘Researcher’ or Something Elsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Doing fieldwork the Chinese way: a returning researcher's insider/outsider status in her home town

Zhao

2017

Area

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insider/outsider status has been recognised in geographical literature as an important aspect of positionality on which researchers should reflect critically. Based on my fieldwork experience in Dali, southwest China, this paper articulates an account of the co‐existence of ‘insiderness’ and ‘outsiderness’ during the research process in a way that adds nuance to scholarly challenges to conceptions of insider/outsider status as an oppositional binary. I touch on several dilemmas that arose over the course of my fieldwork in my home town, such as working with local research assistants, ‘encountering’ a Western supervisor in the field and interviewing local people. I argue that interacting in the field with people from different ethnic, professional or socioeconomic characteristics dynamises a researcher's insider/outsider position, bringing his or her in‐between position to the fore. In this paper, I highlight the tensions and negotiations arising from my experience of in‐betweenness in Dali. I also point out several particularities of doing fieldwork in China by referring to Chinese ways of thinking and communication, and analyse how insiderness complicates the research process with particular regard to China. Finally, I conclude that working in the field is not only a process of data collection, but also a process of learning ‘who I am’.

show abstract

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Thelwall,

Kousha,

Abdoli

et al. 2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International collaboration is sometimes encouraged in the belief that it generates higher quality research or is more capable of addressing societal problems. Nevertheless, while there is evidence that the journal articles of international teams tend to be more cited than average, perhaps from increased international audiences, there is no science‐wide direct academic evidence of a connection between international collaboration and research quality. This article empirically investigates the connection between international collaboration and research quality for the first time, with 148,977 UK‐based journal articles with post publication expert review scores from the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Using an ordinal regression model controlling for collaboration, international partners increased the odds of higher quality scores in 27 out of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) and all Main Panels. The results therefore give the first large scale evidence of the fields in which international co‐authorship for articles is usually apparently beneficial. At the country level, the results suggests that UK collaboration with other high research‐expenditure economies generates higher quality research, even when the countries produce lower citation impact journal articles than the United Kingdom. Worryingly, collaborations with lower research‐expenditure economies tend to be judged lower quality, possibly through misunderstanding Global South research goals.

show abstract

Insider/Outsider Issues for Development Researchers from the Global South

Cited by 43 publications

References 72 publications

Research Brokers, Researcher Identities and Affective Performances: The Insider/Outsider Conundrum

Research Brokers, Researcher Identities and Affective Performances: The Insider/Outsider Conundrum

Doing fieldwork the Chinese way: a returning researcher's insider/outsider status in her home town

Which international co‐authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About