“Out” in the field. Reflecting on the dilemmas of insider status on data collection and conducting interviews with gay men

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore using a reflexive approach the impact of author's personal positioning on issues of power balance between the interviewer and the interviewee, dealing with sensitive stories and concerns of difference and sameness between participants and the researcher in both the data collection process and also during the interviews. Design/methodology/approach -Initial data were gathered from 45 semi-structured interviews with self-identified gay men in a wide range of occupations and ages working in the seaside resort of Bournemouth on the south coast of England. Findings -The paper highlights some of the dilemmas of insider status and doing research on gay men. These include: ethical issues of closeness and involvement with participants, dealing with author's own personal frustrations, tackling the power imbalance between the interviewer and the interviewee and the impact of author's personal positioning on the data collection. Originality/value -Little research has been done on the impact of men doing research on issues of diversity. In particular, this paper re-examines the power balance between the interviewer and interviewee as being one sided as previous studies have suggested in the researcher's favour. It also uncovers ethical dilemmas such as sexual attraction and involvement that has had scant coverage in the literature.

Men and me(n)

“…There has been much discussion on interviewing, with the majority of this debate centring on women interviewing women (Roberts, 2014). Studies that analyse female interviewer and male interviewee highlighted the physical and emotional risks involved.…”

“…There has been little acknowledgement in research literature of the potential sexual attraction and involvement between researchers and participants (Roberts, 2014). Nonetheless, Lohan (2000) noted that when she interviewed men of a similar age, ‘it was I as interviewer, who was doing the “chatting-up”’ (p. 177).…”

“…Nonetheless, Lohan (2000) noted that when she interviewed men of a similar age, ‘it was I as interviewer, who was doing the “chatting-up”’ (p. 177). Both Simon Roberts (2014) and Walby (2010) found many participants sexualised the interview in their interviews with gay men and male-for-male sex workers, respectively. Walby (2010: 641) argued that the acknowledgement of the researchers’ sexuality positions them as a ‘sexuality insider’ with consequential increased rapport through shared identity (Kanuha, 2000; Roberts, 2014).…”

“…Both Simon Roberts (2014) and Walby (2010) found many participants sexualised the interview in their interviews with gay men and male-for-male sex workers, respectively. Walby (2010: 641) argued that the acknowledgement of the researchers’ sexuality positions them as a ‘sexuality insider’ with consequential increased rapport through shared identity (Kanuha, 2000; Roberts, 2014). However, Roberts (2014) highlighted the disadvantages of being an ‘insider’ including the blindness to the significance events or situations through the assumption of ‘commonality of experience’ (p. 454).…”

“…Walby (2010: 641) argued that the acknowledgement of the researchers’ sexuality positions them as a ‘sexuality insider’ with consequential increased rapport through shared identity (Kanuha, 2000; Roberts, 2014). However, Roberts (2014) highlighted the disadvantages of being an ‘insider’ including the blindness to the significance events or situations through the assumption of ‘commonality of experience’ (p. 454). Furthermore, Walby (2010) proposed that researchers’ assumption that gay men were always pursuing hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily true all of the time and in all cases.…”