Holding a position of responsibility in a field within which the researcher is researching can pose challenges in terms of remaining true to professional values while maintaining research interests and objectivity (Blyth et al., 2013). There can be a danger of over-familiarity (Mercer, 2007) but also opportunities to view this in a more positive light. In this blog post I reflect on my personal experiences of these issues.

Early in my teaching career I began mentoring those entering the profession. This experience and the relationships I built ultimately led to my current educational doctorate (EdD). In this blog post I will describe some of the challenges encountered during data collection, where I was faced with my own dual identities while researching the impact teacher preparation has on the identities of early career teachers (ECTs).

I interviewed ECTs using the biographical narrative interview method (BNIM) asking a single question – essentially ‘tell me your story’ – and allowing them time to talk without interruption (Wengraf, 2001; Burke, 2014). I was excited to use this technique and, rather naively, expected participants to talk openly about their teaching experiences for around an hour. But it was clear this was not going to be the case, as I soon encountered hurdles during participant recruitment and data collection, many of which related to conflicts between my identities as a researcher of ECTs and as a tutor to ECTs. I experienced precisely issues that I had read that could arise for insider researchers (Blyth et al., 2013; Aburn et al., 2021); for me, the most prominent being over-familiarity, both in terms of participants’ relationships with me, and my position in the research setting.

In terms of relationships, I found the process of data collection to be stressful and I needed participants to feel relaxed and talk openly, which required a fine balancing act. There were occasions when they could not be found, time was tight and I was worried they would cancel; but it transpired it was only because they had gone to make me a cup of tea. When I was feeling particularly anxious about the short interview lengths and needed participants to speak for longer, I heard mid-narrative for instance, ‘Sorry I won’t talk for too long, you’ll have so much to type up’. I remember this particular moment very clearly and the internal frustration it evoked, but on reflection I realise it illustrated the positive relationship I had with participants which I had worked so hard to establish. However, it meant I needed more data, and more people.

In terms of my position within the research setting, I found ECTs across all sites I spoke to clearly struggled with time and workload. Data collection took six months longer than anticipated, in part due to the increased sample size to account for shorter interviews. Some ECTs cancelled at the last minute, often stating their own workload or the need to cover a colleague’s lesson. ECTs talked about being heads of year, heads of department, teaching subjects outside of their specialism, regularly off sick, or alluded to circumstances conflicting with their entitlements. These were all things I battled with. First, their time was precious and by interviewing them I was taking it away. Second, as a researcher what they were saying provided interesting data, but as an induction tutor whose role is to ensure ECTs flourish within my own school, I felt uncomfortable. I wanted to jump in and tell ECTs their experiences were not necessarily typical or acceptable; but it was not my place as a researcher, and I regularly reminded myself to keep opinions in check.

‘I wanted to jump in and tell ECTs their experiences were not necessarily typical or acceptable; but it was not my place as a researcher, and I regularly reminded myself to keep opinions in check.’

How did I overcome these hurdles caused by over-familiarity? I could not easily alter my relationships with participants, nor would I want to. But to account for the shorter interview lengths and the need to recruit, I introduced Teams calls as an alternative option to in-person interviews. Although not typically suited to the BNIM, the Covid-19 pandemic has improved the use of technology for researchers (Villiers et al., 2021) and it was significantly easier for ECTs to be interviewed, taking pressure off timings and commitments previously restricting participants. Personally, I kept brief records in the style of a diary allowing me to reflect on and improve my interviewing practice, as well as appreciate the decisions I made during data collection.

The experiences reflected on here demonstrate the value of insider research. It places the researcher in a privileged position which is useful for methods such as the BNIM, as well as those enrolled on EdD programmes, where it is quite common for the researcher to be researching their own fields while still working within them.

References

Aburn, G. E., Gott, M., & Hoare, K. (2021). Experiences of an insider researcher: Interviewing your own colleagues. Nurse Researcher, 29(3), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2021.e1794

Blythe, S., Wilkes, L., Jackson, D., & Halcomb, E. (2013). The challenges of being an insider in storytelling research. Nurse Researcher, 21(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.09.21.1.8.e333

Burke, C. T. (2014). Biographical narrative interview method: Tracing graduates’ futures. In SAGE Research Methods Cases. Sage Publications, Ltd.

Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094651

Villiers, C., Farooq, M. B., & Molinari, M. (2021). Qualitative research interviews using online video technology: Challenges and opportunities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(6), 1764–1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2021-1252

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.