INSIDER POSITION

A central dilemma in Educational Design Research is the notion of being respectively an insider or outsider in the practices under investigation (Herr & Anderson, 2015).

Several researchers argue for the importance of reconsidering insiderness and

outsiderness within education research as it enables the researcher to comprehend the complexity that characterises the practice (Milligan, 2014). This argument is supported by a pragmatic perspective, as Dewey rejected, for example, what he called the “spectator theory of knowledge”. He challenged the whole idea that “real”

knowledge arises when the researcher only acts passively and observantly. Instead, it is when the researcher takes an active role that supports the opportunity to transform a situation in a beneficial way that new knowledge and insight arises (Godfrey-Smith et al., 2015). Brinkmann and Tanggaard (2010) suggest in the following quotation that the experimental element of pragmatism is challenged when the researcher assumes a spectator role:

Experiences are not simply passive happenings, but aspects of human beings, doings and engagements with the world and each other. It means that there are no experiential elements that are simply given in the mind of a spectator. Dewey wants to replace the image of something being given to the eye with the image of something being taken. (Brinkmann

& Tanggaard, 2010, p. 246)

This means that thinking should be seen as an active process that occurs through interaction with reality, where actions, emotions and subjectivity contribute to a constructive direction in the creation of knowledge. Having an insider position means having the important domain knowledge and thus insight into the culture and traditions to be able to actively participate as a research “change agent” (Lehmann-Rommel, 2000).

Within the domain of Educational Design Research, there is thus an ongoing argumentation about the researcher having different positions in practice depending on the situation, the people interacting and the sociocultural norms. A researcher’s identity can thus change along the way depending on the context of the situation (Milligan, 2014) Skjervheim describes how the researcher does not have to try to achieve objectivity as the creation of a neutral position as it will cause a new social construct, a new reality. A conventional approach would mean that it is not a constant moving and changing reality that is being studied, but a frozen reality (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2006). The idea of a continually changing reality is also highlighted by Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) in their interpretation of Dewey’s work through the following quote: “Dewey characterises the universe as a moving whole of interacting parts. And because the parts interact, knowledge about actions and consequences and particular histories and trajectories is possible, not through observation but by connecting with these connections” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, p. 113). The truth about reality is thus reduced when the researcher creates a structure with the only purpose of supporting the research process. One consequence of Skjervheim’s philosophy is that reality must always be understood as being unfinished; everything can change in different directions (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2006).

Most insider-outsider research talks about how the researcher considers themself in a research process, while it would be more interesting to look at how the balance between the different positions can lead to active choices regarding the creation of new knowledge. This argument is supported by Lizzi Milligan (2014) in her article

“Insider-outsider-inbetweener” where she also argues for an active and changing position of the researcher. The notion of power and the positioning between researcher and participants will have an impact on the way knowledge is constructed and what can be recognised. Therefore it is advantageous to work with different positions in the research design to make active choices according to the way different positionings can contribute to various insights (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010; Godfrey-Smith et al., 2015; Lehmann-Rommel, 2000; Milligan, 2014).

An insider thus has a unique position to study specific practical issues in depth because of an individual and in-depth knowledge about practice. Also, an insider researcher often has easy access to participants and information, which may lead to a further expansion of the knowledge base. This provides a distinct advantage in complex and practice-based situations where many factors play together, and thus it is problematic to explore them in a detailed and thorough way. An insider researcher can often go into greater depth when it comes to complex issues regarding an understanding of the tensions that arise between the particular and the general. Paradoxes and ambivalence plague some issues, and an insider is often able to unravel them and has the expertise and experience that provide an advanced level of knowledge (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010; Costley et al., 2010; Godfrey-Smith et al., 2015; Lehmann-Rommel, 2000).

3.5.1. CRITICISM OF INSIDER RESEARCH

Educational Design Research, as mentioned above, is often concerned with issues relating to the relationship between having an insider and outsider position, and here it is crucial to provide clarity regarding what it means for the study’s validity, credibility and ethics (Herr & Anderson, 2015). The important point is to be aware of the criticism many research traditions will contribute towards research based on an insider’s perspective. There is a concern about subjective research entailing a lack of impartiality. Also, there is a long historical tradition based on an expectation of an objective view of the data (Costley et al., 2010). The criticism has some validity, and it is, therefore, essential to work humbly and openly with these concerns and thereby address the factors that can give rise to criticism. For example, data collection must be given particular attention, especially when it comes to questions about an insider bias and the consequent validity of results (Costley et al., 2010).

A typical error for this type of research is the risk that the researcher’s personal or professional identity is treated as an outsider observation rather than an insider position (Herr & Anderson, 2015). A lack of understanding or appreciation of an insider positioning can result in some repercussions that can prove problematic regarding research results.

The benefits of insider research are that it contributes to the development of professions and action-oriented knowledge, which can be challenging to achieve in traditional objective studies (Herr & Anderson, 2015). There is often an unexamined and tacit knowledge that is full of biases, prejudices and unchallenged assumptions. One way to deal with these imbalances is through recognising the researcher’s presence in the studio and working on methods that are based on self-reflection (Herr & Anderson, 2015). There are thus some methods and techniques that an insider researcher can use to protect themself from criticism about bias. These could, for example, be a particular focus on the feedback participants contribute with an initial evaluation of the data, or triangulation in the choice of method terms. This potential criticism is countered in this PhD by collecting data through reflective conversations where the researcher is not present. This makes it possible to generate data where students have the opportunity to talk together without the researcher’s intervention. The transcription of these reflective conversations is subsequently included as background for the focus group interviews. Likewise, the many design workshops provide an opportunity for both students and teachers to have more extended dialogues with the researcher, where any disagreements or different perceptions of theoretical perspectives can be discussed in depth. The dialogues from these workshops are transcribed and thus inform the analysis of the PhD thesis. Also, the use of a mixed-method approach provides the opportunity to collect more than one type of data, which creates robustness in the findings when several types of data support each other. Criticism of insider research is nevertheless balanced against the value created regarding the professions and action-oriented knowledge (Costley et al., 2010). Insider insight, therefore, offers valuable and in-depth knowledge, but a critical approach to the researcher’s work must be demonstrated in the process. It is, therefore, important that the research process is carefully monitored, with a particular focus on the reaction from the practice field’s key people (Costley et al., 2010).

3.5.2. POSITIONING AS INSIDER

A crucial issue within Educational Design Research is not to “prove” that the design principles underlying a given prototype are “true”. It is instead to focus on why and how the design principles change a particular situation in practice (diSessa & Cobb, 2004; Skovsmose & Borba, 2004). As an engineer in architecture and design, I can in this PhD project combine design skills with practical insider knowledge from my work as a teacher and personal experience as an active gamer.

Figure 7 ‒ Showing what affects my own professional researcher identity.

Me

Sudents and colleagues

Being an Architect/Designer, Being a gamer, Being an educator R e s e a r c h p r o g r a m m e s , o r g a n i s a t i o n s , n e t w o r k s S o c i e t y , e c o n o m y , a n d c u l t u r e

Figure 7 inspired by Costley et al. (2010) illustrates the stakeholders I as a scientist am affected by and thus must relate to (Costley et al., 2010). Besides my personal relationships, respectively to students and colleagues, I have a professional identity that involves an expert ’insight into, and in-depth awareness of the tacit knowledge that characterises the practice I am researching. Also, the influence of organisations, networks, communities, etc. contributes to forming my general opinion on a professional and personal level. With this argumentation it is relevant in this PhD to work with a coupling between a first-person insider perspective and a third-person outsider perspective, also called an “intersubjectivity perspective” (second-person). The choice of this perspective means that the research of this PhD can be understood as a learning process where reflections on existing practices and the evaluation of the data regarding the scientific criteria are what creates a result. It requires a particular understanding of my professionalism versus my personality, including personal opinions and attitudes towards learning as a concept and the topic of Game Based Learning (Costley et al., 2010). The use of a first-person insider perspective in the design stage while working closely with colleagues combined with a spectator position in the intervention phase creates new opportunities to make significant changes that are inspired by both a theoretical and practical deposit.