Being an insider and/or outsider
Stronger Families Learning Exchange Bulletin No.7 Spring 2005 p.10-14
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange (SFLEX) was funded under the first round of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) to provide action research and evaluation support to the Stronger Family Fund projects. Over the course of our work, questions in relation to being an insider versus an outsider whilst evaluating projects have constantly arisen.
What are the strengths of being an insider or an outsider?
What are the implications of being an insider/outsider for working with projects?
What does the position of insider/ outsider mean for workers and participants?
We attempt to address these questions using case studies from our own experience as Stronger Families Learning Exchange workers as well as from people involved in the Stronger Families Fund projects. These stories were chosen because they represent different configurations of being an insider or outsider.
Background
There has been a transition from historical privileging of the outsider to the articulation and valuing of insider voices. There can however, be tensions in being an insider. An example of this tension was when one of us that is, the former SFLEX Training and Support workers was discussing SFLEX's possible involvement in the evaluation of a project working with Indigenous people. We proposed an action research approach, which would involve participants in its design and implementation. People in the project were very responsive. However, they expressed grave doubts about their organisation's acceptance of doing an evaluation in this way. In summary they commented:
'The Board really wants an outside evaluator. They've fought hard for professionalism and they want the status of an outside person. And it's more objective. The Board can't really understand how we can evaluate ourselves. There are issues of accountability for the money.'
This comment raises a number of questions about the relative strengths and tensions involved in being an outsider or an insider when working with projects. It also illustrates the way in which evaluators, researchers and community development workers have been positioned in the past. Funding bodies have preferred 'outsider' knowledge for its perceived 'objectivity' and 'scientific rigour'. In the past, evaluation and research literature have emphasised the importance of being outside the community in which one is working. Underlying this approach, is an assumption that only knowledge obtained objectively and systematically by external experts can offer valid and reliable evidence that can be used by policy makers and social scientists.
The perceived importance of the outsider view has not been restricted to research and evaluation but is also present in community development work. Yet, professional outsiders may in fact dis-empower communities or leave a trail of bad decisions, which the community has to live with:
'If outsiders make the decisions, outsiders' agendas prevail .. when outsiders make the decisions, they seldom pay the full consequences of their mistakes and thereby escape the discipline that yields improved decisions over time (Cornell 2002: 9).
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy was in part based on the view that:
'Pre-packaged program responses are often inappropriate to meet the diverse range of family and community needs. Effective initiatives need a strong element of community engagement and require 'bottom-up' community-led development and delivery' (Stern 2002: 7).
There has been a gradual shift in emphasis towards including insiders in research and evaluation in community development. In part this has been due to a critique of the effects of outside professional involvement and the power they can hold in the communities in which they work. In addition, groups who have been the objects of research and evaluation and who have had interventions imposed upon them, have criticised the 'outsider' view of research and community development. For example, Indigenous groups and organisations have identified some of the problems of outsider directed research (Vichealth Koori Research and Community Development Unit, 2000). Anderson (2000: 10) states:
'Over the years that was kind of what people would talk about as the usual experience of research - of having someone come into the Community, pinch all this information and run away, and people never hearing again about it. A lot of people were feeling quite exploited.'
As a result, the importance of insider knowledge expertise and power in research and evaluation has gradually been recognised (National Health and Medical Research Council 1991; AIATSIS 2000; Walmsley and Johnson 2003).
Insider/outsider stories
Insider and outsider are not clear cut categories, but rather they involve complex and often shifting positions. In the Stronger Families Fund projects we have observed that there is a variety of insider and outsider positions in which the project workers find themselves. In this article we want to provide a selection of different real life experiences to illustrate some of the issues and strengths of different positions as they emerge from community practice.
We have selected three stories. The first is Maya's story, a researcher working for the Australian Institute of Family Studies in the Stronger Families Learning Exchange team. The next two stories come from Vince and Dorothy, two workers from Families NOW, a family information centre co-located with Centrelink. Families NOW works with the local community to develop innovative and sustainable ways of strengthening families in Beenleigh and surrounding districts, and between Brisbane and the Gold Coast - with a particular emphasis on early childhood and parenting. Each of the stories provides an opportunity to reflect on the individual's standpoint in relation to the work and the strengths and tensions that emerge from their often multiple positions.
Maya's story: Professional outsider
I live in inner city Melbourne. I
am a white woman, 26 years
old, with an honours degree in
Social Ecology. In September 2002
I began work with a project in
Wadeye, a remote Aboriginal community
in the Northern Territory.
The Stronger Families Fund project
there is a women's centre,
known as the Ngepan Patha or
Strong Women's Centre. It is a
service to empower local women
through skills development,
including parenting and relationship
skills, and family support.
On my first trip there, before
going to the community, I spent
an afternoon in Darwin. Taxi
drivers and hotel staff all looked
a little horrified when they heard
I was going, for the first time
to Wadeye - news of the community's
'bad reputation' was
quick to come my way.
Before my visit I had a fleeting
conversation by phone with the
project worker and had sent a letter
to the women's centre management
committee describing
myself, and the SFLEX role.
Although I had sent all that
information up, we spent a lot of
time talking about what I was
there to do. I quickly realised that
from the women's point of view I
had been sent in by the government,
another white worker with
their own agenda. Just the day
before in Darwin, my Institute
business card had paved my way
into a variety of meetings, whereas
here my role as a professional, as
a researcher, and as someone paid
to work with projects by the government,
was a source of suspicion
and a barrier to building a good
working relationship. In fact it
was not just being a governmentfunded
outsider, it was also being
a young woman in a women's
centre run by the senior women of
the community. I could sense disappointment
when I said I didn't
have any kids. I began to realise I
was seen in this community as
someone without the expertise to
help build community or family.
What use I was, to this community,
was increasingly confusing
to me and I think to the women
as well. All the things that we at
the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange planned to do with
projects - help with evaluation,
documentation, networking,
ethics, action research - many of
these words were not known
here. My written documents were
of little use in a community
where English was the fourth or
fifth language of the women I
was working with. I was told I
talked too fast, said too much, too
quickly. I found myself de-skilled,
dis-abled, unfamiliar with the
assumed knowledge of the
women who I was with, and
not useful to the project or
individuals.
After the first days in the community
with the Department of
Family and Community Services
worker, who clearly thought it
was good that I was there, I got
the feeling that I was being tolerated,
but not really understood.
On my first morning alone I
asked the women if they wanted
me to leave the centre so they
could talk about what work I
could do that would be useful to
them. I went away for a few
hours, and returned quietly, waiting
for an invitation to talk.
Things moved after that. We
found a common language, using
pictures and diagrams to explain
where I fitted in. We talked about
previous bad experiences of white
people taking knowledge away
and ways to check in with them
about how information was used
between us. I began to hear stories
about the women and their
centre, and wrote these down.
Even after that day, of listening
to stories and writing them down
together, I felt confused, out of
my depth and uncomfortable. I
couldn't see how this all fitted in
with what I was expected to do by
those back in the office. I felt tensions
inside me, wanting to listen,
to sit and be as invisible as
possible, but also a time pressure to
do something, get out of this space
of everyone not knowing. I found
myself questioning why I was
there, what good was this role to
these people, to this project?
The outcome of that first trip was
two storybooks with photos about
the history of the women and
their centre and about one of their
new initiatives. These were put
together from the stories the
women told and with photos they
asked to have taken. The storybooks
have been used by the
women to show other outsiders,
including Commonwealth government
ministers, stories of the
project. Putting these stories
together showed the women
another way to communicate
about their work and helped to
show the importance of communicating
about who they are and
what they do. The use of stories
and pictures from Wadeye has
helped SFLEX work in other communities,
providing a model of
creative methods of documenting
and sharing project work.
Vince's story: Local (insider) community worker
Hi I'm Vince. I am the cofounder
of Families NOW
with Dorothy. I am a community
development worker. I live
here in the community, so I have
met customers from the service
in shopping centres and other
local places. There's a sense of
knowing it's truly something that
is part of the community in
which I live and work, and if I
had to, I would want to access it.
When I think about the work of
the project I get a range of different
feelings: excitement, positiveness
and accomplishment.
Doing early intervention and prevention
work leads to good outcomes
because we are helping
people to achieve their aims and
goals. Families are becoming
more empowered and getting
control of their lives. If they are
lost or frustrated at the start, they
come back to Families NOW and
say they are more confident and
able to negotiate the maze better.
Knowing people have been able
to achieve things feels good and
reflects well on me. I feel for them
in trouble. Empathy, helping and
making them aware of other
avenues they can follow, feels
good.
Families NOW is an agency males
traditionally wouldn't go to. It's
like women frequent many neighbourhood
community houses. I
don't think that my gender and
age are important in the work I do
but with Families NOW I try to use
a bit of empathy. We do have programs
for men. We also have tip
sheets about men getting involved
- grandparents as well. I saw myself
there once - I tried to put myself
in the position of a man I saw
once overwhelmed by information.
He had no problems going to
Families NOW and I don't think I
would either. I don't go out of
my way, by putting the men's
brochures at the front, but I try to
make the service look like it's for
men as well. It is a conscious thing.
I try to be inclusive of gender. I feel
as a man I can help promote and
get more males involved in participation
in families. Not just
women do this, men do have
responsibilities. I can be an advocate
for men, who because of their
economic or educational situation
don't know there are things out
there that can help them.
More and more males are being
engaged at Families NOW. We
seem to create something that
men are interested in too, like our
communication camp. In 90 per
cent of families the male partner
attended. Our volunteer James,
went on the camp too. That was
important; it made the men feel
more comfortable. I hope it will
encourage those men to come to
other things like the parenting
course with their partners.
I live in the area. I form relationships
in a non-judgmental manner.
I make myself feel at ease with
the customers. Like my casualness,
most of them are casual
themselves. The way I talk, dress,
react to what they say, means I
can relate to them. When I think
about things that might separate
me from the people using the services
I can't think of anything. Even
having a job doesn't make them
view me differently, because of
my efforts to talk and dress casually.
I don't wear a suit and tie and
walk in with a copy of the Financial
Review under my arm.
Because I live in the community
I'm more accepted by clients. I
ran into one in the supermarket
the other day; I got bailed up. I do
have that recognition in the community.
They come up and have
a chat. I enjoy that. I think that's
a compliment to me. I feel privileged,
I value that. I have seen
dangers with others getting too
close: clients call them up every
day, or others get bailed up when
off duty and asked for assistance.
I have a concern about Families
NOW not getting ongoing funding.
Where will these people go?
My concern is greater because I
live in the community and have
to deal with the social problems.
If it wasn't for Families NOW,
the problems would be five to
ten times worse.
Dorothy's story: Professional outsider
was a joint initiator of the Families
NOW project with Vince,
a local resident whose local contacts
have been very beneficial
(for example, school principals
and the local MP). Vince's role in
the Lutheran Community Care
was also good for establishing
Families NOW. We were frustrated
at doing crisis band aid
work all the time, not seeing any
differences, wanting to do something
with a preventative and
early intervention focus. Working
with Families NOW increased my
job satisfaction and interest outside
of my regular work as a senior
social worker with Centrelink
where I do casework and have
management responsibilities. It's
rewarding to see something that
can make a difference other than
just band aiding.
Living outside the community, I
can be a little more critical, in a
way that you can't be if it's your
own community, or your own
family.
Being a female and a mother, I've
also got that in common with
the female clients at Families
NOW. Race is not an issue here
because I am a white Anglo-
Australian like most Families
NOW clients. I'm a lot older
though and looking back, hindsight
and experience is a factor.
I think about what sort of help I
would have liked if I was them.
I was isolated as a young mother
like many of them are too. This
both brings me closer to and
separates me from the people
using the program.
I've got a partner with a job -
that's different. Most of the
women are single parents or their
partners are unemployed or in
jail so they lack the choices I had
because of their lack of money,
child care or educational opportunities.
I suppose I'm more privileged.
I've got a good paying
job. I had the opportunity to go
to uni and get a degree. I've had
years of experience working with
disadvantaged people. My adult
kids got through those horrible
adolescent years and are now successfully
working. I have a good
husband and good home. I don't
know if clients see that as making
me different or if it makes me
more sympathetic or empathetic.
I'm in a position to speak objectively
about suggesting programs
to benefit people because of my
job status, experience as a woman
and as a mother. I've got some
understanding of the issues they
face. However, there may be tensions
with groups of parents feeling
'it's all very well for you - you
have choices and opportunities'.
It's therefore important for me to
focus on empathy and where
they are. I also have to manage
the frustration I feel with people
not moving on as quickly as I'd
like them to.
The project worker, Marita is very
good at listening to clients and
working at their pace. I want
results and outcomes now. The
government pressure for outcomes
contributes to feeling frustrated
but the reality is we are
still working with people, and
that takes time.
Working with Families NOW has
meant a culmination, or bringing
together, of all of my individual
characteristics for something
worthwhile. It's great to work
with Vince on something, that
has had recognition and good
outcomes for clients.
An outsider response
There is a greater recognition of the value of insiders' perspective and voice in community work, research and evaluation. The position of insider/ outsider is complex and multi dimensional. Each of us can be insiders and outsiders in a particular community because we can occupy multiple positions simultaneously. Themes of ethnicity, gender, class, cultural knowledge and experience all impact on the experience of different workers and project participants. Maya is an outsider; Vince an insider; and Dorothy holds multiple positions, moving in and out of identification and distance. The stories we have provided here highlight a number of issues related to insider and outsider roles. In particular, insider and outsider perspectives can have both advantages and disadvantages in the evaluation of community projects. Table 1 (see p.14) summarises some of the pros and cons of the insider and outsider perspectives for evaluation.
Conclusion
Our stories demonstrate that being an insider can offer numerous advantages to early intervention and community projects. For example, the insiders' perspectives can illuminate what is going on at the community level, they can clarify the needs of the community as well as harness the capacity of the community to more effectively implement projects. Relationships based on trust and empathy are crucial to being an insider. Connectedness and relatedness between people, and being accepted within a community are crucial components of community development. An outsider's perspective can equally have its advantages and make a contribution. For example, Maya, despite her self doubt, and through her outside perspective and experience, facilitated the project to showcase its work. Through this she, and the SFLEX team, learnt new ways of working with communities. It also showed that, with time, an outsider can make steps towards working more closely within a community.
Despite the many advantages of being an insider, the insider's role can also present some challenges. For example, the stories illustrate that the closeness of the insider's perspective to the community can result in a lack of separation, which can compromise judgement and reduce objectivity. For example, Vince describes the emotional impact and good feelings about successful service delivery. His enthusiasm for the service and its benefit to the community may affect his ability to recognise problems. For example, service users may not raise complaints directly to a paid employee. However, it is not just the community projects that suffer from too much closeness. The SFLEX Training and Support workers, as researchers focused on action, were closely involved in the support and development of the Stronger Families Fund projects. As Maya's story illustrates, the work had a significant personal effect on her. Being an insider and/or outsider impacts not only upon on how we do research and community development, but also upon the worker's personal life experience. A crucial component of action research is cycles of reflection. It is very important for workers when working closely on the inside to 'step back' and reflect upon their work, themselves and the processes in a critical way so as to develop a more 'outside' perspective.
Our stories demonstrate that being an insider can offer numerous advantages to early intervention and community projects.
Table 1 Pros and cons of external and internal evaluation (taken from Wadsworth 1998: 20)
| Insiders | Outsiders | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | Insiders may have:
|
Some outsiders may have been able to:
|
| Cons | Outsiders may have been brought in because it was
feared insiders were:
|
Some outsiders may be reported as:
|
References
AIATSIS (2000), Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.
Anderson, I. (2000), 'We Don't Like Research But in Koori Hands It Could Make a Difference', Vichealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, Centre for the Study of Health and Society, University of Melbourne, Parkville.
Cornell, S. (2002), 'What is Institutional Capacity and How Can It Help American Indian Nations Meet the Welfare Challenge?', Paper prepared for the symposium Capacity Building and Sustainability of Tribal Governments, Washington University, St Louis, MO.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1991), Guidelines on Ethical Matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Stern, G. (2002), 'Stronger Families and Communities Strategy', Stronger Families Learning Exchange Bulletin, no. 1, pp. 6-9, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Vichealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit (2000), 'We Don't Like Research But in Koori Hands It Could Make a Difference', Vichealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, Centre for the study of Health and Society, University of Melbourne, Parkville.
Wadsworth, Y. (1997), Everyday evaluation on the run (2nd edition), Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Walmsley, J. and Johnson, K. (2003), Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures, Jessica Kingsley, London.
The authors are past Training and
Support workers with the Stronger
Families Learning Exchange, Australian
Institute of Family Studies.
The authors would like to acknowledge
Vince Vernick and Dorothy Aldred
for their contributions to this paper.
Editing and response was provided
by Jane Mallick.
This article is taken from an original
paper and workshop presented at
'Building a Truly Civil Society', the
3rd Australian Family and Community
Strengths Conference, University
of Newcastle, 1 December 2003.
