Discussion Questions

Article

Connecting Participant Observation Positions: Toward a Reflexive Framework for Studying Social Movements

Patrick McCurdy 1

and Julie Uldam 2

Abstract In this article, we argue for the importance of considering participant observation roles in relation to both insider/outsider and overt/covert roles. Through combining key academic debates on participant observa- tion, which have separately considered insider/outsider and overt/cov- ert participant observation, we develop a reflexive framework to assist researchers in (1) locating the type of participant observation research; (2) identifying implications of participant observation for both the research and the subjects under study; and (3) reflecting on how one’s role as participant observer shifts over the course of fieldwork and considering the implications of this. To illustrate these dynamics,

1 Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada 2 Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business

School, Copenhagen, Denmark

Corresponding Author:

Patrick McCurdy, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue

East, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5.

Email: [email protected]

Field Methods 2014, Vol 26(1) 40-55

ª The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1525822X13500448

fm.sagepub.com

we draw on two examples from our own ethnographic research experi- ences in direct action anticapitalist movements.

Keywords participant observation, social movements, insider, ethnography, covert research

Recent protest events—from Egypt’s Tahrir Square to the Occupy Wall

Street movement—have spurred numerous claims about activists’ motiva-

tions, their agenda, and the role of online social media in mobilizing pro-

testers. Participant observation can help generate insights into these issues

from the perspective of the activists. However, participant observation is

not an impartial window into the motivations and rationales of activists and

their practices. It is inevitably influenced by our relations with the research

subjects and our interpretations of what we observe. Through combining

key academic debates on participant observation, which have separately

considered insider/outsider and overt/covert participant observation in rela-

tion to studying social movements, this article develops a ‘‘quadrant’’ that

can be used by scholars as a heuristic tool in (1) locating the type of par-

ticipant observation research; (2) identifying implications of participant

observation for both the research and the movement under study; and

(3) reflecting on how one’s role as participant observer shifted during field-

work and considering the implications of this.

Past scholarship has recognized tensions, challenges, and ethical dilem-

mas of overt versus covert research (Lauder 2003; Litcherman 2002). Covert

research remains controversial. Supporters argue that it facilitates access to

‘‘closed’’ field sites (Fielding 1982; Jorgensen 1989:42) and reduces distor-

tion of results (Hertwig and Ortmann 2008). Conversely, critics point to the

risk of harming research subjects (Berg 2009), contaminating the participant

pool, damaging research reputation, and closing off further avenues for

research. Despite recognizing such ethical problems, Lauder (2003) argues

that covert research, and even deception, can be justified when the research

benefits outweigh the potential harm to subjects, as in the case of research on

racist groups. Similarly, Li (2008) suggests that ‘‘the potential social benefits

outweigh its ethical risks as the data collected can help push the boundaries of

our current understanding of disadvantaged groups in society . . . [and] serve as advocacy to inform better policy and practice, ultimately bringing positive

changes for people being studied’’ (p. 111).

McCurdy and Uldam 41

Literature has also debated the merits, challenges, and ethical dilemmas

of conducting insider versus outsider participant observation (e.g., Ergun

and Erdemir 2010; Graeber 2009; Juris 2007; Scheper-Hughes 1995). It has

often done so in terms of access, subjectivity, and political bias (e.g., Gold

1958; Litcherman 1998; Merton 1972; Plows 2008). Gaining physical and

emotional access to the field and its members can prove challenging for an

outsider. When researching social movements, gaining access to direct

action anticapitalist activists and getting movement members to share their

stories and perspectives can be difficult for an outsider because direct action

activists often are constructed by hegemonic discourses as ‘‘deviant’’

(Becker 1967:240) and therefore face state and police repression (Hintz and

Milan 2010). Barriers can be lowered if researchers share political sympa-

thies and/or previous experience with research subjects.

Looking at subjectivity, Plows (2008) argues that insider positions inevi-

tably entail taken-for-granted observations, whereas outsider positions

enable reflections on such blind spots. But political bias (i.e., our sympa-

thies)—whether preconceived or developed during the course of

research—with our research subjects can also influence our interpretation

and reporting of our findings (Becker 1967). Although the literature on

overt/covert and insider/outsider participant observation is thus both well

versed and nuanced, it has rarely, if ever, combined these perspectives.

Given the importance of both dialogues to the use of participant observation

with social movements, this article introduces a quadrant (see below) to

interrogate the various positions along the two dimensions and their

research implications.

The quadrant presented here places the inside/outside and overt/covert

positions as types of participant observation on continua. The use of conti-

nua, we argue, avoids invoking unhelpful dichotomous distinctions that can,

as past scholarship has recognized, gloss over role nuances. Our aim is not

to suggest ideal–typical roles in field research or to argue that one role or

position is more valid than others. Rather, through explicitly combining and

mapping the two established positions of participant observation (inside/

outside and overt/covert), our objective is to provide a conceptual tool for

academics to critically reflect on their role and position as participant obser-

ver at various stages throughout fieldwork.

Our article is structured as follows. We begin by introducing our quad-

rant. On the basis of this, we discuss examples from our own ethnographic

research experiences in anticapitalist movements. Specifically, examples

are from research into the Dissent! Network and the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit, Scotland, and a study of Never Trust a COP (NTAC) at the

42 Field Methods 26(1)

2009 UN Climate Conference, Denmark. In both cases, the researcher

reflects on the tensions between overt/covert and inside/outside positions

as they relate to subjectivity, political bias, and transitions in conducting the

fieldwork. The article concludes by reflecting on how the quadrant pre-

sented can be used by scholars to bring the interrelations of the multiple

dimensions of participant observer to the fore.

Toward a Framework of Reflexive Practice

Although recent debates on participant observation rightly emphasize the

need to explore the gray areas between extreme participant observer roles,

it does not mean that we need to dismiss the categories in the early literature

on participant observation outright. Instead, this article uses them as poles to

interrogate two continua of positions in social movement scholarship to tease

out tensions in the reflexive practice of participant observation. As a frame-

work for this, we draw on McCurdy’s (2009) suggestion for a quadrant that

consists of two dimensions: inside/outside and overt/covert positions.

A polar conceptualization of overt and covert research helps establish a

continuum to reflect on the use of participant observation in social move-

ments. We draw on Merton’s (1972) notion of insiders and outsiders to

identify the two extremes of the insider/outsider continuum. That said,

we must open up this structural characterization to include identity-

related collectivities as suggested by Mercer (2007). Considering both

structural and identity-related aspects of our roles as participant observers

is important when researching new social movements because they com-

bine claims to distribution and claims to recognition—structural issues and

identity-related issues (Della Porta and Tarrow 2005; Litcherman 1998).

Consequently, the participant observer’s position will be influenced by

political ideologies and sympathies as well as nationality and possibly

social class. To identify the two extremes on the overt/covert continuum,

we draw on Gold’s (1958) roles of the ‘‘participant as observer’’ and ‘‘com-

plete participant’’ to represent the idealized forms of full and no disclosure.

Below, we use two examples from our own research to illustrate how the

two dimensions of the quadrant can work as a methodological framework

for reflexive practice in specific contexts of participant observation.

Dissent! and the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit Protests

This example draws on the case of Dissent!—Network of Resistance Against the G8 Summit (Dissent!) and their planning and enactment of protests at the

McCurdy and Uldam 43

2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit in Scotland. Rooted in the British environmen-

tal direct action movement, Dissent! was a transnational anticapitalist activist network that formed specifically to launch protests at Gleneagles. Dissent! was emblematic of the loose, purpose-oriented networks of the larger global

justice movement that mobilized protests around large international meet-

ings such as G8 summits beginning in the late 1990s.

Research on the media strategies of Dissent! was undertaken by McCurdy (2009) as part of his doctoral studies at the London School of

Economics and was based on participant observation with the network and

interviews with network members. After a period of electronic participant

observation that began in January 2004, face-to-face fieldwork with Dis-

sent! began in October 2004 and continued until August 2005. Using a first-person account written by Patrick McCurdy, this section examines

fieldwork situations from his Dissent! research to illustrate how the position of insider and overt researcher shifted during fieldwork and considers the

research implications of these changes.

Designing the Research Project and Entering the Field

Understanding why I describe my 2005 G8 research as insider research

requires first discussing the project’s impetus. My desire to study the

media practices of anticapitalist activists at the 2005 Gleneagles G8 stems

from my past activism. In the buildup to and during the 2002 Kananaskis

G8 Summit in Alberta, Canada, I was an active member of the Calgary-

based G8 Activist Network. Among other tasks, I helped establish and

run an autonomous media group that facilitated interaction between acti-

vists and mainstream news media. This insider experience sparked my

academic interest in the relationship between anticapitalist movements

and the media and in October 2003, I began my doctoral studies in the

United Kingdom.

Social movements are shaped by their national, social, political, and eco-

nomic context (Della Porta and Tarrow 2005). However, in January 2004,

when I first learned of Dissent!, I felt an immediate transnational affinity with the network. Although I was not well versed in the British direct action

activist scene and did not share national affinities or experiences, the idea of

an international summit mobilization was familiar, and Dissent! took a sim- ilar, autonomous, and horizontal approach to its politics and organizing as I

had experienced in Canada.

From mid-January until mid-October 2004, I occupied what Gold (1958)

termed the ‘‘complete observer’’ by reading all discussions, including

44 Field Methods 26(1)

archived messages and posts of relevant network sites and e-mail Listserv.

This allowed me to refine my research focus while becoming familiar with

Dissent! politics and issues. My first in-person contact with Dissent! came during the European Social Forum (ESF) held in London October 15–17,

2004. On October 16, a workshop entitled ‘‘G8 Global Protest and Poverty’’

was held with representatives from organizations such as People and Planet,

Save the Children, Globalise Resistance (GR), and Dissent! to discuss plans for protesting the G8 Summit.

The day before, I had agreed with some Dissent! members to arrive at the ESF early to hand out Dissent! promotional flyers before the workshop. The flyers had the slogan ‘‘We are more powerful than they can possibly imag-

ine’’ on one side with black and white images from past protests and text

about Dissent! on the back. While doing this, I was approached by a young female member of GR, a British anticapitalist collation of political parties,

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and activists. Katrina (not her real

name) told me that she was afraid that some Dissent! members might resort to violence during the protests and reservations that Dissent! was not work- ing with GR in planning protests.

My interaction with Katrina enforces the role of perception—my own

and others—and context in ascribing insider/outsider status in the ever-

shifting grounds of overt and covert research. Katrina perceived me as a

Dissent! insider in Merton’s (1972:21) classic sense of the word; a member of Dissent!, and thus as an appropriate outlet for her concerns about the net- work. Moreover, although I disclosed my researcher status to Dissent! members at the ESF, I chose not to disclose this to Katrina as she was not

a member of Dissent!. Thus, looking at my role as a participant observer from Katrina’s perspective, I could be seen as occupying a space in the cov-

ert/insider aspect of the quadrant (see Figure 1: Dissent! Position 1). Yet, as I had disclosed my research status to Dissent! members, I would position myself within the overt/insider aspect of the quadrant (see Figure 1: Dis-

sent! Position 2). While the nuances of such positions are debatable, the larger point

revolves around the need to acknowledge how social context as well as

our own feelings and emotions impact how we see ourselves and, in turn,

how others may, or may not, see us as researchers. And such perceptions

change over time. In my case, after initially feeling unsure of my status

within Dissent!, over the next 10 months, through developing a greater familiarity and affinity with network members and taking a more active

role, I came to see myself as more of an insider and also came to be

treated as such (see Figure 1: Position 3).

McCurdy and Uldam 45

Network Access, Degrees of Overtness, and Shifting Field Sites

I decided early on in my research to take an overt approach to fieldwork and

thereby disclosed my researcher status to Dissent! members. Conducting overt research within a social movement requires, among other things,

establishing a particular level of trust and acceptance (Plows 2002:76). One

strategy to gain the trust and acceptance of Dissent! network members was to disclose my research status early on. As a matter of good practice, I

informed network members as soon as possible—usually when meeting

them the first time—of my interest in studying Dissent! and sought their consent for my continued participation. However, my role as a researcher

would not have been immediately apparent to all Dissent! members. This is because I disclosed my academic interest to network members on an indi-

vidual level and did not pursue informed consent in group settings such as

network meetings.

By not overtly stating my position as a researcher to all network members,

some people who may have objected to my presence were not given the

opportunity to do so. While a valid criticism, I feel two factors justify this

strategy. First, the fluid nature of Dissent! meant obtaining informed consent from all members would have been an almost impossible task. This would

have required an announcement at each event and a potentially heated discus-

sion among network members that could have been ostracizing for me.

Figure 1. A four-quadrant approach to participant observation.

46 Field Methods 26(1)

Second, as a radical social movement, Dissent! may be considered a more ‘‘closed’’ than ‘‘open’’ field site (Jorgensen 1989:42). Although by no means

secretive, there was a healthy skepticism of any form of surveillance, includ-

ing that of researchers. Consequently, a level of negotiation was required to

gain entry and acceptance. As part of this process, I often referred to my acti-

vist background in my early conversations with network members. This

helped establish me as an insider and certainly eased network access. Net-

work access may also have been facilitated by the high number of PhD stu-

dents in the network, though I was the only one studying Dissent!. Nonetheless, a common joke was that PhD students—as opposed to police

and journalists—were the new social movement infiltrators.

My presence in Dissent! started relatively early in the network’s trajec- tory, when national meetings would only attract about 30–40 people. This

gave me an opportunity to build trust with key network members and be

accepted into the group. This also meant that I was present as group mem-

bership grew, arguably making me more of an insider as new members

joined. A danger with this close level of involvement (yet part of the point

of participant observation) is that people might have forgotten that I was a

researcher and they were being studied. The only time where there was a

real conflict between my roles as a researcher and as a participant observer

came during the actual protests in Scotland when I was asked a few times by

Dissent! media group members to help them by doing a interviews with Canadian media. I politely declined as I felt it was not my position to speak

to the media about the event I was studying. Group members accepted this

point, and I do not feel it impacted my standing in Dissent!. Participant observation within social movement research and at protests

in particular presents a very real danger of getting caught up in the moment

and losing track of one’s research purpose as protests can be intense, exhi-

larating, and even dangerous environments. As a researcher and network

member who had seen Dissent! expand and as someone who actively parti- cipated in planning for ‘‘the big day’’ of protest, the protests themselves

were the culmination of months of work for both network members and

me. Yet, it was important—though at times difficult—to stay mindful of

my fieldwork’s purpose. Doing so helped me contextualize my affinity with

Dissent!, dampened my desire to seek out experiences that could have detracted from the purpose of my research, and, I believe, helped reduce

the danger of being too close to my object of study. Finally, although I

exited fieldwork feeling as a Dissent! insider, following Roseneil (1995:9), I achieved a further level of ‘‘critical distance’’ once I completed

fieldwork (see Figure 1: Position 4). Having left the field, I had time to

McCurdy and Uldam 47

critically reflect, examine, and question my experiences, including shifts

between my status as insider and outsider and overt and covert researcher.

The NTAC Network and the 2009 UN Climate Conference Protests

The following examples come from participant observation and interviews

conducted in 2009 and 2010 with Danish radical activists affiliated with the

transnational NTAC network. The NTAC network was a transnational social

movement network that formed in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009 to mobi-

lize for protest against the 15th UN Climate Conference of the Parties

(COP15). The network was formed by activists who felt that the protests

being planned against the UN climate summit were not confrontational

enough. NTAC called for confrontational direct action and, as a result, during

the COP15 Conference became marginalized by reformist organizations

such as Friends of the Earth and mainstream NGOs present in Copenhagen.

The network dissolved itself shortly after the COP15 Conference.

The 4-month project, which included both participant observation at

demonstrations and interviews, was a joint undertaking between Tina Aska-

nius and Julie Uldam. It focused on the role of online videos in mobilizing

for and fostering commitment to confrontational protests (Uldam and Aska-

nius 2013). Using a first-person account written by Julie Uldam, two field-

work situations from this research are used to illustrate an overt/outsider

position as an initial research position (see Figure 1: NTAC Position 1) and

a covert/outsider position at a public mass demonstration (see Figure 1:

NTAC Position 2). In both cases, the degree of outsiderness was not fixed

but shifted during the research. These shifts, along with the overt/covert

dynamics, are discussed for each instance.

Entering the Field: Overt Outsider Research

I began my participant observation as an outsider, a position influenced by

both personal experiences and structural aspects (see Figure 1: NTAC Posi-

tion 1). To begin with, while I had experience with civil disobedience and

nonviolent direct action, I was unfamiliar with the confrontational modes of

action—such as burning cars or throwing bricks—promoted by the NTAC.

Moreover, I did not have prior points of contact with any network members.

Thus, my lack of experience with the NTAC’s modes of action and my

absence of personal bonds with NTAC members positioned me far toward

the outsider end of the insider/outsider continuum (Plows 2008; Roseneil

1995).

48 Field Methods 26(1)

I was, however, not a total outsider. Being Danish, I shared national and

local anchoring with some NTAC affiliates and was also familiar with national

and local politics and civic cultures. Shared nationality and local experiences

are considered aspects of an insider position (e.g., Hockey 1993). Yet, at the

time, I felt that the fact that I did not personally know any of the members

of NTAC positioned me at the outsider end of the spectrum. Upon reflection,

I attribute this feeling of being an outsider to the particularly skeptical approach

that NTAC members and affiliates took toward anyone they did not know per-

sonally. This approach was likely the result of the network’s precarious situa-

tion vis-à-vis the police at the time of research (discussed below).

The feeling of being an outsider, despite telltale groundings such as

nationality or cultural familiarity, can have a powerful effect on a

researcher. Together, the combination of my inexperience with the NTAC’s

action repertoire and the absence of personal relations weighted heavier

than my structural dimensions of cultural insights.

The view of me as an outsider did not change significantly during the course

of research. The main reason for this was the limited time span within which

the research was conducted: The direct action events all took place within 2

weeks in December 2009. The remainder of fieldwork spanned from Decem-

ber 2009 to March 2010 and mostly revolved around interviews. This short

time in the field did not facilitate the development of personal ties that might

have pulled me toward an insider position, replacing the absence of previous

personal contact. However, my political sympathies, shared nationality, and

previous experiences from other activist contexts enabled me to conduct my

research outside the contexts of demonstrations from an overt position.

Reflecting on the overt/covert continuum, I entered the field in a mainly

overt manner. As my research focus was video activism, I began by approach-

ing individuals filming at Klimaforum (the alternative climate conference in

held Copenhagen) as well as the Klimaforum press team. I tried to be open

about my research interests to everyone I approached. This entailed telling

my informants that I was sympathetic toward their cause and that the purpose

of my research was to understand how political engagement played out in mul-

timodal file-sharing sites around protest events. The rest of my interviewees

were recruited through a snowballing approach (see below). At the beginning

of all interviews, I still took care to make my research interests explicit.

Public Mass Demonstrations: Covert Outsider Researchers

While my position was overt during the initial phase of fieldwork and dur-

ing interviews in the sense of Gold’s (1958) participant as observer, it was

McCurdy and Uldam 49

less straightforward during participant observation at COP15 protest events.

Here, the near impossibility of disclosing my identity as a researcher to all

protesters meant that my position was covert to most (see Figure 1: NTAC

Position 2). Also, although I did not dress for the occasion, I wore clothes

that I would regularly wear at direct action events in winter: boots, jeans,

and winter coat. As most participants were dressed in similar, casual attire,

I did not stand out from the crowd and was not visible as an overt researcher.

This participant observation situation did not involve covert research as

deception as problematized by Spicker (2011). Given the large crowd at the

event, my role as a researcher remained undisclosed to almost all at the

mass demonstration. Thus, although I did not conceal the fact that I was

researching the event and had been open with network members in the past,

the sheer scale of the event meant that there was an inevitable degree of cov-

ertness. My outsider positions along the overt/covert continuum entailed

both advantages and disadvantages, particularly in terms of access and

subjectivity.

Outsider Positions and Access

The absence of personal bonds made gaining access to activists involved

with the NTAC network and Copenhagen’s ‘‘autonomous’’ movement dif-

ficult. Activists who use confrontational modes of action are in a precarious

situation as they sometimes operate in legal gray zones and generally face

severe repression from police and state authorities (Hintz and Milan 2010).

Consequently, they are cautious about talking to outsiders. At the COP15,

the situation was no different for the NTAC network. In their attempt to

mobilize for protests against the COP15 Conference, NTAC used YouTube

to promote a mobilization video. The video ‘‘War on Capitalism’’ was

accompanied by the call for action: ‘‘Capitalism is stumbling—Let’s make

sure it falls. Get prepared with your friends and come to Copenhagen 7th–

18th of December. Direct action against the COP15.’’

The juxtaposition of this narrative of war and images of confrontational

protests in the video caught the attention of the Danish police, who (in addi-

tion to generally adopting severe methods in preparation for the climate

conference such as preemptive arrests) used the media to emphasize a par-

ticular interest in the NTAC network (Klein 2009). Therefore, Copenha-

gen’s activist community, and especially the NTAC, was particularly

skeptical toward outsiders and constituted a ‘‘closed’’ field site when I

began my research (Jorgensen 1989:42). They were constructed as deviant

(Becker 1967).

50 Field Methods 26(1)

My political sympathies with the NTAC network’s critique of a capitalist

approach to climate policies played a significant role in reducing the activist

community’s skepticism toward me and helped me establish rapport with

my informants (Mercer 2007). I had previously been involved in anticapi-

talist protests, albeit symbolic performances of protest rather than protests

based on a logic of damage as the one promoted by NTAC. In engaging

informants, I drew on my past activist experience as a way of explaining

that I was sympathetic to their cause. It could be argued that I used this rap-

port to background my position as an outsider (Bernard 2011). My inter-

views were based on a snowballing approach that helped decrease

informants’ skepticism toward me from one interview to the next. It thus

induced trust. Given my position toward the outsider end of the insider/out-

sider continuum, this trust was significant for gaining access, highlighting

the interrelationship between insider/outsider and overt/covert positions.

As mass demonstrations against COP15 were public, my outsider posi-

tion did not provide obstacles to accessing and participating in them. How-

ever, being a participant observer in direct action protests where the

researcher may be witness to criminal damage requires deciding what infor-

mation will be written down, creating a tension between research and acti-

vist trust, as participant observation poses a security risk for informants.

Aware that field notes might be seized by authorities, I decided not to take

notes during the protests but to observe and subsequently write down my

observations later. I also discussed issues of security at demonstrations at

ensuing interviews.

Outsider Positions and Subjectivity and Bias

Although the outsider researcher will usually have fewer blind spots in

terms of interpretation (Plows 2008), the insider researcher has the advan-

tage of familiarity of understanding the contexts of practices (Hodkinson

2005; Juris 2007).

My inexperience with the confrontational modes of action promoted by

the NTAC network enabled me to identify both strategic and affective pur-

poses of their choice of modes of action. This helped me pin down a focus of

enquiry for my ensuing interviews more quickly. Had a logic of damage

also driven the modes of action that I had experience with, I might have

needed more time for self-reflexivity to be able to tune into this dual pur-

pose of NTAC’s action repertoire. This was an advantage, as fieldwork for

this case was constrained by a relatively short time frame. However, this

aspect of my outsider status also impeded my understanding of the interplay

McCurdy and Uldam 51

between a logic of damage and political engagement, which more time in

the field—and a gravitation toward an insider position—might have

facilitated.

The structural aspects of my researcher position—my shared nationality

and local experiences of politics with the network and other activists—

enabled me to have conversations with activists about recent authorizations

granted the Danish police, such as preemptive arrests, grounded in a shared

understanding of the political climate and history of police practices at

demonstrations in Denmark. This facilitated my understanding of the role

of confrontational protests as reactions against these local particulars and

gave me the possibility to compare my transnational experiences against the

Danish context.

My political sympathies with NTAC’s agenda had two main implica-

tions: (1) they facilitated access and (2) they required a reflexive approach

to my biased values despite my outsider position.

Conclusion

In this article, we have proposed a quadrant of insider/outsider and covert/

overt positions in participant observation. In proposing this quadrant, our

objective has been to open up the continua of overt/covert and insider/out-

sider to create a space for researchers to reflect on the (structural and iden-

tity-related) issues that influence our positions in participant observation

and their implications for access, subjectivity, and political bias. We are not

proposing the quadrant as a tool that is static; we recognize that one’s posi-

tion may shift numerous times during fieldwork. Instead, our goal is to offer

a heuristic tool for participant observers to reflect on the practicalities, ethi-

cal responsibilities, and epistemological implications of these shifts during

the research process.

Such an exercise is useful before entering the field to understand the

positions and responsibilities and during fieldwork to navigate the tensions

in research objectives and the ethical implications of the research. Used

after fieldwork, it can allow researchers to reflect on how their research

strategy shifted over the course of the project as their positions changed and

how this impacts their findings. The implications of positions to one’s

research are contextual. They therefore need to be considered specifically

in each case, before, during, and after fieldwork.

In both social movement examples discussed, multiple dimensions influ-

enced our positions as participant observers on the insider/outsider and

overt/covert continuums, making these positions ambiguous, but with an

52 Field Methods 26(1)

overall gravitation toward one end of each continuum. The weight assigned

to each dimension is not predefined or fixed. Rather, in many ways, it is

subjective and contingent on the importance the researcher ascribes to each

dimension. In this way, debates on participant observer positions are not

just about defining categories of observer roles but also about acknowled-

ging the subjectivity of participant observation as a methodology indebted

to social constructivism. Therefore, we hope our quadrant can also serve as

a starting point for discussions around how we come to be insiders or out-

siders as positions that are related to how we think about ourselves in rela-

tion to our research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-

lication of this article.

References

Becker, H. 1967. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14:239–47.

Berg, B. L. 2009. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London:

Pearson.

Bernard, H. R. 2011. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. London: Sage.

Della Porta, D., and S. Tarrow. 2005. Transnational protest and global activism.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ergun, A., and A. Erdemir. 2010. Negotiating insider and outsider identities in the

field: ‘‘Insider’’ in a foreign land; ‘‘Outsider’’ in one’s own land. Field Methods

22:16–38.

Fielding, N. 1982. Observational research on the National Front. In Social research

ethics: An examination of the merits of covert participant observation, ed. M.

Blumer, 80–104. New York: Holmes & Meier.

Gold, R. L. 1958. Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces 36:217–23.

Graeber, D. 2009. Anarchism, academia, and the avant-garde. In Contemporary

anarchist studies an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy, ed. R.

Amster, A. DeLeon, L. Fernandez, A. Nocella II, and D. Shannon, 103–12. New

York: Routledge.

McCurdy and Uldam 53

Hertwig, R., and A. Ortmann. 2008. Deception in experiments: Revisiting the argu-

ments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior 18:59–92.

Hintz, A., and S. Milan. 2010. Researching grass-roots activism. International Jour-

nal of Communication 4:837–44.

Hockey, J. 1993. Research methods—Researching peers and familiar settings.

Research Papers in Education 8:199–225.

Hodkinson, P. 2005. ‘‘Insider research’’ in the study of youth cultures. Journal of

Youth Studies 8:131–49.

Jorgensen, D. L. 1989. Participant observation: A method for human studies.

London: Sage.

Juris, J. 2007. Practicing militant ethnography with the movement for global resis-

tance (MRG) in Barcelona. In Constituent imaginations, ed. S. Shukaitis and D.

Graeber, 164–78. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Klein, N. 2009. Del og hersk i København (Divide and conquer in Copenhagen). Infor-

mation December 18. http://www.information.dk/218589 (accessed July 20, 2012).

Lauder, M. A. 2003. Covert participant observation of a deviant community: Justi-

fying the use of deception. Journal of Contemporary Religion 18:185–96.

Li, J. 2008. Ethical challenges in participant observation: A reflection on ethno-

graphic fieldwork. The Qualitative Report 13:100–15.

Litcherman, P. 1998. What do movements mean? The value of participant observa-

tion. Qualitative Sociology 21:401–18.

Litcherman, P. 2002. Seeing structure happen: Theory-driven participant observa-

tion. In Methods of social movement research, ed. B. Klandermans and S. Stag-

genborg, 118–45. London: University of Minnesota Press.

McCurdy, P. 2009. ‘‘I predict a riot’’—Mediation and political contention: Dis-

sent!’s media practices at the 2005 Gleneagles G8 Summit. Unpublished PhD

thesis, London School of Economics, London. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/5/

(accessed May 16, 2013).

Mercer, J. 2007. The challenges of insider research in educational institutions:

Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review

of Education 33:1–17.

Merton, R. K. 1972. Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowl-

edge. American Journal of Sociology 77:9–47.

Plows, A. 2002. Practice and praxis: The ‘‘what, how and why’’ of the UK environ-

mental direct action movement in the 1990s. Unpublished PhD thesis, University

of Wales, Bangor, Wales.

Plows, A. 2008. Social movements and ethnographic methodologies: An analysis

using case study examples. Sociology Compass 2:1523–38.

Roseneil, S. 1995. Disarming patriarchy: Feminism and political action at Green-

ham. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

54 Field Methods 26(1)

Scheper-Hughes, N. 1995. The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant

anthropology. Current Anthropology 36:409–20.

Spicker, R. 2011. Ethical covert research. Sociology 45:118–33.

Uldam, J., and T. Askanius. 2013. Calling for confrontational action in online social

media: Video activism as auto-communication. In Mediation and protest move-

ments, ed. B. Cammaerts, A. Mattoni, and P. McCurdy, 159–78. Bristol, UK:

Intellect.

McCurdy and Uldam 55