Insider vs. Outsider in Native Anthropology Research

Introduction to Native Anthropology

"Native anthropology" is a set of theories based on non-Western precepts and assumptions, in the same sense that modern anthropology is based on and supported by Western beliefs and values (Jones, 31). Understanding what distinguishes a "native anthropologist" from one who is not native to the society being studied is central to evaluating how anthropological knowledge is produced. At its core, the distinction maps onto the concepts of insider and outsider research.

Insiders and Outsiders: Contrasting Approaches

An "insider" is a person who conducts research on the cultural, racial, or ethnic group of which he or she is a member, while an "outsider" conducts research on a native culture from an objective point of view. Insiders and outsiders face fundamentally different problems in the field.

Anthropology students are generally taught that a person working with his or her own people cannot maintain objectivity, and that research experience must be gained from another culture. However, the basic aim of anthropological field research is to describe the total culture of a group of people, and it is also widely felt that this description should be made from the point of view of the people themselves — the insider view. To obtain such a description, the anthropologist must become totally involved in the life of the people, spending considerable time with them.

The logical conclusion, as Jones argues, is that a trained native anthropologist would produce good, reliable data precisely because of his or her deep familiarity with the people (Jones, 32). The insider has easy access to information, is trusted by the community, and holds an obvious advantage in this regard. Yet Jones also points out that the outsider has advantages of his or her own. The outsider derives research questions from the broader literature on culture and from "the tendency of anthropologists to speak of a total population in terms of a study of one segment of that population" (Jones, 33). Because of cultural, linguistic, or racial differences, people are always aware that the outsider is a researcher rather than one of them (Jones, 36).

The insider approach, by contrast, involves intuition, experience, and self-esteem. Current literature, for example, has been filled with discussions of black self-image, with the conclusion that Black individuals have a more negative self-image than white individuals. An insider researcher would experience an automatic sense of defense and resentment at having his or her own group described in such terms (Jones, 33).

The Native Anthropologist in Practice

A native anthropologist would generally appear far less hostile and would be viewed as less of a stranger. As an insider, people do not regard you as a researcher but as a friend (Jones, 36). At the same time, a native anthropologist could also arouse suspicion, with the community raising obvious questions: Is the anthropologist connected with an agency? Does he or she have a hidden agenda? All these factors — alongside non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, hand movements, body language, and tone of voice — come into play when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of native anthropological research (Jones, 34).

A native researcher would need to explain the purpose of his or her work. Most people in urban Black communities are familiar with the concept of research, and many feel, according to Jones, that research among Black people conducted by a Black social scientist is a very positive development, because the resulting reports reflect a genuine understanding of Black people (Jones, 35).

A common problem facing anthropologists of all kinds is whether or not to withhold data. Many have withheld information gathered in Third World countries out of fear that releasing it would displease the host country and jeopardize their chances of returning.

Conclusion: No Single Vantage Point

In the final analysis, neither an outsider nor an insider holds any distinct advantage, and problems arise with both approaches. "One vantage point cannot be said to be better than the other" (Jones, 37). Each methodology can, however, be said to be different, and both carry particular distortions, inaccuracies, half-truths, and social preconceptions. The outsider may enter a social situation armed with assumptions that go unquestioned and that guide him or her toward certain types of conclusions; the insider, meanwhile, may depend too heavily on personal background and sentiment. Many anthropologists feel that the native's view of his or her own culture reflects the most accurate perspective, since the aim of the anthropologist is ultimately to see things from the point of view of the people being studied.

The deeper problem is that while there are "native anthropologists," there is as yet no "native anthropology." In other words, there is little theory that has been formulated from the point of view of tribal, peasant, or minority peoples (Jones, 37). Old myths are still in the process of being dismantled, and new ones are continually being constructed in their place.