top of page

Reflections from the field: The benefits and drawbacks to being an "outsider" researcher


In our last blog post, Aleks Krotoski introduced you to the second phase of our research: a digital ethnography of online sperm donation platforms. You can think of a digital ethnography as a “ride-along”, where researchers immerse themselves in the same physical or digital space as the people they’re studying.  Over the past year, I, Dr Lauren Smith, have been observing and interacting with people on online sperm donation platforms to understand what is happening in these connection spaces. In this blog post, I will reflect on my personal experiences of doing this work from the perspective of being an "outsider”.


As a researcher, you’re an “outsider” if you don’t belong to the group you’re studying. Think rugby players studying footballers, cats studying dogs, Mac users studying Windows users – you get the gist. I consider myself to be an outsider in this work because I have no experience of trying to conceive with donor sperm and I am not donating sperm to people I have met online.  While I may have a good understanding of things like the terminology that people use or the major issues and concerns that people have in online sperm donation, I lack the lived experience that allows me to ever truly understand what it is like to be a recipient, donor, or site owner navigating these online spaces. The understanding I have will only ever be partial and this is why speaking to people in online sperm donation about my interpretations and their experiences has been crucial – it will allow me to amplify the voices and experiences of people who this research is for, not simply speak on behalf of them.


Ongoing reflection of my position as a visitor, a knowledge seeker, an academic, and how these positions have influenced what I “know” about online sperm donation has also been important. Each time I write, speak, or theorise about online sperm donation, I ask myself things like:

  • Whose voice am I representing, who benefits from their perspective?

  • Who chooses to speak to me and who doesn’t? Why?  

  • What is missing from my observations and participation?

  • How do my own characteristics and position shape what I notice?


These questions remind me that the knowledge I have reflects, in part, my social identity and location. This is what is called “situated knowledge” – a term coined by a feminist philosopher, Donna Haraway. Someone else, with a different social identity or location – such as someone who is “inside” online sperm donation as a recipient or donor - may gain different knowledge or have a different perspective.


Being an “outsider” does have some benefits. It allows researchers like me to see things that an “insider” might miss, for example, due to their familiarity with the topic and taken-for-granted-knowledge. In the case of online sperm donation, I have dissected things like the language that is commonly used by people, such as “recipient”, “donor”, “natural” and “artificial” insemination.


I’ve almost reached the end of this year-long ride-along, and I have thoroughly enjoyed immersing myself in this network! Before starting this project, I knew very little about the alternative and non-clinical pathways that people use to create their families and I am leaving with heaps of knowledge – something I now understand to be a privilege. I think the greatest misconception about academia is that we, the academics, are always “the experts”. Academics often are “outsiders” to their research, and it is only through speaking to the people that they study that knowledge is gained. The job of an academic, at least in my opinion, is to share the stories that we are told in an ethical, sensitive, and meaningful way. I hope that this is something I’ll be able to achieve with this digital ethnography in the not-so-distant future!

Comments


bottom of page