Challenges and opportunities faced by an insider researcher in Malaysian ethnicity studies: a literature review
List of Authors
  • Khauthar Ismail

Keyword
  • Ethnicity; extended case method; insider researcher; post-colonial countries; colonial epistemology

Abstract
  • Ethnicity in most social contexts is largely treated as a simple and reified concept especially by insider researchers in post-colonial countries. In certain cases, some of these insider researchers have a perception that being part of an ethnic group would primordially equip them with prior knowledge about their group, hence neglecting the complexity of the ethnicity itself. The outcomes would be problematic for the development of ethnicity studies: theoretically and methodologically. The main objective of this article is to discuss methodological (epistemological and ontological) challenges faced by insider researchers in Malaysian ethnicity studies. Using the Extended Case Method (ECM), I reflect on how I engaged methodologically as an insider researcher in understanding ethnicity. The discourse is intended to assist insider researchers in justifying their methodological perspective in ethnicity studies without neglecting their identity and position.

Reference
  • 1. Alatas, S.H. (1972). The Captive Mind In Development Studies. International Social Sciences Journal, 24(1), 9-25.
    2. Becker H.S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239-47.
    3. Borchgrevink, A. (2003). Silencing language of anthropologists and interpreters. Ethnography, 4(1), 95- 121. doi: 10.1177/1466138103004001005
    4. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage Publications.
    5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psyychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
    6. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond Identity. Theory and society, 29(1), 1-47. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199264465
    7. Burawoy, M. (1991) Reconstructing social theories. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, A. Arnett, K. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger, J. Schiffman & S. Ui (eds), Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis (pp.8-27). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    8. Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4-33.
    9. Burawoy, M. (2000). Introduction: Reaching for the Global. In M. Burawoy, J. Blum, S. George, Z.Gille, T. Gowan, L. Haney, M. Klawitter, S. Lopez, S. Riain & M. Thayer (eds), Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world (pp.1-40). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    10. Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0335220223
    11. Dwyer, S.C., & Buckle, J.L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63.
    12. Iosifides, T. (2011). Qualitative methods in migration studies: A critical realist perspective. England: Ashgate Publishing.
    13. Larkin, M., & Thompson, A.R. (2012). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In A. Thompson & D. Harper (eds), Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy (pp.99- 116). Oxford: John Wiley.
    14. Morse, J.M. (1998). Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp.56-85). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    15. Roulston, K., & Lewis, J.B. (2003). Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 643-668.
    16. Shamsul, A.B. (1982). The Superiority of Indigenous Scholars? Some Facts and Fallacies with Special Reference to Malay Anthropologists in Fieldwork. Manusia dan Masyarakat, 3, 23-33.
    17. Shamsul, A.B. (1996). Debating about identity in Malaysia: A discourse analysis. Southeast Asian Studies, 34(3), 476-499.
    18. Shamsul, A.B. (1998). Ethnicity, class, culture or identity? Competing paradigms in Malaysian studies. Akademika, 53, 33-59.
    19. Shamsul, A.B. (1999). Colonial knowledge and the construction of Malay and Malay-ness: Exploring the literary component. Sari, 17(2000), 1-14.
    20. Stanfield, J.H. (1993). Epistemological Considerations. In J.H. Stanfield & R.M. Dennis (eds), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods (pp.3-15). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    21. Maanen, J.V. (2011). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 218-234. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00980.x
    22. Warren, J., & Garthwaite, K. (2015). Whose side are we on and for whom do we write? Notes on issues and challenges facing those researching and evaluating public policy. Evidence and Policy: a Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 11(2), 225-237.
    23. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study: Research Design and Methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.A