No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Utilizing Mansplaining as Data: Leveraging Gender and Outsider Positionalities in International Third Sector Research Fieldwork
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Abstract
This article examines ways of leveraging gender and outsider positionalities in a manner that benefits the research process in international third sector field research. International research is conducted by individuals collecting data outside their country of origin or long-term residence. In the article I reflect on the role of researcher outsider status as it intersects with gender, and how these positionalities can be used to positively influence data collection in the field. I argue that aspects of female outsider status often experienced as negative also can offer unexpected benefits to research fieldwork, such as access as an outsider to conflict-affected communities, additional assistance to the “vulnerable” female, extra explanation to the “naïve” female researcher, and access facilitated by third gender or honorary male status assigned to female outsiders.
Information
- Type
- Research Papers
- Information
- Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 108 - 114
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2021
References
Akbar, S. (2012). From Khariji to Kabuli being an “insider/outsider” in an Afghan woman’s fieldwork. Anthropology of the Middle East, 7(1), 69–77. doi: 10.3167/ame.2012.070106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammann, C. (2018). Challenges and opportunities of doing fieldwork as a woman on women in Guinea. In Jackson, R. & Kelly, M. (Eds.), Women researching in Africa: The impact of gender. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 217–234.Google Scholar
Bakkalbasioglu, E. (2020). How to access elites when textbook methods fail: Challenges of purposive sampling and advantages of using interviewees as “fixers”. The Qualitative Report, 25(3), 688–699.Google Scholar
Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X027007004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, J. (2017). Gendering metapragmatics in online discourse: “Mansplaining man gonna mansplain…. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, J. (2020). Being an insider and outsider: Whiteness as a key dimension of difference. Qualitative Research, 20(3), 340–354. doi: 10.1177/1468794119874599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report, 13(3), 474–494.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Ghaffari, R. (2019). Going gender research as a “gendered subject”: Challenges and sparks of being dual-citizen woman researcher in Iran. Anthropology of the Middle East, 14(2), 130–142. doi: 10.3167/ame.2019.140209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Given, L. (2008). Peer debriefing. In Given, L. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R., & Richards, P. (2017). Sexual harassment and the construction of ethnographic knowledge. Sociological Forum, 32(3), 587–609. doi: 10.1111/socf.12350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R., & Richards, P. (2019). Harassed: Gender, bodies, and ethnographic research. University of California Press doi: 10.2307/j.ctvfxvcd1.Google Scholar
Holmes, A. (2020). Researcher positionality—A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—A new researcher guide. International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
Hourani, G. (2019). Field research in environments of insecurity: Experience from Lebanon. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 98, 85–100.Google Scholar
Knepper, H., Scutelnicu, G., & Tekula, R. (2020). Why gender and research productivity matters in academia: Exploring evidence from NASPAA-accredited schools. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(1), 51–72. doi: 10.1080/15236803.2019.1565066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koc-Michalska, K., Schiffrin, A., Lopez, A., Boulianne, S., & Bimber, B. (2019). From online political posting to mansplaining: The gender gap and social media in political discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 39, 1–14.Google Scholar
Ma, J., & Konrath, S. (2018). A century of nonprofit studies: Scaling the knowledge of the field. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1139–1158. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-00057-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malejacq, R., & Mukhopadhyay, D. (2016). The ‘tribal politics’ of field research: A reflection on power and partiality in 21st-century warzones. Perspectives on Politics, 14(4), 1011–1028. doi: 10.1017/S1537592716002899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayorga-Gallo, S., & Hordge-Freeman, E. (2017). Between marginality and privilege: Gaining access and navigating the field in multiethnic settings. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 377–394. doi: 10.1177/1468794116672915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam Webster Dictionary (2020). Mansplain (verb). Accessed 11 August 2020 at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplaining.Google Scholar
Minkowitz, H., Twumasi, A., Berrett, J., Chen, X., & Stewart, A. (2020). Checking in on the state of nonprofit scholarship: A review of recent research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(2), 182–208. doi: 10.20899/jpna.6.2.182-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naples, N. A. (1996). The outsider phenomenon. In Smith, C. D. & Kornblum, W. (Eds.), In the field: Readings on the field research experience (2nd ed., pp. 139–149). Praeger.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. (2016). Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 386–399. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyes, V. (2020). Ethnographic toolkit: Strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research. Ethnography, 21(2), 220–240. doi: 10.1177/1466138118805121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwedler, J. (2006). The third gender: Western female researchers in the Middle East. PS, Political Science and Politics, 39(3), 425–428. doi: 10.1017/S104909650606077X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374–385.Google Scholar
Thun, C. (2020). Excellent and gender equal? Academic motherhood and ‘gender blindness’ in Norwegian academia. Gender Work and Organization, 27(2), 166–180. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend-Bell, E. (2009). Being true and being you: Race, gender, class, and the fieldwork experience. PS, Political Science and Politics, 42(2), 311–314. doi: 10.1017/S1049096509090623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Boogaard, V. (2018). Gender and positionality: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical dilemmas in Ghana and Sierra Leone. In Jackson, R. & Kelly, M. (Eds.), Women researching in Africa: The impact of gender. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 257–275.Google Scholar
Ward, J. (2018). The methods gatekeepers and the exiled queers. In Compton, D., Meadow, T., & Schilt, K. (Eds.), Other, please specify: Queer methods in sociology. University of California Press. pp. 51–66.Google Scholar