ABSTRACT

Over the past few years I have been increasingly involved in studies of minority ethnic gay and lesbians (ME/GL) in Scotland and England, collecting narratives about their experiences. My interest in the subject is driven by a desire to hear the voices that are largely neither heard nor understood. The first study, which was part of my PhD, described the struggle that seven Muslim gay men faced in combining their sexual identity with their Islamic faith (Siraj 2006a). Following on from this, I conducted life story interviews with a Scottish Muslim lesbian, examining how she grappled with the isolation of being in the closet (Siraj 2011). Most recently I carried out a qualitative study with 11 South Asian gay men across Scotland, exploring the intersection of the multiple identities that result from being gay Asian men. Given that ME/GL have only recently become the object of academic research (Yip 2004a, 2004b; Siraj 2006a; Jaspal and Cinnirella 2010), there is a chasm in the ‘methodological issues such as the “insider”/“outsider” dynamics as experienced by researchers’ (Jaspal 2009, 2). It is my contention that the lacunae in the field exists because this is a relatively new territory, but also from a personal perspective, very few Muslim female sociologists are involved in research of this kind. One of the features of my studies is my unique place in the research, my heterosexuality, faith and appearance (hijab), inevitably create a number of methodological issues particular to the study of this group. In order to research with transparency researchers need to acknowledge and account for their position within the research process. My intention is to make explicit the challenges I faced in engaging in research with ME/GL, and in doing so I detail the ways I sought to resolve them. The chapter begins with an overview of the debate concerning the position of the researcher as either an insider or outsider, paying particular attention to my status and position on the insider/outsider spectrum. Next, I discuss the influence my sexual orientation had on the research process, and the methods I employed to overcome personal bias. This is followed by an examination of my positionality and how by engaging in a process of reflexivity, I was able to objectively recognise heterosexist bias in the data analysis. I also consider how my multiple identities contributed to accessing this ‘hidden population’, but also helped strengthen the connection between the participants and myself. The chapter concludes by stating that group membership does not necessarily create privileged access to participants or knowledge. Rather, if the researcher engages in reflexivity, and is committed to accountability and transparency, then his/her status as either insider or outsider has significantly less impact on the research process.