Access to this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from International Journal of Qualitative Methods
This content is subject to copyright.
Regular Article
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume 23: 1–12
© The Author(s) 2024
DOI: 10.1177/16094069241230021
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Challenges of Doing Gender Research as a
Male Researcher in Pakistan: Reflections
From Online and In-Person Fieldwork
Rahat Shah
1
Abstract
In this reflection paper, which stems from my PhD project and explores the gender arrangements and subjective experiences of
female breadwinning couples (FBCs) in Pakistan, I delve into the distinctive challenges faced by a male researcher conducting
gender research in a patriarchal cultural context. Drawing from both in-person and online fieldwork experiences, which began
during the pre-pandemic period and extended through the pandemic into the post-pandemic era, this article unveils the layered
intricacies posed by entrenched gender norms, societal expectations and the dynamics of a male researcher probing gendered
issue. These challenges were further intensified in online mediums of interviewing, presenting obstacles from participant
hesitations surrounding online privacy to inconsistent Internet connectivity and continuous disruptions. This paper also
underscores the fluidity and multifaceted nature of the researcher’s positionality, navigating interplays of gender, age, and
cultural perceptions. My dual role, both an insider (by virtue of my cultural connection to the fieldwork area) and an outsider
(owing to my affiliation with a Western academic institution), added layers of complexity to the fieldwork experiences. By
juxtaposing in-person and online encounters, a rich tapestry unfolds, depicting both intersecting and unique challenges inherent
to each mode of interviewing. Contributions of this reflection paper are multifold, which not only offers valuable insights for
future researchers venturing into similar sociocultural contexts but also highlights the nuanced experiences of male-led gender
research in predominantly patriarchal settings. The paper also contributes to the discourse on the fluidity of insider-outsider
roles, reflexivity, and the methodological resilience and adaptability needed while conducting gender-focused fieldwork within
specific cultural contexts.
Keywords
reflections, positionality, gender research, male researcher, fieldwork, Pakistan
Introduction
Reflection is a continuous process that involves revisiting
previously acquired knowledge and evaluating past experi-
ences in order to reshape the meanings attributed to these
encounters. This approach facilitates generating novel insights
(Finlay, 2012;Mann, 2016). Nevertheless, reflective practices
can also pose challenges for researchers when presenting their
field as largely detached from their roles and research activities
(Emerson, 1983). The concept of reflection originated in the
1930s and is currently considered a crucial component of
effective fieldwork endeavors (Pillow, 2003). According to
Harrison et al. (2001), it is widely agreed upon that a re-
searcher’s personal experiences, values, and position in
various hierarchies have an impact on their research interests,
methodology, and the way they communicate their findings.
Thus, the personal reflection of a researcher is acknowledged
as a crucial aspect of qualitative research methodology. It
assists in addressing biases or misconceptions researchers
might inadvertently introduce into their qualitative studies
(Roller & Lavrakas, 2012).
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
1
Institute of Sociology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Rahat Shah, Institute of Sociology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.
Email: rahat.shah331@gmail.com
Moreover, it is also a crucial component in feminist
research studies, which prompts feminist scholars to reflect on
the influence of their gender identity on their fieldwork and
research practices. The scholarly discourse on this matter has
progressed from the initial question of “Who is asking
whom?”(Arendell, 1997) to more intricate questions such as
“Who is asking whom and about what?”(Schwalbe &
Wolkomir, 2001), and has subsequently expanded to in-
clude the additional aspect of “Where is the inquiry taking
place?”(Pini, 2005). Despite this evolution in the field, re-
searchers navigating cross-gender studies often grapple with
multifaceted difficulties and challenges. While the precise
definition and implementation of reflexivity remain a topic of
debate, there is consensus that a reflexive turn has significantly
shaped sociological and ethnographic theories and approaches
(Caetano, 2015;May & Perry, 2011). However, most of the
current literature on this issue predominantly revolves around
researcher-participant dynamics in Western settings, with
limited exploration into the influence of a researcher’s gender
identity and its implications for the research process.
This paper offers a reflexive account of a study probing the
lived experiences of female breadwinning couples (FBCs) within
Pakistan’s highly patriarchal milieu. Reflexivity in this study hones
on the gender interplay between the researcher and the participants
and how it affected and altered the fieldwork (Mies, 1991).
Specifically, this paper emphasizes the dimension of self-
reflexivity (Lather, 1993)—or personal reflexivity (Wilkinson,
1988)—where a researcher’s individual identities play a pivotal
role during fieldwork. Put differently, attributes like gender, eth-
nicity, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and social class back-
ground of the researchers can shape their interactions, accessibility,
and the quality of the data gathered during their fieldwork (Berger,
2013). This research focuses on the gender identity of the re-
searcher in the specific cultural context, resonating with Horn’s
(1997) assertion that gender dynamics play a key role when
conducting research in a male-dominated environment compared
to other contexts. Consequently, when a male researcher inter-
views a female respondent or vice versa, the research process
becomes intricately tied to gender dynamics and ensuing gendered
power struggles (Campbell, 2003;Horn, 1997;Pini, 2005).
To lay the groundwork for this research, I leaned on personal
acquaintances and social media platforms, given that I lacked
direct access to potential interviewees. However, the path to
interviewing participants was not straightforward, and I en-
countered reluctance and resistance from potential male and
female participants. I interpreted this reluctance as tied to my
positionality—affected by factors such as my gender, age, marital
status, and perhaps even the research topic, all of which seemed
tocastanegativeimpactonmyfieldwork endeavours. My
“perceived identity”appeared to shape participants’reactions to
both me and my invitation to participate in the study. My research
topic (pertaining to female breadwinning couples), combined
with my dual role as both an insider (by virtue of my cultural
connection) and an outsider (owing to my affiliation with a
Western academic institution), added layers of complexity to the
fieldwork. My fieldwork spanned the pre-pandemic period and
extended through the pandemic into the post-pandemic era.
Consequently, I was contending not just with challenges stem-
ming from my positionality but also grappling with the intricacies
of online interviews. This mode of interviewing presented dis-
tinctive communication challenges, which contributed to the
increased intricacy of the data collection procedure. Faced with
these difficulties, I developed strategies to navigate these hurdles,
strategies that ultimately played a crucial role in achieving my
fieldwork objectives. Still, it had many consequences for me,
such as prolonging the time of my fieldwork and causing me
anxiety and stress.
This study offers substantial contributions to the fields of
gender and fieldwork studies, as well as insider/outsider
positionality, by comprehensively exploring researcher
identity and reflexivity within a complex cultural setting. This
study fills the gap in existing literature that predominantly
focuses on the dynamics between researchers and participants
in Western settings, specifically emphasizing the underex-
plored impact of a male researcher’s gender identity (Caetano,
2015;McKeganey & Bloor, 2019). This paper explores the
practical obstacles and approaches to carrying out gender-
specificfieldwork in Pakistan, a setting characterized by
distinct digital inequalities and cultural intricacies (Shah,
2023a,2023b). This study also highlights the need to prior-
itize the mental and emotional well-being of researchers and
emphasizes the strength and adaptability needed in feminist
research, particularly from the often-neglected perspective of
male researchers in non-Western contexts. This enriches the
discourse on the fluidity and intersectionality of insider/
outsider roles in qualitative research. The main research
question which guides this study is: What are the specific
challenges and strategies encountered by a male researcher
conducting gender-focused fieldwork, and how do these ex-
periences contribute to the broader understanding of reflex-
ivity, resilience, and the insider/outsider dynamic in
fieldwork?
The subsequent section delves into the influence of posi-
tionality, particularly gender identity, on a researcher’s ex-
periences and the data collection process. Following that, I
will introduce my fieldwork, detail the project that this re-
flection paper centers on, and describe the method employed.
It then discusses the impact of my positionality on my
fieldwork experiences, followed by an exploration of the
challenges I faced while gaining access to the field and en-
gaging with participants. Further discussion touches upon the
intricacies of strategies I used to navigate those challenges and
the ethical issues I encountered during the fieldwork. In the
conclusion section, I discuss the implications and contribu-
tions of this reflection paper.
Gender and Fieldwork
Feminist scholars argue that a researcher’s socioeconomic
status, gender, and ethnicity impact their relationship with the
2International Journal of Qualitative Methods
participants and the results of their research (Gilbert &
Stoneman, 2015;Suen et al., 2020;Oakley, 2016).
LaRocco et al. (2020) argue that due to varying life experi-
ences and distinct personalities, women and men experience
fieldwork differently. Therefore, a shared gender identity
between a participant and the researcher facilitates the rapport-
building process during fieldwork. These observations are
more pronounced in research studies carried out by male
researchers in hyper masculine or patriarchal cultural contexts.
For instance, Johnston’s (2016) analysis of male security
officers at Ottawa hospitals illustrates how acknowledging
previous hardships and common gender identity may prompt a
revaluation of beliefs, promoting empathy and confronting
gendered violence and prejudice. Conversely, an alternative
perspective posits that cross-gender interviews might present
intricacies and difficulties (Sowatey et al., 2021). However,
these interview dynamics may also reveal insights that would
otherwise be obscured in same-gender interview scenarios
(Falen, 2008;Rodrguez-Dorans, 2018).
The concept of “doing gender”is a central framework in
gender studies, emphasizing the shift from perceiving women
and men as fixed categories to understanding gender as an
active social process (West & Zimmerman, 2009). The “doing
gender”theory also acknowledges the fluid, dynamic nature of
social identities and roles, whether in the context of research
(insider-outsider) or gender expression, underscoring the
context-dependent and complex nature of these constructs.
This perspective has its roots in West and Zimmerman’s
groundbreaking work in 1987, which, over time, has evolved
and significantly influenced subsequent research in the fields
of gender, organizations, and work (Jurik & Siemsen, 2009;
West & Zimmerman, 2009). In this article, my focus is
centered on the “doing gender”concept and the various
perspectives that emerge from this approach. It is important to
recognize that within “doing gender,”there exist multiple
viewpoints, each highlighting different aspects and fostering
varied arguments. These range from post-structuralist stances
to ethnomethodological frameworks (Nentwich & Kelan,
2014). This section, therefore, is not an exhaustive explora-
tion of these multifaceted concepts but is intended to highlight
essential theoretical insights that underscore the diverse ways
in which gender is enacted and performed in fieldwork and
how gender and other dynamics of the researcher’s identity
(inside-outsider) shape their fieldwork experiences.
A key element of the “doing gender”theory is the idea of
being accountable to sex category membership (West &
Zimmerman, 2009), meaning that individuals are constantly
engaged in behaviors that reflect their gender, and these be-
haviors are subject to continuous scrutiny and evaluation.
Deviating from the culturally prescribed ways of “doing
gender,”which are often rigid and heteronormative, can lead
to significant social repercussions (Butler, 2011). Conse-
quently, the concepts of male and female, as well as femininity
and masculinity, are only meaningful in relation to each other
and are often constructed as binary opposites, though
inherently unequal (Paechter, 2006). However, if gender is
something that is “done”rather than an innate attribute, it
implies the potential for “undoing”gender –challenging and
transforming the restrictive and hierarchical norms (Deutsch,
2007). Theoretical possibilities thus arise for gender to be
enacted differently. Researchers should be alert to moments
where traditional gender binaries are questioned and gender
norms appear malleable (Butler, 2004). Increasingly, as people
identify as non-binary, this challenges entrenched gender
binaries and opens new avenues for rethinking and undoing
traditional gender constructions (Smith et al., 2022).
This indicates that the topic is multifaceted and open to
various analytical perspectives, incorporating additional di-
mensions of social relations like social class, race/ethnicity,
nationality, age, sexual orientation, and disability. However,
this article narrows its focus to specific dimensions pertinent to
my fieldwork experiences. I acknowledge the expanding body
of feminist and critical men’s and masculinities studies that
delve into the dynamics of interviewing men, including the
power relations in interactions between male participants and
female researchers (Kaspar & Landolt, 2016) and the distinct
dynamics when male researchers interview men (Rodr´
ıguez-
Dorans, 2018). There is also an increasing focus within
qualitative research on aspects like sexuality and sexual desire
(Kaspar & Landolt, 2016). Nevertheless, there remains a gap
in the discussion around the various intersectionalities of
gender, sexuality, nationality, and social class in transnational
feminist studies, particularly in contexts like Pakistan. This
includes studying how these factors influence data collection,
considering who conducts the interviews, in what contexts,
using what interview styles, and the dynamics that unfold
within and across these interviews (Broom et al., 2009).
The Current Project
This article is a reflective account of my doctoral project,
which was designed and started in 2019 within the pre-
pandemic times and continued during the pandemic. My
doctoral study explores gender arrangements and subjective
experiences of female breadwinner couples in Pakistan. The
purpose of the study is to explore how transitioning to non-
normative work-family roles is experienced and negotiated
among female breadwinner couples. An increase in the ratio of
women’s education, employment opportunities in the labor
market, rising unemployment among men, and transforma-
tions in the family structure are resulting in the entry of more
women into breadwinning roles (Shah, 2023a,2023b).
However, the transition towards gender non-normative ar-
rangements has not been fully explored in the context of the
global south. Pakistan, with its highly patriarchal cultural
context, prioritized gendered division of responsibilities, and
specific institutional context with no provisions of a welfare
state and no support systems such as unemployment insurance
available, provides a unique context for researching these
transitions (Parvez et al., 2015;Shah, 2023a,2023b).
Shah 3
Therefore, I analyze the different dimensions of men’s and
women’s transition towards non-normative family-work and
carer-breadwinner arrangements in my doctoral thesis. By
focusing on the experiences, practices, and coping strategies
of female breadwinners and their male partners, especially in
the face of stigmatization, I highlight different aspects of
“doing transitions”and how the specific social situation, in-
stitutional regulations and cultural discourses shape individual
experiences.
The constructivist grounded theory method, which is an
approach that emphasizes the role of the researcher in inter-
preting and understanding the data, guided my study. This
method is particularly useful for studying sensitive and
complex social phenomena like gender arrangements and
subjective experiences, as it allows for an in-depth exploration
of the experiences and perspectives of the participants
(Charmaz, 2021). Data for the study was mostly collected
through in-person face-to-face interactions with participants,
with a few interviews conducted online (Zoom and WhatsApp
calls). The face-to-face interviews were conducted in the
homes and workspaces of the participants or in a location that
participants considered appropriate. I conducted in-depth
interviews with 20 FBCs in the urban center and rural out-
skirts of Islamabad, Pakistan. The study sample comprised
exclusively of heterosexual married couples wherein the fe-
male spouse was the sole or dominant earner for the household
and the male spouse was consistently either unemployed or
contributed to the household income at a lesser scale. Pur-
posive sampling strategy was employed to select this sample.
The tool for data collection was a semi-structured interview
guide, with an average interview duration of roughly 60–
90 minutes. All interviews were conducted in Urdu and Pashtu
languages, and the format was open-ended, allowing partic-
ipants to share their experiences and viewpoints openly.
Goethe University Frankfurt provided ethical approval for
this study, thus ensuring that all methodologies conformed to
ethical protocols and standards. A key ethical consideration in
this study was ensuring informed consent and voluntary
participation. I provided detailed information to all partici-
pants on the aims and methods of the research and informed
them of their rights as participants. I gave them details on their
right to withdraw from the study at any point, and after
providing all these details, I obtained informed consent from
those willing to participate in the study. I did not collect
personal contact details from participants who showed hesi-
tance. I replaced the names of all participants with pseudo-
nyms while writing my research report to eliminate any
possibility of their identification. Furthermore, to prevent any
potential breach of confidentiality and anonymity, I general-
ized or omitted sensitive demographic information, such as
ethnicity, age, or current employment status of the
participants.
When I began recruiting participants and asked if they
could connect me with FBCs, I was met with scepticism and
queries like, “What’s the purpose of this study?”or “Why
probe into the personal affairs of couples?”“Couldn’t you find
a more relevant research topic?”“Isn’t this a Western con-
cern?”or accusations like “Are you pushing a Western agenda
with your research?”and so on. The prevailing scarcity of a
research-driven environment in Pakistan, compounded by the
political and ideological narratives around gender and
women’s rights, has given rise to such a challenging atmo-
sphere for gender research (Shah, 2023a,2023b). My ob-
servation shows the widespread scepticism towards research
in the social sciences, and therefore, researchers, including
myself, are often perceived as affiliates of governmental
bodies and NGOs or even suspected to be spies. Such sus-
picions confronted me right at the outset of my fieldwork. This
scepticism becomes even more pronounced when delving into
sensitive topics like female breadwinning within a highly
patriarchal society.
In the following section, I will elaborate on the challenges I
encountered while accessing the research participants. Sub-
sequently, I will discuss challenges in relation to my posi-
tionality while conducting my fieldwork, accompanied by an
exploration of the strategies I employed to navigate these
obstacles.
Challenges in Gaining Access to Participants
The research study discussed in this article involved fieldwork
in Pakistan from June 2019 to December 2022, spanning
multiple time periods. By employing the grounded theory
approach—which requires concurrent data collection and
analysis—I iteratively revisited the field to further explore
emerging themes in the data (Charmaz, 2021). A major ob-
stacle I confronted throughout this process was research fa-
tigue, a type of exhaustion that can affect the researcher
because of extended involvement in field and research en-
deavors (Clark, 2008). This problem becomes significantly
pronounced when trying to interview hard-to-reach partici-
pants. To alleviate this challenge, I capitalized on my personal
connections and networks to gain access to prospective
research participants. When I gained access to a few female
breadwinning couples, my initial idea was to interview both
couple partners simultaneously; however, persuading the male
counterpart to participate in a couple interview was frequently
unsuccessful. Although I managed to conduct a few of the
couple interviews, the male partners dominated these inter-
view sessions, which resulted in inadequate information and
data.
Within the cultural context of Pakistan, and given my role
as an outsider, it was customary for me to approach the
husband first. Treading carefully, I sought to maintain a
balance in addressing both partners without inadvertently
placing undue emphasis on the wife’s perspective over the
husband. In couple-based interviews, I usually posed ques-
tions to the male partner first, a gesture rooted in cultural
respect, before engaging the female partner for her insights.
Ideally, I anticipated responses from both; however, instances
4International Journal of Qualitative Methods
were frequent where the male partner would intercede and
answer on the female’s behalf even when the query was di-
rected towards her. This was reflected in the interview re-
sponses of a couple that I interviewed in Islamabad:
Interviewer (addressing the husband): Could you elaborate
on how the financial responsibilities are distributed in your
household?
Husband: Well, in our home, I handle most of the things
like bringing home the groceries taking care of the financial
matters. I also participate in ceremonies and events in the
community.
Interviewer (turning to the wife): And how do you feel
about this arrangement and your responsibilities?
Wife: Yes, it’sfine...I manage earning and……. House-
hold…… (before she can continue, the husband intervened)
Husband: I think she is quite happy with it. Everything is
going well for us.
This situation was causing me a mix of understanding and
frustration. The cultural deference to male voices in the setting
was at odds with my objective of capturing an equitable
perspective from both couple partners. The tension between
upholding the research’s integrity and respecting local cus-
toms was a persistent concern, and I often grappled with
feelings of inadequacy when I hesitated to solicit more direct
responses from the female partners.
In light of the challenges posed by couple interviews, I
resolved to interview female partners in their workspaces and
male partners in their homes or other appropriate spaces. I
began contacting women in the role of primary earners for
their household, I managed to secure consent for interviews
from five women. Leveraging my personal networks and
being introduced through their colleagues, they felt more at
ease consenting to an interview in their respective workspaces.
However, a prevalent condition emerged: many opted for the
presence of a female coworker during the interview. This
seemed to preempt any potential misperceptions arising from
their engagement with an unfamiliar male person. Keeping in
view the cultural implications and importance of their comfort,
I agreed to this stipulation. I found these women to be more
forthcoming in the absence of their male partners, and there
was a great sense of relief. However, the presence of a female
coworker to facilitate this openness was a harsh reminder to
me of the gendered realities in my specificfieldwork context.
Furthermore, this also implied recognition of the cultural
barriers I was required to overcome and navigate.
In the workspaces of the female participants where they
preferred to be interviewed, most of them opted to observe
complete Purdah (veil). They kept a considerable distance
from me throughout the interview process. Some of them also
showed reservations regarding the audio recording of the
interviews. Despite my continuance assurance of keeping their
personal information and voice recordings completely con-
fidential, they still showed reluctance to be recorded, which I
respected and avoided recording our conversation. Concerns
shown by these participants regarding voice recordings reflect
the deep-rooted cultural beliefs about the confidentiality of
women’s voices and the fear that they may be overheard by
their friends or family members. This depicts the peculiarity of
privacy of women in a specific socio-cultural environment
(Ibtasam et al., 2019). Moreover, this can also be linked with
the deeply venerated value of ghairat or honor, which is
indigenous to the cultural norms in Pakistan (Naseer, 2019).
These concerns were more visible in the case of online in-
terviews. The female interviewees showed concerns regarding
the potential consequences of their interviews with me and
voice recordings, which they viewed will not only have an
impact on their personal honor but might bring shame to their
whole family. They were more anxious as they were giving
interviews to a male interviewer. During such situations,
women may feel uneasiness and discomfort while conversing
with a stranger male individual who is not part of their family,
mainly due to their fear of being overheard by acquaintances
or male family members.
The fear of participants regarding audio recording was also
a sign of the fragile and nuanced nature of trust, which is
reflected in parts of my research (Batool et al., 2022). My
assurances of confidentiality and anonymity could in no way
replace or ameliorate the deep-rooted cultural concerns that
the participants held. In the sociocultural context of Pakistan,
recording a female voice can have implications for her and her
family. These implications might not be immediately visible or
sensible to some extent to an outsider who does not understand
the interrelation of honor, reputation and purdah intertwined
with family dynamics and social identity in Pakistan (Haque,
2008). Observing these sensitive circumstances, I felt enor-
mous empathy and solidarity with these participants. It is also
important to acknowledge that the weight of ghairat, or honor,
in their lives is not just a concept but a lived reality that dictates
their day-to-day lives and interactions within their commu-
nities (Mustafa & Khalid, 2022). The fear that their recordings
could be used against them, despite being in secure and
professional settings, highlights the intricate ties between
personal agency and societal expectations that they deal with. I
was sensitive to the fact that cultural norms and gender dy-
namics were at play and was constantly reassessing my ap-
proach and trying to build rapport and trust in every possible
way despite these complexities and challenges.
To deal with hesitancy surrounding audio recordings, I
opted to manually document participants’responses through
notetaking (Oltman, 2016). Conducting interviews with fe-
male participants in their workspaces yielded positive results,
where they were more open and expressive regarding their
female breadwinning arrangement and overall experiences.
Away from the influence of their male partners, they openly
shared their experiences, anxieties and feelings regarding their
non-normative work-family arrangements and the societal
reactions towards them. Their narratives were significantly
more in-depth and richer compared to my previously con-
ducted couple interviews. Nevertheless, as I began to progress
in my data collecting, the COVID-19 outbreak emerged,
Shah 5
resulting in the shutdown of most workspaces. This unex-
pected event halted my research progress, barring me from
conducting additional interviews. Following a hiatus six-
month break and consultations with my PhD advisor, we
decided to conduct further interviews online.
However, shifting to online interviews introduced a set of
perplexing challenges, as it was hard to reach potential par-
ticipants and convince them to engage in online conversation
at a time when face-to-face interactions were impossible. To
remove these limitations, I tried to locate my research par-
ticipants via social media platforms like LinkedIn and
Facebook. With the use of these platforms, besides personal
contacts, I managed to gain access to a number of potential
interviewees. This process emphasized the increased chal-
lenges I now faced in accessing prospective participants. For
instance, one of my interviewees, an HR manager of a private
firm, only agreed to have an interview when her husband was
not in town. She was also not in favor of the video call option
and any sort of recording, and I only had to rely on a
WhatsApp voice call. After starting the interview, we faced
continuous disruptions due to an unstable Internet connection.
We tried to reconnect nearly ten times, but the call quality
remained poor on both ends. The disruption proved frustrating
for the participant, leading us to end the interview. She told me
about her husband returning home, and she would have to
disconnect because of that, too. Further, she promised to get
back to the online interview and complete it sometime else
when she finds a proper time and stable Internet connection.
However, months went by without any contact from her.
Respecting her privacy and keeping in mind the concerns
regarding her husband, I did not contact her from my side.
I was grappling with mixed emotions in these frustrating
and challenging circumstances. I had twofold worries at the
time: firstly, my anxiety over the difficulty in collecting
necessary data, and secondly, the challenge of meeting in-
stitutional deadlines and the expected delay in my doctoral
project (Shah, 2023a,2023b). However, my primary concern
remained the safety and well-being of my participants. For
instance, the abrupt discontinuation of the interview on the
participant’s side due to her husband’s arrival at home was a
sign of my complex challenges. The many incidents like these
in my research prompted deep reflections on my part. They
made me wonder if my interaction with participants was
putting them at risk or in harmful situations and protecting
them from adverse repercussions and ensuring their safety
took precedence in my mind (Duncombe & Jessop, 2002).
This also indicated the intense consideration of ethical re-
sponsibilities required when researching in such cultural
contexts (Batool et al., 2022).
Amidst these challenges, it was necessary to put off the
online interviews and wait for a more conducive setting, which
was only possible with the reopening of their workplaces. This
decision significantly delayed my research progress as the
workplaces started reopening after an interlude of almost six
months. I recommenced my fieldwork with the reopening of
the workspaces. Nevertheless, I still faced the same challenges
I encountered earlier. Even in the in-person interviews, the
female participants were reluctant to share their experiences
with a male researcher.
Issue of Positionality
The issues related to researcher-participant unease and the
gender-sensitive contexts were major positionality concerns in
my study. The most prominent challenge during my fieldwork
was the reluctance of the male partners in the female
breadwinning arrangement to discuss their unconventional
roles. The prospect of discussing a breadwinning arrangement,
in which they felt marginalized, with another male person was
uncomfortable for them. Consequently, they not only declined
to be interviewed but also prevented their female partners from
speaking with me. To them, I was an outsider, potentially with
a hidden motive, and despite my efforts to validate my genuine
intentions as a researcher, doubts lingered about my identity.
This scepticism was amplified by my association with a
Western academic institution and was further intensified due
to the sensitive nature of my research topic.
On one occasion, I got a chance to meet a FBC (about
whom I learned of their female breadwinning arrangement
from a personal contact) who not only welcomed me very
warmly but also offered me a cup of tea. When we were having
the tea, I gave them details about my academic background
and research project where the female partner showed great
interest in the topic, saying ‘Your research topic sounds very
interesting, and we can share our experiences with you’.
Conversely, her husband seemed unsure and rather upset about
this situation. His discomfort was visible when we talked
about their unconventional female breadwinning arrangement.
At this moment, he interrupted our conversation, saying,
‘although we wanted to talk to you, but now I feel that we may
not be the kind of couple you are looking for in your research,
and I think we cannot proceed with this interview’. I tried my
best to explain the relevance and significance of their par-
ticipation in the study and repeatedly assured them of their
confidentiality and anonymity. However, he remained unre-
sponsive, refused to participate further in the study, and asked
his wife to avoid further conversation with me. This situation
resulted in an unsuccessful interview attempt, and I left their
home with great disappointment.
Moreover, my status as young, male, and unmarried, created
further complications during my interviews (Schwalbe &
Wolkomir, 2001), and a stark example of these issues and
challenges occurred during an interview with a participant at her
workplace when her husband made an unanticipated appearance.
When we were deciding for the interview, I asked the participant
about her husband’s potential response. She stated that he might
not agree, given our existing work-family arrangement and his
unemployment, as well as he holds more conservative views
about women conversing with stranger men. However, despite
these challenges, she still agreed to participate in the study,
6International Journal of Qualitative Methods
mentioning that she thinks this is an interesting topic and wants to
share her experiences, but at her workspace, where she is away
from her family. I agreed to this arrangement, and we decided to
have this interview at her workplace.
When we started the interview, which had only been un-
derway for about 20 minutes, her husband appeared unantici-
pated in her office, who looked suspicious and surprised by my
presence and conversation with her. This was a situation I did not
anticipate, and given the culturalcontext,itmademeworried
about its likely repercussions, especially for the participant (Shah,
2023a,2023b). He started asking his wife about my identity and
the purpose of our meeting and seemed unhappy and angry with
this situation. I attempted to explain my study´s objective and the
overall situation, but he seemed unsatisfied with everything. I felt
embarrassed and very worried for my participant and apologised
to her husband for any inconvenience, but he still seemed un-
happy and asked me to leave as they wanted to have a private
conversation. I left the office with numerous thoughts racing
through my mind. I pondered how this situation could have been
avoided and how it could affect the comfort and safety of the
interviewee (Parvez et al., 2015). I was also feeling guilty for
putting my participant in an uneasy situation and after this in-
cident, I lost contact with the participant, and I also choose not to
contact her again, fearing this could result in increasing her
difficulties.
Such experiences reflect that navigating my role in this
research was volatile and complicated. I was continuously
straddling between shifting identities, finding it challenging to
pin myself solely as an outsider or insider (Kerstetter, 2012).
Acker (2000) posits that the dichotomy of insider and outsider
will always remain a conundrum, but it is imperative for a
researcher to innovatively work within these parameters.
Echoing this, Dwyer and Buckle (2009) contend that re-
searchers invariably find themselves oscillating between these
dualities, with no one ever entirely on one end of the spectrum.
From the viewpoint of the FBCs, there were factors that cast
me as an outsider—my academic background and affiliation
with a Western academic institution. Yet, certain facets of my
identity, such as my fluency in their language and familiarity
with their cultural nuances from having spent most of my life
there, rendered me an insider. This complex identity, espe-
cially my insight into the cultural nuances of defying gender
norms, made some participants, notably men, hesitant to
converse with me. Chavez (2008) highlights that researchers,
especially when engaging with communities they belong to,
are often evaluated against existing cultural standards and
norms. In my specific context, being a single, unmarried man
influenced the interactions of my participants with me.
My positionality was pivotal in shaping the study in
multiple facets, as outlined by Berger (2013). While one’s
position can often ease fieldwork access (Berger, 2013;
Johnston, 2019), my journey towards building rapport and
securing the trust of interviewees was gradual. As participants
discerned my empathetic alignment with their circumstances, I
observed a heightened willingness to divulge personal
anecdotes (De Tona, 2006). The trusted personal contacts
through whom I reached out to FBCs bolstered my credibility,
often prompting the couples to participate actively in inter-
views. Similarly, individuals contemplating relocation over-
seas saw me as a resource of pertinent knowledge regarding
overseas experiences, enhancing their engagement and candor
during interviews (Berger, 2013). Furthermore, my identity as
a doctoral student studying abroad might have influenced the
dynamics of my relationship with interviewees (Berger, 2013).
Echoing this, Kacen & Chaitin (2006) highlight that the re-
searchers’viewpoint, personal history, preconceptions, and
background - can profoundly shape the analysis and inter-
pretation of findings. In the context of my research, my pre-
existing relationships with two of the FBCs significantly
enriched my understanding and allowed me to interpret their
narratives more deeply.
Navigating the Challenges
Given the challenges in both online and in-person interviews
described above, I was dealing with uncertainties regarding the
completion of my project in the projected timeframe. Further-
more, conducting the interviews within the planned schedule was
essential as I was already behind the deadlines set by my research
supervisor. As a result, I started making strategies to overcome
obstacles in accessing my potential participants. For example, to
reduce potential biases against me based on my age, gender, and
dual roles as both outsider and insider, I prioritized fostering
understanding and building rapport with the male participants.
For instance, I tried to integrate myself into their daily activities
by meeting them more often, playing games like cards and Ludo
with them, and keeping in touch via text messages. I also invited
them to lunches, which created a more relaxed and informal
atmosphere for the interviews. This also made the participants
more willing to talk. Additionally, to assure them of my au-
thenticity as a researcher, I showed them pictures from my time at
the German university, my academic credentials, and previously
published articles. The main concern and hesitation about par-
ticipation in the study for most of the male participants was their
perceived stigmatized status in the context of a female bread-
winning arrangement. These consistent engagements and in-
formal interactions on my part alleviated their concerns about me.
I also approached them with genuine empathy and, during our
conversations, avoided topics that could make them feel mar-
ginalized or judged. These strategies proved helpful, and I was
able to establish trust with some of them, who eventually agreed
to an interview. However, these male participants mostly wanted
to be interviewed outside their homes and in the absence of other
people, and most were still reluctant to allow their female
counterparts to participate in the study.
Basedonmyearlierexperiences,Ibeganleveraginginformal
networks to reach potential participants instead of relying on key
informants only. This enabled me to access a broader group of
participants. I found this strategy more effective as the partici-
pants I contacted through these networks displayed fewer biases
Shah 7
or reservations towards me. This opened the opportunity for me
to connect with participants who were more open and receptive
to talk about their personal experiences and breadwinning ar-
rangements. For instance, during my tenure at the social welfare
office in Pakistan, I reconnected with an old fellow student who
worked as a computer assistant at the same department. During
our conversation, I told her about my research project and my
search for participants. She introduced me to a colleague who
matched my target group (having a female breadwinning ar-
rangement). Her colleague was a helpful contact, giving me
access to four other participants. Owing to her familiar rela-
tionship with those potential participants, I gained their trust more
easily, and they agreed to an interview with me. Moreover, the
relationships developed with these interviewees proved partic-
ularly valuable as they helped me expand my access to other
female breadwinning couples.
Similarly, I also put significant energy and time into building
rapport with potential interviewees and a few key informants and
personal contacts who became instrumental in my interviewing
process. A variety of strategies facilitated this rapport-building
process for me. For instance, one of my key insights was rec-
ognizing that my international exposure, especially in Germany,
intrigued many participants. This connection acted as a bridge,
narrowing the gap between me, the researcher, and them, the
research participants. My role as a cultural insider, combined
with my established network within relevant circles, further eased
the recruitment process (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). The fluency
with which I conversed in the local languages (Urdu and Pashtu)
gave me an edge. Being a native Pashtu language speaker and
conducting interviews in Islamabad—a city with a significant
Pashtu-speaking population—aided my interactions with the
local Pashtun community, facilitating interviews with FBCs
belonging to this demographic (Bell, 2005).
I also found that vulnerability played a part. Sharing the hurdles
and frustrations I faced in my research journey made me more
relatable, particularly to female participants. When these female
breadwinners saw a male researcher willingly discuss his chal-
lenges, the emotional barrier between us seemed to dissolve. This
newfound closeness created an environment of trust, allowing
them to open up about their personal experiences (Duncombe &
Jessop, 2002). Additionally, I strategically spent significant hours
in parks and cricket grounds, where many male FBC partners
would often unwind in the evenings. It is essential to clarify that
these men represented diverse backgrounds and typically did not
know one another, so my visits spanned various parks and
playgrounds. Investing time in these spaces allowed me to initiate
casual conversations with them. Over time and through repeated
interactions, I gained their trust, and then it became more natural to
introduce them to my research endeavors.
Additionally, to enhance the depth of the data collected, I
took the support of a female research assistant. Recognizing
that female participants often communicate more openly with
female interviewers (Oakley, 2016), I hoped her shared cul-
tural and gender background would foster a comforting at-
mosphere. Indeed, her presence allowed many female
participants to see her not just as an interviewer but as
someone with whom they could confide (Oakley, 2016).
While some feedback from these interviews lacked the depth I
desired, they still provided vital insights into the experiences
of these female participants. Furthermore, I also offered
monetary incentives and small tokens of appreciation from my
modest budget to several participants. These gestures were
received well and proved helpful in furthering rapport, often
leading to increased willingness from the potential participants
to participate in the study (Grady, 2001).
Ethical Issues and Considerations
Multiple ethical considerations arose during various stages of
my research. A major one pertained to the use of financial
incentives for recruiting participants (Hennink et al., 2011). It
is customary in Pakistan to offer research participants mon-
etary compensation and I offered such incentives in line with
this practice to ensure ample participation. This approach
proved helpful in enticing several individuals to take part in
my research. Similarly, I also extended other tokens of
gratitude besides monetary compensation, such as gifts, to
express my appreciation for their active involvement in the
study. In instances where participants declined these tokens, I
opted for culturally appropriate small gestures like bringing
fruits, cookies or cakes, aligning with the local custom of
presenting gifts when visiting someone’s home.
Ensuring voluntary participation in the study was also a
significant challenge I was trying to navigate during my
fieldwork (Hennink et al., 2011). For instance, on several
occasions, I felt that my interviewees might have felt obligated
to participate in the study due to their personal and profes-
sional connection with my key informants and contacts. This
situation posed ethical and methodological dilemmas and
raised questions in my mind: Were the participants genuinely
consenting to participate, or were they influenced by a key
informant or superior? By not insisting on directly obtaining
the consent of female participants in some cases, was I in-
advertently perpetuating a patriarchal structure? Had I for-
saken my role as a researcher to bring forth ‘subjugated
knowledge’(Hesse-Biber, 2012)? Ultimately, whenever I
detected potential involuntary participation, especially where
a power dynamic existed between the key informant and the
potential participant, I abstained from pursuing an interview.
Recognizing the possibility of subtle coercion due to these
power dynamics (Hennink et al., 2011), I emphasized the
voluntary nature of participation. I insisted on personally
obtaining informed consent from each participant, ensuring
they were aware they could withdraw at any point (ASA 1987;
Miller & Bell, 2002) and assured them that declining par-
ticipation would remain confidential from the key informants.
On several occasions, curious key informants inquired about
the participation status of those they had introduced. However,
I consistently maintained the privacy of my participants. To
further minimize the potential for subtle coercion, I allowed
8International Journal of Qualitative Methods
potential participants ample time for consideration before
committing to the interview. I also refrained from collecting
personal contact details if I sensed any hesitation.
Besides that, in my pursuit of data collection, I inadvertently
put some women in positions that could be perceived as socially
compromising and uncomfortable. Within the framework of a
traditional Pakistani household, it is often deemed inappropriate
for a woman to converse with a non-family male person. Though
my persistence led a few participants to permit interviews, es-
pecially in their workspaces away from their homes, this did not
shield them from potential social repercussions or judgment from
their colleagues. It was only later in my research that I fully
grasped the implications of this and sought the assistance of a
female research assistant to conduct further interviews with me.
Navigating relationships with research participants can also
pose ethical challenges (British Sociological Association, 2002).
Post-interview, I grappled with determining the appropriate
boundaries between myself and the interviewees. Some reached
out, sending me “friend”requests on Facebook, “following”me
on Instagram, or continuing our conversation on WhatsApp,
inquiring about my personal life. This was a challenging situ-
ation, and I was uncertain about integrating them into my per-
sonal social circle online. Accepting these requests might
inadvertently expose them to my wider social network, risking
the disclosure of their participation in my study. Ultimately, I
chose not to accept their Instagram “follow”and Facebook
“friend”requests, but I continued to engage in courteous text and
email exchanges even after the study concluded.
Finally, my age also played a noticeable role in determining
the study sample. Being younger influenced the age distri-
bution of the participants, as it was relatively easier for me to
engage with individuals between the ages of 20 and 40.
Engaging with those over 40 presented a challenge as they
often did not perceive me as a credible researcher and were
also more reluctant to be interviewed by me. As a result, the
age bracket of the participants in this study predominantly
spanned from 20 to 40 years old.
Conclusion
In this article, I reflected upon my fieldwork experiences while
trying to access interviewees for a study centered on the
experiences of FBCs in Pakistan. Despite the difficulties as-
sociated with accessing participants, I found the overall
process valuable because my fieldwork experience allowed
me to explore the research topic through a gendered lens. The
contributions of this study to existing literature are manifold,
particularly within the realm of feminist research methodol-
ogies. Firstly, it shows how my male identity posed various
challenges when attempting to interview both male and female
participants on a sensitive subject of female breadwinning
within Pakistan’s cultural context. Establishing initial con-
nections and fostering trust with participants proved to be a
complex task, causing considerable delays in my research
fieldwork. My experiences further illustrate that the “doing
gender”during my fieldwork was a mutual categorization
(Kosygina, 2005), evolving through continuous interactions
among personal contacts, male partners in FBCs, the partic-
ipants, and myself in the researcher’s role. Similarly, reflec-
tions from this study also contribute to the evolving
understanding of positionality, as influenced by studies
challenging the rigid insider-outsider dichotomy (Britton,
2020;Bukamal, 2022) and arguing for the blurring of posi-
tionalities (Kim et al., 2022;Parikh, 2020).
This study makes a notable contribution to the under-
standing of these complex and changing roles in feminist
qualitative research. During the research journey, I experi-
enced the interplay between being an insider and an outsider
and, at times, embodying both roles simultaneously. This fluid
nature of positionality is a common experience in the context
of diaspora and globalization, which resonates with Hertz’s
(1997) assertion on the importance of recognizing the con-
tinuum between insider and outsider statuses. These roles are
not distinct; they exist in a state of flux. Humphrey (2007) also
emphasized this in the concept of insider-outsider hyphen.
During all interactions with the participants, I experienced a
continuous shift between ‘insiderness’and ‘outsiderness’
taking place during the same conversation, reflecting the
variability and complexity of these roles. This resonates with
the key tenets of “doing gender”theory, which acknowledges
the dynamic and fluid nature of roles and social identities
(West & Zimmerman, 2009) whether in a research context or
gender expression and underscores the context-dependent and
complex nature of these constructs.
Moreover, reflections from this paper contribute to the debate
on adaptability and resilience required of researchers confronted
with multifaceted, recurrent challenges (Suadik, 2022). This
research journey was a testament to resilience in the face of
multifaceted challenges and the pursuit of hard-to-reach partici-
pants (Hamberg et al., 2020) by working through the complexities
of the researcher’s unique positionality –encompassing his
insider-outsider status, age, and gender. Similarly, the sensitive
nature of the research topic and dealing with the unanticipated
challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic not only
complicated access to participants but also put my well-being and
health at risk. Nevertheless, I did not stop my research journey; I
remained adaptable and flexible and manoeuvred through the
multifaceted recurring challenges both in online interviews and in
the field. The resilience observed in this research mirrors the
concept of Doern et al. (2019) that emphasized the adaptability of a
research project to enable it to succeed and maintain its function
during a crisis by having a robust contingency plan developed
using critical reflections. The fieldwork was completed despite the
experience being emotionally draining and stressful. This provided
a profound learning that highlighted the ethical considerations and
responsibilities required when conducting research in a sensitive
cultural context (Batool et al., 2022).
This paper further highlights the importance of reflexivity in
understanding the relevance of the researcher’s identities and
interactions with participants during fieldwork. Researchers must
Shah 9
record the impact of their identities during each research phase,
from the first interaction with participants to the final analysis of
interview data. This paper demonstrates the importance of safety
training to prepare field researchers for the threats and challenges
they will likely encounter. This paper also addresses the unique
problems of conducting online research in contexts like Pakistan,
including participants’hesitance about digital engagement and
the challenge of inconsistent internet connectivity. Furthermore,
this paper advocates for psychological support and counselling
for researchers, especially PhD students who undertake fieldwork
on sensitive topics with hard-to-reach participants. As for me, I
had to sideline the emotional turmoil that stemmed from the
pandemic-related challenges and constant disruptions in the field
to keep continue my research. Considering these reflections, I
believe that academic institutions need to furnish their re-
searchers with robust professional training, safeguards, and
support after and before the fieldwork.
In addressing the varied challenges of my fieldwork, I
developed and implemented a range of strategic responses
which not only contribute new understandings to the field but
can also be helpful for fellow researchers working in a similar
domain. Building rapport through extended engagement and
ensuring data confidentiality mitigated participant hesitancy,
while my willingness to share personal research struggles
enhanced relatability, particularly with female participants,
dissolving emotional barriers. To address cross-gender in-
terview challenges and cultural norms against interviewing
women, strategies like gaining male partners’consent, in-
volving them in discussions, and hiring a female research
assistant proved effective. I also navigated the male domi-
nance in couple interviews by conducting separate interviews
with female participants in their workspaces. This allowed for
more candid discussions, free from their partners’influence.
My immersion into the participants’daily lives, including
shared activities and casual interactions, helped alleviate
biases linked to my gender and dual insider-outsider role.
These actions, coupled with the adaptation to COVID-19 by
utilizing social media for recruitment and delaying online
interviews, highlight the flexibility and ethical commitment
needed in fieldwork. The manuscript details these strategies,
providing a guide for researchers navigating similar chal-
lenges and contributing to the conversation on methodological
adaptability, the blurring of the insider-outsider continuum
and researcher resilience in feminist research.
Finally, it is important to note that this article does not
encompass the entirety of methodological challenges and
practical strategies but rather highlights significant experi-
ences pertinent to those venturing into qualitative research in
similar fields and cultural settings. While I endeavored to
delve into and elucidate the obstacles I encountered and
strategies I employed, it is vital to recognize that these insights
are context-specific and rooted in my individual personal
experiences. I believe that this reflection piece, supplemented
with insights from existing literature, serves as a valuable
resource for emerging researchers and those in the planning
phase. Moreover, it may benefit those supervising such
research, especially within the global south and highly pa-
triarchal cultural contexts.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all participants for taking part in my study. I
would also like to extend my gratitude to my doctoral supervisors,
Prof. Sarah Speck, and Prof. Pia Schober, for their invaluable
guidance and support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Rahat Shah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3856-9900
References
Acker, S. (2000). In/out/side: Positioning the researcher in feminist
qualitative research. Resources for Feminist Research,28(1-2),
189–210.
Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched rela-
tionship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology,
20(3), 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024727316052
ASA. (1987). ASA ethics. Association of Social Anthropologists of
the UK. Retrieved from https://www.theasa.org/ethics/
guidelines.shtml
Batool, R., Fleschenberg, A., Glattli, L., Haque, A., Holz, S., Khan,
M. S., & Tareen, M. (2022). Researching South Asia in pan-
demic times: Of shifting fields, research tools, risks, emotions
and research relationships. South Asia Chronicle,11, 445–451.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project (4th ed.): Open Uni-
versity Press.
Berger, R. (2013). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position
and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research,
15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
British Sociological Association. (2002). Statement of ethical
practice for the British sociological association. British So-
ciological Association. Retrieved from https://www.britsoc.co.
uk/media/27107/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf
Britton, J. (2020). Being an insider and outsider: Whiteness as a key
dimension of difference. Qualitative Research,20(3), 340–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119874599
Broom, A., Hand, K., & Tovey, P. (2009). The role of gender, en-
vironment and individual biography in shaping qualitative in-
terview data. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology,12(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13645570701606028
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Bukamal, H. (2022). Deconstructing insider–outsider researcher
positionality. British Journal of Special Education,49(3),
327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12426
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and vi-
olence. verso.
Butler, J. (2011). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex.
Taylor and Francis.
Caetano, A. (2015). Defining personal reflexivity: A critical
reading of Archer’s approach. European Journal of Social
Theory,18(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368431014549684
Campbell, E. (2003). Interviewing men in uniform: A feminist
approach? International Journal of Social Research Meth-
odology,6(4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13645570110109115
Charmaz, K. (2021). The genesis, grounds, and growth of con-
structivist grounded theory. In Developing grounded theory:
The second generation revisited (pp. 153–187).
Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages,
complications, and demands on insider positionality. Qualitative
Report,13(3), 474–494.
Clark, T. (2008). We’re over-researched here!—exploring accounts
of research fatigue within qualitative research engagements.
Sociology,42(5), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0038038508094573
De Tona, C. (2006). But what is interesting is the story of why and
how migration happened. Forum for Qualitative Social
Research,7(3), 1–12.
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society,21(1),
106–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293577
Doern, R., Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2019). Special issue on en-
trepreneurship and crises: Business as usual? An introduction
and review of the literature. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development,31(5-6), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08985626.2018.1541590
Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2002). Doing rapport’and the ethics of
‘faking friendship’(vol. 2). Ethics in qualitative research.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/
160940690900800105
Emerson, R. M. (1983). Contemporary field research: A collection of
readings. Little, Brown and Company.
Falen, D. J. (2008). The “other”gender? Reflections on fieldwork in
Benin. Men and Masculinities,11(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1097184x08315094
Finlay, L. (2012). Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. In J.
Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the
craft (pp. 317–332): Sage.
Gilbert, N., & Stoneman, P. (Eds.), (2015). Researching social life.
Sage.
Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation: Does it jeop-
ardize informed consent? The American Journal of Bioethics,
1(2), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651601300169031
Hamborg, S., Meya, J. N., Eisenack, K., & Raabe, T. (2020). Re-
thinking resilience: A cross-epistemic resilience framework for
interdisciplinary energy research. Energy Research and Social
Science,59, 101285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.
101285
Haque, R. (2008). The institution of purdah: A feminist perspective.
Pakistan Journal of Gender Studies,1(1), 47–71. https://doi.
org/10.46568/pjgs.v1i1.255
Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of
trustworthiness in qualitative research: The rigors of reciprocity.
Qualitative Inquiry,7(3), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/
107780040100700305
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research
methods. Sage.
Hertz, R. (Ed.), (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Sage.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Un-
covering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
6(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437184
Horn, R. (1997). Not ‘one of the boys’: Women researching the
police. Journal of Gender Studies,6(3), 297–308. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09589236.1997.9960690
Humphrey, C. (2007). Insider–outsider: Activating the hyphen.
Action Research,5(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1476750307072873
Ibtasam, S., Razaq, L., Ayub, M., Webster, J. R., Ahmed, S. I., &
Anderson, R. (2019). My cousin bought the phone for me. I
never go to mobile shops. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-
Computer Interaction,3(CSCW), 1–33.
Johnston, M. S. (2016). Men can change: Transformation, agency,
ethics and closure during critical dialogue in interviews.
Qualitative Research,16(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468794115569561
Johnston, M. S. (2019). When madness meets madness: Insider
reflections on doing mental health research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods,18,1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1609406919835356
Jurik, N. C., & Siemsen, C. (2009). “Doing gender”as canon or
agenda: A symposium on West and Zimmerman. Gender and
Society,23(1), 72–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243208326677
Kacen, L., & Chaitin, J. (2006). The times are a changing: Under-
standing qualitative research in ambiguous, conflictual and
changing contexts. Qualitative Report,11(2), 209–228.
Kaspar, H., & Landolt, S. (2016). Flirting in the field: Shifting
positionalities and power relations in innocuous sexualisations
of research encounters. Gender, Place and Culture,23(1),
107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2014.991704
Kerstetter, K. (2012). Insider, outsider or somewhere in between: The
impact of researchers’identities on the community-based
research process. Journal of Rural Social Sciences,27(2),
99–117.
Kim,E.,Badrinathan,S.,Choi,D.D.,Karim,S.,&Zhou,Y.Y.
(2022). Navigating “insider”and “outsider”status as re-
searchers conducting field experiments. PS: Political Science
Shah 11
and Politics,55(4), 754–758. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1049096522000208
Kosygina, L. V. (2005). Doing gender in research: Reflection on
experience in field. Qualitative Report,10(1), 87–95. https://doi.
org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1859
LaRocco, A. A., Shinn, J. E., & Madise, K. (2020). Reflections on
positionalities in social science fieldwork in northern Botswana:
A call for decolonizing research. Politics and Gender,16(3),
845–873. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x19000059
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism.
The Sociological Quarterly,34(4), 673–693. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x
Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and
reflexivity in research processes. Palgrave Macmillan.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2011). Social research and reflexivity: Content,
consequence and context. Sage Publication.
McKeganey, N., & Bloor, M. (2019). Spotting the invisible man: The
influence of male gender on fieldwork relations 1. In Selected
writings in medical sociological research (pp. 144–161). Routledge.
Mies, M. (1991). Women’s research of feminist research? The debate
surrounding feminist science and methodology. In M. M. Fonow,
&J.Cook(Eds.),Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as
lived research (pp. 60–80). Indiana University Press.
Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consenting to what? Issues of access,
gate-keeping and ‘informed’consent. Ethics in qualitative
research,53, 69.
Mustafa, G., & Khalid, M. U. (2022). Exploring the status of honor killing
in islam. Pakistan Journal of Islamic Philosophy,4(2), 12–21.
Naseer, N. (2019). Tribal women, property and border: An auto-
ethnographic critique of the Riwaj (Tradition) on the Pakistan–
Afghanistan borderland. Geopolitics,24(2), 426–443. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1543662
Nentwich, J. C., & Kelan, E. K. (2014). Towards a topology of ‘doing
gender’: An analysis of empirical research and its challenges.
Gender, Work and Organization,21(2), 121–134. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gwao.12025
Oakley, A. (2016). Interviewing women again: Power, time and the
gift. Sociology,50(1), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0038038515580253
Oltmann, S. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion
of the interviewer and respondent contexts. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,17(2), 1–15.
Paechter, C. (2006). Masculine femininities/feminine masculinities:
Power, identities and gender. Gender and Education,18(3),
253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250600667785
Parikh, A. (2020). Insider-outsider as process: Drawing as reflexive
feminist methodology during fieldwork. Cultural Geographies,
27(3), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474019887755
Parvez, S., Rehman, M. Z. U., Javed, J., & Raza, I. (2015). Working
women in Pakistan: Analysis of issues and problems. Pakistan
Journal of Social Sciences,35(2), 997–1011.
Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking
the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualita-
tive research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education,16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0951839032000060635
Pini, B. (2005). Interviewing men: Gender and the collection and
interpretation of qualitative data. Journal of Sociology,41(2),
201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783305053238
Rodr´
ıguez-Dorans, E. (2018). Reflexivity and ethical research
practice while interviewing on sexual topics. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology,21(6), 747–760.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1490980
Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2012). Applied qualitative research
design: A total framework approach. Guilford Press.
Schwalbe, M., & Wolkomir, M. (2001). The masculine self as
problem and resource in interview studies of men. Men and
Masculinities,4(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1097184x01004001005
Shah, R. (2023a). Navigating non normative roles: Experiences of
female breadwinning couples in Pakistan. European Journal of
Social Psychology,1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3013
Shah, R. (2023b). The social stigmatization of stay-at-home fathers in
Pakistan. Men and Masculinities,26(3), 435–452. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1097184x231170143
Smith, E., Zirnsak, T., Power, J., Lyons, A., & Bigby, C. (2022).
Social inclusion of LGBTQ and gender diverse adults with
intellectual disability in disability services: A systematic review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities: JARID,35(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.
12925
Sowatey, E. A., Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Hussey, L. K., Annan-
Aggrey, E., Pinkrah, A., & Arku, G. (2021). Reflections from
cross-gender fieldwork experiences in open markets in Ghana.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods,20,1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053102
Suadik, M. (2022). Building resilience in qualitative research:
Challenges and opportunities in times of crisis. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods,21,1–9. https://doi.org/10.
1177/16094069221147165
Suen, L. W., Lunn, M. R., Katuzny, K., Finn, S., Duncan, L.,
Sevelius, J., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). What sexual and
gender minority people want researchers to know about sexual
orientation and gender identity questions: A qualitative study.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,49(7), 2301–2318. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10508-020-01810-y
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender.
Gender & Society,23(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243208326529
Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology.
Women’s Studies International Forum,11 (5), 493–502. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(88)90024-6
12 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Content uploaded by Rahat Shah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rahat Shah on Feb 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.