Outsider Viewpoint
On the other hand, psychologists may try to look for universal law which generally applies for most people. Specifically, they think people shares similar characteristics may have similar behavior when they face the same situation. Researches with this goal usually use outsider viewpoint, with “seen-from-outside” perspective, and aim to achieve generality. Consequently, researchers use outsider viewpoint to collect data which can be objectively measured. Such kind of study aims to maximize objectivity, and hence collects quantifiable, measurable data, such as behavior, symbolic data and material data. Therefore, quantitative methods like experiment and observation on human behavior are being used. Analysis is usually done with the aid of statistics. It is said to be following natural science’s tradition. They focus on cause and effect of human experience and behavior which is generalizable. Moreover, findings under such studies are usually reproducible, which justifies the aim of objectivity.
Theories and Research Studies of Identity
Psychological research on identity has used both an “insider viewpoint” and an “outsider viewpoint”. Whether psychologists choose to use “insider viewpoint” or “outsider viewpoint” much rely on how they see the formation of identity and how identity affects the behavior of human. In other words, their basic assumptions on identity affect their viewpoint on identity, and therefore their topic and aim of research, the research question, their hypothesis, data collection, research method, and hence the theory.
One example of research using “insider viewpoint” is Social Constructionism. Social constructionists, as its name suggests, see the identity of a person is socially constructed. It follows that identity is constructed in everyday life through interaction with others, hence it is different from people to people, culture to culture, and the study is an individualized one which seek for differences across people. Base on the assumptions, the research goal is to study the characteristics of individual’s identity with respect to social and personal interaction.
One good example for researching identity using insider viewpoint is Kenneth Gergen’s theory that “We actively construct identities through everyday social relations” (Gergen, K, 1999). Constructing his own theory, Gergen used insider viewpoint in all three aspects. Gergen was using his own autobiography as the input for his research, in which he described how he had actively reconstructed his own identity with the aid of computer. Before using computer, he described himself as a pen writer, which was inherited from his parents. Afterward, with the aid of computer, he built social relations from people all around the world through internet and finally he gave up the identity as a “pen writer” and started living with computer. The data which support his theory is his own inner experience, from the insider viewpoint. The research method is autobiography, which is composed by Gergen himself. And lastly, he analyzed his own experience and concluded the theory by interpreting and inferring the experience, which is also from the insider viewpoint.
On the other hand, Social Identity Theory (Turner & Brown, 1978) demonstrates the use of “outsider viewpoint” to research the topic identity. Different from social constructionists who focus on personal identity, Henri Tajfel attempted to research the social identity. Tajfel had an assumption in mind that people in general tries to raise their own identity by self-categorizing themselves into social groups and then raise their group’s social status, which would be reflected by their behavior and attitude towards people in or out the group. Hence, his research preference was to uncover the similarities of human.
In Tajfel’s research, focus was put on intergroup relationships, with the aim to discover the relationship of “group membership” and the behavior of participant. “Minimal Group Experiment” (Tajfel, 1971) was done to verify his hypothesis that people would favor ingroup and discriminates outgroup. Participants were divided into groups and were asked to allocate points later to other participants, in the same group as well as in different group. They were also told that the point they own would be converted to money after the experiment. Preference to ingroup was reflected by the point allocation: the participants tended to give more points to those in the same group. In the research, behavioral data is collected through points allocated to other participants. Points are measurable, objective data. Although the allocation process within each participant is subjective, the points allocated is still objective because subjective meaning of the points is not measured. Hence, data is outsider viewpoint. Moreover, experimental method is used to collect the data. There is no interaction between the researcher and the experiment, and the preference and the assumption does not affect the result of the measurement. Therefore, the method is quantitative and in outsider viewpoint. The analysis again stands in the outsider viewpoint, as the point allocated to ingroup and outgroup members are numbers, the comparison of points are done objectively.
Conclusion
Psychologists use both “Insider Viewpoint” and “Outsider Viewpoint” to conduct research on Identity. Whether they choose “Insider Viewpoint” or “Outsider Viewpoint” much relies on their initial preference: specific or universal, individual or human as a whole, differences across people or commons among people. Sometimes psychologists may choose to use “Insider Viewpoint” or “Outsider Viewpoint” for the data, the method and the analysis for the whole research; sometimes they may use both viewpoint at the same time. Marcia’s Semi-structured interview, for example, collects insider data but use outsider analysis. Therefore, the use of viewpoint is very dynamic and subject to different research theme and aim.
Gergen, K. (1999) An invitation to Social Construction, London: Sage
Turner, J. and Brown, R. (1978) ‘Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations’, in Tajfel, H. (ed.).
Tajfel, H., Billing, M., Bundy, R.P. and Flament, C. (1971) ‘Social categorization and intergroup behavior’, European Journal of social Psychology, vol.1, pp.149-77
