Lessons from insiders: Embracing subjectivity as objectivity in victimology
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02697580231179489 |
| Author | Alexis Marcoux Rouleau |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580231179489
International Review of Victimology
2024, Vol. 30(2) 298 –320
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02697580231179489
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Lessons from insiders:
Embracing subjectivity as
objectivity in victimology
Alexis Marcoux Rouleau
Université de Montréal, Canada
Abstract
Due to the prevalence of victimization in society, it is likely that many victimologists have been
victimized or will be in their lifetimes. This poses a challenge for the field of victimology as
traditional, positivist conceptions of ‘good science’ require researchers to be outsiders relative to
populations they study. This paper asks: What are the epistemological and practical implications of
victimological research conducted by researchers who have firsthand experiences of victimization?
What lessons can be retained by other victimologists and researchers in general? How can these
epistemological considerations be applied in practice? To answer these questions, I examine
the meanings of insider and outsider status and the implications for objectivity and subjectivity
as per positivist and standpoint epistemologies. I present the case of victimologists who have
been victimized as well as the advantages and disadvantages of this form of insider research. I
deconstruct insider–outsider, subjectivity–objectivity dualisms as they pertain to victimologists,
concluding that all victimologists can be subjective whether they are technically insiders or not. In
closing, I discuss how all victimologists can embrace their own and their participants’ subjectivity
as a resource for objectivity by examining location, emotions and bodies, and ethics throughout
the research process.
Keywords
Victimology, epistemology, objectivity, subjectivity, insider research
Introduction
According to Fattah (2010), victimology should be dispassionate, nonpartisan, and objective; what
he refers to as new or applied victimology is bad science. This eminent victimologist argues that
clinical victimology and victim advocacy have no place within victimology as science due to close
emotional and ideological ties with activism and populism, which may lead to increased penal
control of victims who are deemed socially expendable. Fattah’s stance on victimology implies
Corresponding author:
Alexis Marcoux Rouleau, École de Criminologie, University of Montreal, 3150 Jean-Brillant St, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7,
Canada.
Email: alexis.rouleau@umontreal.ca
1179489IRV0010.1177/02697580231179489International Review of VictimologyMarcoux Rouleau
research-article2023
Article
Marcoux Rouleau 299
that researchers who have lived experience of victimization and an emotional relationship to the
subject matter either have no place in victimological research or are doomed to produce bad
science.
Yet due to the prevalence of victimization in society, it is likely that many victimologists have
been victimized or will be in their lifetimes. In a context where higher education becomes increas-
ingly accessible to marginalized populations (Kanuha, 2000), more and more researchers may have
experienced victimization. Stanko (1992) surveyed members of the American Society of
Criminology’s Division on Women and Crime—some of whom were victimologists—as to their
experiences of sexual harassment. While in graduate school, 59% experienced sexual comments
and 17% felt sexually intimidated by an authority figure, whereas 31% experienced sexual com-
ments or intimidation during fieldwork (n = 58 women and 7 men). A more recent study among
college students found that 83.3% of criminal justice students at a diverse urban college had expe-
rienced direct or indirect victimization (n = 371, Eren et al., 2019).
If everyone who has experienced a form of victimization were precluded from conducting
research, would there be anyone left to do this work? Indeed, anyone can be victimized at any point
in their life. I unpack the following questions in this paper: What are the epistemological implica-
tions of research on victimization by researchers who have firsthand experiences as victims? What
lessons can be retained by victimologists and researchers in general? How can these epistemologi-
cal considerations be applied in practice?
Such questions fall within a wider debate: the legitimacy of research conducted by insiders,
those who have lived experience of what they study. This paper, thus, tackles the insider–outsider
debate within victimological research. By focusing on victimologists who have experienced vic-
timization, wider issues of what objectivity means and the role of subjectivity within research are
addressed. To do so, meanings of insider and outsider status and the implications for objectivity
and subjectivity are discussed and situated within positivist and standpoint epistemologies, the lat-
ter consisting of epistemologies formulated by marginalized groups in academia such as women
and Black scholars. The case of victimologists who have been victimized is presented, as well as
advantages and disadvantages of this form of insider research. I then deconstruct insider–outsider,
subjectivity–objectivity dualisms as pertain to victimologists, concluding on the necessity of utiliz-
ing a standpoint definition of objectivity that embraces and draws on subjectivity. In closing, I
present a practical guide for researchers who wish to embrace subjectivity as a foundation for
objectivity, using examples from victimological research.
Theoretical framework
In this section, meanings of insider and outsider status and the implications for objectivity and
subjectivity are discussed and situated within positivist and standpoint epistemologies.
The insider–outsider debate
The question of whether researchers should or should not be members of the population they are
studying has been debated especially in regard to qualitative research (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009).
Ethnographers have in turn been encouraged to ‘go native’1 to gain more insights into cultures they
are studying, and discouraged from being seduced by these cultures, which would entail losing
objectivity (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007; Kanuha, 2000). This debate has been critiqued as leaving
To continue reading
Request your trial