Should we be adding who to the what and the why? Reflections on etic and emic perspectives on media and language research

Especially when analyzing social or cultural practices, an inside perspective is crucial for the whole research process – from asking the right questions to knowing how to answer them. By combining etic (outside) and emic (inside) approaches (Pike, 2015), we have a way of bridging the gap between the practitioners and the researcher. In short, etic approaches answers the what and emic perspectives answers the why. In their literature review of etic and emic data production methods in media research, Haapanen and Manninen (2021) point to the benefits of combining the two approaches, while acknowledging the labor intensity of doing so.  

In my paper, I will reflect on emic and etic approaches to media and language research, with Haapanen and Manninen (2021) and my own research (Stenberg-Sirén, 2018, 2020, submitted) as a starting point. The questions are: What do the etic and emic perspectives add? How does the choice of perspectives reflect on the results? How should we account for the 'eticness' and 'emicness' of the researcher?

By reflecting on research methods and perspectives, we can broaden our understanding of the research process as a whole, and the roles of the researcher. Engaging in researcher reflexivity is particularly important, when using emic data production methods and collaborating with practitioners or informants. As Etherington (2004, p. 32) puts it: "By using reflexivity in research we close the illusory gap between researcher and researched and between the knower and what is known." Therefore, it is important to discuss if we should be adding who to the what and the why when researching media or language practices.