{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02027027027027027, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.662921348314606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Metropolitan researchers undertaking rural research: benefits and pitfalls.

Can or should metropolitan residents research their rural counterparts and if they do are there inherent pitfalls or benefits? Throughout the history of social and anthropological research there has been debate on the insider-outsider/native-stranger controversy as to who should carry out the field work. This discourse will explore the author's personal experiences in the context of planning a rural health project, entering the field, accessing the informants, interviewing the informants and leaving the field.