Insider/Outsider Debate

I am having a difficult time stating a definite opinion regarding the insider/outsider debate because I don't believe anyone can believe one is better or worse in every given situation. What I am sure about is that in order to write a piece of literature that addresses issues within a particular culture, the author must be fully aware of ALL aspects of the culture and be conscious of any statements or depictions that could be interpreted as being stereotypical. In order to do this, the author must emerse themselves within that culture. This does not a mean the writer should interview a few "insiders" of the community and visit a couple cultural landmarks. It means that the author must spend a significant amount of time interacting and become involved in that particular culture. An immense amount of research must be done in order to give an accurate portrayl of the culture. It may be obvious that the best person to take on this task would be an "insider" themselves, but I think it is also possible for "outsiders" to create an accurate piece of literature as long as they take the time to be positive that they are doing it correctly and their work will not offend anyone else. At the same time, I think it is very beneficial for authors from underprivileged cultures to have their own voice heard. Many may struggle to achieve this goal, but when literature is available from a variety of sources, perspectives, and voices, it can serve the purpose of informing and developing discussion around the issues that arise from a diverse array of cultures.