<p>In this autoethnographic article, I explore my experiences as a true insider, one with a dual position of researcher/practitioner in combination with organizational membership and experience in a studied setting. The concept of insider has mainly been explored as a methodological approach, where insider position concerns the relationship between researchers and participants. As someone who does research in combination with practical responsibilities, literature on co-production could only provide some guidance since the literature tends to be written from a researcher’s perspective; this is how one as a researcher co-produces, but provides fewer answers for researchers who are embedded by default. By reflecting on my experiences, I identify potential conceptual differences between different perspectives of the position of insider, both researcher-insider (as methodology) and insider-researcher (as membership) emerge with different categories to them. These categories are conceptually differentiated by experience, membership, enter and exit, responsibilities, and potential for long-term dialogue. The article identifies potential gaps for future research in the current literature on co-production for insider- researcher, mainly concerning quality criteria when change and actionable knowledge might be difficult to achieve; as well as potential difficulties concerning research ethics which may arise due to access and when one inhibits a dual position. The article also highlights how long-term implications, which could contribute to the co-production paradigm, are hidden due to difficulties in communicating practical experiences back to research unless done by a researcher.</p>