User:M.devia.psych./sandbox
Method and Practice[edit]
Participant observation is one of many ways to conduct qualitative research in fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines. Participant observation is an all-encompassing technique that allows the researcher the greatest form of liberty in deciding how to conduct his or her research. This method is difficult to clearly define in terms of how to do this type of qualitative research. In participant observation,a researcher's discipline based interests and commitments shape which events he or she considers are important and relevant to the research inquiry. [1]. While different fields have varied definitions of participant observation and how to conduct this data gathering technique, it can be said that most fields of participant observation have four different stages. According to Howell (1972), the four stages that most participant observation research studies are establishing rapport or getting to know the people, immersing oneself in the field, recording data and observations, and consolidating the information gathered [2].
| Howell's (1972)[2] Participant Observation Phases | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| Establishing Rapport | Get to know the members, visit the scene before study |
| In the Field | Do as the locals do |
| Recording Observations and Data | field notes, interviews, reflexivity journals |
| Analyzing Data | Thematic Analysis and narrative analysis |
Establishing Rapport[edit]
Researchers across various fields may use participant observation as an unobtrusive method of getting to know the people, culture, customs, practices, and relationships of the chosen population before approaching the members of the group with hard questions and hopes of conducting interviews [1]. In other words, participant observation is a great way to establish rapport with members of a cultural group. This is also a great method that allows the researcher to shape his or her research hypothesis according to what he or she finds through participant observation before conducting formal interviews. As Howell (1972) mentions in his book [2], it is important to become friends, or at least be accepted in the community, in order to obtain quality data. In order to become “friends” [3] with members of the community, and thus establish rapport, is to slowly become a regular in the field [3]. The reason a researcher should become a regular member in the area of study is so that the members of the population do not become threatened by his or her presence, and thus the researcher gains the trust of the people he or she is studying and increases the opportunities to record quality observations [2].Researchers may establish rapport by seeking out individuals in the population and finding things in common.
In the Field[edit]
It is important for the researcher to connect or show a connection with the population in order to be accepted as a member of the community. DeWalt & DeWalt (2011) [2][3] call this form of rapport establishment as “talking the talk” and “walking the walk”. Also mentioned by Howell, DeWalt & DeWalt state that the researcher must strive to fit in with the population of study through moderation of language and participation [3]. This sets the stage for how well the researcher blends in with the field and the quality of observable events he or she experiences.
Recording Data and Observations[edit]
- Reflexivity journal: Researchers are encouraged to record their personal thoughts and feelings about the subject of study. They are prompted to think about how their experiences, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and other factors might influence their research, in this case what the researcher decides to record and observe (Ambert et al, 1995)[4]. Researchers must be aware of these biases and enter the study with no misconceptions about not bringing in any subjectivities into the data collection process (Ambert et al., 1995; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Richardson, 2000)[4] [3] [5].
Analyzing Data[edit]
There a various methods employed by qualitative researchers across different disciplines to analyze data collected in the field. Two of the methods used to interpret and categorize data collected are:
| Method | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| Thematic analysis | organizing data according to recurrent themes found in interviews or other types of qualitative data collection |
| Narrative analysis | categorizing information gathered through interviews, finding common themes, and constructing a coherent story from data. |
Types of Participant Observation[edit]
Participant observation is not simply showing up at a site and writing things down. On the contrary, participant observation is a complex method that has many components. One of the first things that a researcher or individual must do after deciding to conduct participant observations to gather data is decide what kind of participant observer he or she will be. According to Spradley (1980) [6], there are five different types of participant observations: non-participatory, passive, moderate, active, and complete. The type of participant observation method chosen by the researcher or researchers depends on the research question, researcher’s level of involvement with the observed population, and the researcher’s discipline (i.e. psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). It is not uncommon for researchers to start in a very non-involved role and gradually increase the level of involvement[3][6].
Participant Observation Type Chart[3][6] [7].
| Type of Participant Observation | Level of Involvement | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Participatory | No contact with population or field of study | unable to build rapport or ask questions as new information comes up [3] [7]. |
| Passive Participation | Researcher is only in the bystander role | limits ability to establish rapport and immersing oneself in the field [6] [3][7]. |
| Moderate Participation | Researcher maintains a balance between "insider" and "outsider" roles | this allows a good combination of involvement and necessary detachment to remain objective[3][7].. |
| Active Participation | Researcher becomes a member of the group by fully embracing skills and customs for the sake of complete comprehension | This method permits the researcher to become more involved in the population. There is a risk of "going native" as the researcher strives for an in-depth understanding of the population studied [6][3][7].. |
| Complete Participation | Researcher is completely integrated in population of study beforehand (i.e. he or she is already a member of particular population studied). | There is the risk of losing all levels of objectivity, thus risking what is analyzed and presented to the public [6] [3][7]. |
Limitations To Any Participant Observation
- The recorded observations about a group of people or event is never going to be the full description [8][7]..
- As mentioned before this is due to the selective nature of any type of recordable data process: it is inevitably influenced by researchers' personal beliefs of what is relevant and important (Peshkin,1993)[8][7].
- This is also plays out in the analyzation of collected data; the researcher's worldview invariably influences how he or she interprets and evaluates the data (Spradley, 1980; Peshkin, 1993; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011)[6] [8][3].
Non-Participatory Observation[edit]
It is entirely possible to collect data and form an ethnographic study about a group of people without any form of involvement on the researcher’s part. A researcher may employ this method if he or she does not want to interact in any way with the chosen population, or if there is a specific social event or situation that makes direct observation or participation difficult (Spradley, 1980, p. 59)[9]. Researchers interested in conducting this type of research are still able to produce ethnographic accounts on social, cultural, or religious events that outsiders have little opportunity to experience in-person by observing the population through video-recorded documentaries. They are able to unobtrusively record and observe the interactions of the population without worry of becoming too involved in the on-goings and maintaining their objectivity[7]. However, this form of participant observation limits the quality of data. Non-participatory observation does not allow the researcher to build rapport with members of the population nor does it allow the researcher the opportunity to personally interview individual members about specific questions he or she may have come across during the observation process[7][3].
Passive Participant Observation[edit]
Passive participant observation is a step above non-participatory observation on the involvement scale. Unlike non-participatory observation, where the researcher never interacts with the population he or she is studying, passive participant observation is where the researcher takes on the role of watcher, spectator, or bystander[6]. He or she remains on the outskirts of all the action, while taking detailed field notes (see: field research) about patterns, relationships, or other observations either on the premises or immediately after leaving the field area. This form of participant observation allows the researcher to become aware of patterns within the group studied, and facilitates the researcher’s progression into more active involvement as a participant observer [7][6].
Moderate Participant Observation[edit]
This type of participant observation allows the researcher to increase the level of involvement, but still maintain a level of detachment. The researcher is in a way playing two roles one in which he is an insider and one in which he is an outsider. It can be said that this form of participant observation, while permitting the researcher to be more involved, still gives the researcher a balanced amount of detachment and objectivity. In other words the researcher will never be completely “in” or completely “out”[10]. He or she will observe the ways of the group studied and participate in the same events, but he or she will never be a complete member of the group. This is because there is only a willingness to participate and not necessarily understand and want to master the ways of the studied population.
Active Participant Observation[edit]
Active participation can be defined as the researcher seeking, out of their own volition, what members of the studied population are doing because he or she wants to fully understand and better learn the cultural norms of performance within that group. Like all of these types of methods, active participation begins by observing the people and relationships of the group. The goal of the researcher is to not only gain knowledge by observing events, but to become involved in the process to ultimately become another member of the studied population [6]. An example of this type of participant observation can be a researcher that partakes in an activity of high importance in the population. The researcher not only learns the skills, but also makes an attempt to master said skills thus becoming an active participant and not just a moderate participant observer.
Complete Participant Observation[edit]
A researcher that is a complete participant observer is wholly integrated in his or her population/field of study[6]. An example of a complete participant observer is that who is already a part of the chosen population or took an opportunity of employment with the intent of studying that specific population [6]. For example, a researcher that is part of a minority, cultural, or social group has the advantage of completely blending in with the population. This allows the researcher the freedom to move about without looking out of place and decreases the likelihood of other members questioning the researcher’s motives for participating in events that an outsider would not normally be available to members outside of that group. This researcher has the difficulty of maintaining objectivity, as with any other form of participant observation, and raises the question of ethics.
Impact of Researcher Involvement[edit]
Participant observation can only do so much for the researcher because the sole presence of the researacher in the field will influence the participants' behavior. Researchers engaging in this type of qualitative research method must be aware that participants may act differently or put up a facade that is in accordance to what they believe the researcher is studying [11]. This is why it is important to employ rigor in any qualitative research study. A useful method of rigor to employ is member-checking or triangulation[12] [13] .
While gathering data through participant observation, investigator triangulation would be a way to ensure that one researcher is not letting his or her biases or personal preferences in the way of observing and recording meaningful experiences [13]. As the name suggests, investigator triangulation involves multiple research team members gathering data about the same event, but this method ensures a variety of recorded observations due to the varying theoretical perspectives of each research team member[13]. In other words, triangulation, be it data, investigator, theory or methodological triangulation, is a form of cross-checking information[12][13].
Member checking is when the researcher asks for participant feedback on his or her recorded observations to ensure that the researcher is accurately depicting the participants' experiences and the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the data [13]. This method can be used in participant observation studies or when conducting interviews[13]. Member-checking and triangulation are good methods to use when conducting participant observations, or any other form of qualitative research, because they increase data and research conclusion credibility and transferability. In quantitative research, credibility is liken to internal validity[13][14] , or the knowledge that our findings are representative of reality, and transferability is similar to external validity or the extent to which the findings can be generalized across different populations, methods, and settings[13][14].
Ethical Concerns[edit]
As with any form of research dealing with human subjects, the researcher must ensure ethical boundaries are never crossed by those conducting research or the subjects of study. The researcher must have clearly established boundaries before the onset of the study, and have guidelines in place should any issues cross the line of ethical behavior. One of the issues would be if the researcher is studying a population where illegal activities may occur or when working with minor children[3]. In participant observation, the ethical concern that is most salient is that of informed consent and voluntary participation[3]. There is the issue of deciding to obtain informed consent from every individual in the group of study, obtain the informed consent for participant observation from the person of leadership, or not inform anyone of one’s true purpose in fear of influencing the attitudes of members, thus skewing the observations recorded[3][7].
The decision is based on the nature of the study and the researcher’s own personal thoughts on the cost-benefit ratio of the situation. Participant observation also brings up the issue of voluntary participation in events the researcher observes and records[7]. There may be instances when members do not want to be a part of the study and request that all data collected pertinent to them be removed. In this case, the researcher is obligated to relinquish data that may identify the members in any way. Above anything else, it is the researcher’s responsibility that the participants of the study do not suffer any ill effects directly or indirectly from the study, participants are informed of their rights as subjects of the study, and that the group was justly chosen for study (The Belmont Report)[15] .
The American Anthropological Association and The American Sociological Association both have comprehensive statements concerning the code of conduct for research.
External links[edit]
- Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association
- American Sociological Association Code of Ethics
References[edit]
<references>
- ^ a b Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). "Participant Observation and Fieldnotes." In Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, & Lyn Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography. pp: 356-357. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- ^ a b c d e Howell, Joseph T. (1972). Hard Living on Clay Street: Portraits of Blue Collar Families. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 392–403. ISBN 0881335266. Cite error: The named reference "Howell" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q DeWalt, DeWalt, K.M, B.R. (2011). Participant Observation. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. pp. 47–61.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Ambert, A. (1995). "Understanding and evaluating qualitative research". Journal of Marriage and the Family (57): 879–893. doi:10.2307/353409. JSTOR 353409.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Spradley, James P. (1980). Participant Observation. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt College Publishers. pp. 58–62. ISBN 003044501.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help) Cite error: The named reference "Spradley" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Schwartz, M.S. (January 1955). "Problems in Participant Observation". American Journal of Sociology. 60 (4): 343–353. doi:10.1086/221566.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ a b c Peshkin, A. (1993). "The Goodness of Qualitative Research". Educational Researcher. 22 (2): 23–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X022002023.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Spradley, James P. (1980). Participant Observation. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt College Publishers. p. 59. ISBN 003044501.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help) - ^ Spradley, James P. (1980). Participant Observation. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt College Publishers. p. 60. ISBN 003044501.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help) - ^ Douglas, Johnson, J.D. & J.M. (Eds.) (1977). Existential sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b Douglas, J.D. (1976). Investigative social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Lincoln & Guba, Y.S. & E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- ^ a b Bannister, Burman, Parker, Taylor, & Tindall, P., E., I., M., & C. (1994). Qualitative research. In Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A research guide. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. pp. 1–16.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "The Belmont Report".