Observation research Flashcards
(13 cards)
ethnographic approach
Study that allows sociologist to spend considerable time living alongside people they study.
> recording details of ordinary, everyday experiences is the main objective.
> truly understanding people’s thoughts, attitudes and values is crucial
> this can involve sociologist spending time with cultures different to our own.
autoethnography
involves sociologist immersing themselves in their own life and experiences of life - in order to document this for research purposes.
> focuses on how a particular person’s experiences can be seen and understood.
Irene Zempi (2019)
Veiled Muslim women’s experiences of Hate Crime
Zempi wore a full veil (headscarf) and niqab (face veil) for long times in public - to see what some Muslim women experience daily.
> did this for 4 weeks in Leicester
> kept a diary of her experiences and her reflections - this included experiences of name-calling, swearing and aggressive looks.
EVAL GOOD - VALDITY -provides good and true example of how “covert autoethnography” allows sociologist to see in first hand, what many people real experiences are.
EVAL BAD - ETHIC - the method involves “deception” - she hid her true identity, pretended to be Muslim and put herself in threatening situations.
Covert Participant Observation
EVAL GOOD - allows access to “secretive groups”
EVAL GOOD - VALIDITY - as no one knows they are part of research they act naturally, therefore avoiding “Hawthorne effect”
EVAL BAD - PRACTICAL - getting into “secretive groups” can be hard - e.g. criminal gangs have strict entry criteria as they are illegal.
EVAL BAD -PRACTICAL - if sociologist gets in group it may still be hard to “stay in” - sociologist must keep act up in order to avoid suspicion etc. which can be hard.
EVAL BAD - VALIDITY - sociologist may be “going native” - spend time and may enjoy time, therefore not record things they may have or should have - decreases validity
EVAL BAD - if they do not get consent to do research, they simply cannot.
EVAL BAD -
Laud Humphries (1979)
The Tearoom Trade
covert observation of sexual activity in public toilets in the USA
EVAL BAD - ETHIC - he landed himself in big trouble with University that employed him - he failed to seek permission from the ethics committee and just started researching into people’s sex lives
EVAL BAD - ETHIC - his role as “watch-queen” allowed him to observe same-sex acts in public places - secretly recording the number plate of men who took part - then following them home, very unethical and strange.
John Howard-Griffin (1959)
Black like me
studying impact of white racism on black people - used medication and sun lamps to change his skin colour - to seem as a black person
> claims this was the only way he could truly appreciate the way people he studied may feel.
> also felt this was the best way to be accepted to the black population he was studying
> as those he hung out with believed he was a black person, Griffin felt attitudes and experiences of life the black people disclosed - therefore VALUABLE data.
EVAL BAD - UNETHICAL - deception involved in pretending to be black winning people’s trust and living a lie is outrageous in some views.
EVAL BAD - PRACTICAL - high cost and also developed huge health problems associated with taking drugs to change skin colour
Overt Participant Observation
EVAL GOOD - ETHIC - sociologist lets those who are being researched to be fully aware that they are being researched - ensures “informed consent” and helps build “trust and rapport”
EVAL GOOD - open, transparent nature of the study prevents pressure and awkwardness for the sociologist - ensure they remain safe.
EVAL GOOD - VALIDITY - sociologist can ask “naïve questions” and can “seek clarification” as the people know they’re being researched - therefore sociologist is secure in knowing they are interpreting what they observe correctly
Sudhir Venkatesh (2008)
Gang leader for a day
studying drug-gangs in Chicago, Venkatesh quickly found himself surround by gang members as he entered their “turf” with questionnaires he hoped they would complete > this idea was abandoned - instead gang leader JT allowed him to join the gang as a participant observer for four years - he estabished a good relationship with JT and was even gang leader for a day!
> he was able to observe the rise and fall of gang members at first hand.
> precise details could be logged and the trust between Venkatesh and gang members was so good they trusted him to not “snitch” to police.
Paul Willis (1977)
Learning to Labour
study relationship between schools/education and the economy, Willis spent 18 months observing 12 working class “lads” - also visiting them at work.
> his “overt participation observation” involve spending time in classrooms and when the lads did leisure activities.
> this method allowed him to gather evidence of a “counter-culture” - the lads demonstrated deliberate acts of defiance
EVAL GOOD - interpretivists comment on the value of Willis’ chosen methodology in terms of the “rich, first-hand evidence” he could obtain.
EVAL GOOD - his open honesty with the lads avoided ethical issues and they also built “rapport”
EVAL BAD - THEORETICAL VALIDITY - the lads know they are being researched, therefore “Hawthorne effect” may occur meaning they acted up as they had an audience
undermining validity
Covert, non-participant observation
involves secretly observing people’s behaviour without joining in with them e.g. CCTV and surveillance
EVAL GOOD - THEORETICAL VALIDITY - little interference from the researcher reducing influence to those who are being researched - preventing “Hawthorne effect” increasing validity
EVAL GOOD - PRACTICAL - notes can easily be recorded ensuring accurate records of what is seen are recorded - prevents gaps in knowledge.
EVAL BAD - ETHICAL CONCERN - people do not know they are being researched therefore it is unethical - the researched is “spying” on participants.
Teela Sanders (2004)
Sex Work
research in the sex industry, Sanders was selective about with whom she was open and honest with about what she was doing.
> spent many hours observing interaction between clients and sex workers
> open with sex workers about research, but not the clients as she felt it would influence their behaviour (Hawthorne effect)
> some clients requested sex with her, she had to make excuses.
EVAL BAD - ETHICAL - didn’t tell the clients which is unethical
EVAL GOOD - could “gain insight” and “access” into sex work.
EVAL GOOD - covert observation allowed her to build “rapport” with the sex workers and clients
Overt non-participant observation
people being researched know they are being researched e.g. OFSTED inspector sitting in a classroom is an example.
EVAL GOOD - ETHICAL - no ethical concerns as people know they are being researched
EVAL GOOD - researched has not interference and just sits back and observes.
EVAL GOOD - PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL - researcher can openly take notes therefore the data is more likely to be accurate helping with validity
EVAL BAD - THEORETICAL - Hawthorne effect will occur as people know they being researched reducing validity
EVAL BAD - little chance to clarify with researcher as they are not involved - could result in researcher simply guessing or at best interpreting what they see - reduces validity.
Postmodern Ethnography
