Participant Observation Flashcards
(35 cards)
1
Q
Types of observation
A
Firstly we distinguish between
- non participant observation
- participant observation
Secondly we distinguish between
- overt observation
- covert observation
2
Q
What is non participant observation?
A
- the researcher simply observes the group or event without taking part in it. E.g, they may use a two way mirror to observe children playing
3
Q
What is participant observation?
A
- the researcher actually takes part in an event or the everyday life of the group while observing it
4
Q
What is overt observation
A
- the researcher makes their true identity and purpose known to those being studied. The sociologists is open about what they are doing
5
Q
Covert observation
A
- the study is carried out ‘under cover’. The researchers real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied. The researcher takes on a false identity and role, usually posing as a genuine member of the group
6
Q
Observation
A
- actual research does not always fit neatly into one or other of these categories. E.g, whytes study of ‘street corner society’ was semi overt.
- in sociology most observation is unstructured participant observation. However, positivists sociologists in particular do occasionally use structured observation, which is normally non participant. Here, the researcher uses a structured observation schedule to categorise systematically what happens
7
Q
Observational schedule
A
- the schedule is a pre determined list of the types of behaviour or situations the sociologist is interested in. Each time an instance of such behaviour occurs, the sociologists records it on the schedule. The researcher adds up the number of times each event occurs. This produces quantitative data, from which patterns and correlations can then be established.
8
Q
Conducting a participant observation study
A
- sociologists face two main issues when conducting a participant observation study:
1. Getting in, staying in and getting out - of the group being studied
2. Whether to use covert or overt observation
9
Q
Getting in
A
- to do the study, we must first gain entry to the group. Some groups are easier to enter than others. E.g, joining a football crowd is likely to be easier than joining a criminal gang.
10
Q
Making contact
A
- making the initial contact with the group may depend on on personal skills, having the right connections, or even pure chance. Polsky, who was a good pool player, found his skill used in in gaining entry to the world of the poolroom hustler.
- Patrick was able to join a Glasgow gang because he looked quite young and knew one of its members from having taught him in approve school.
- fairhurst found herself hospitalised by back trouble and used the opportunity to conduct a study on being a patient
11
Q
Acceptance
A
- to gain entry to a group, the researcher will have to win their trust and acceptance. It may help to make friends with a key individual, as Thornton did with Kate in her study of the clubbing rave scene. Sometimes, though, the researcher age, gender, class or ethnicity may prove an obstacle. Thornton found her age and nationality a barrier
- a white researcher, liebow succeeded in gaining acceptance by a black street corner gang in Washington DC. Some researchers have gibe to remarkable lengths to gain acceptance and pass as on of the group
12
Q
The observers role
A
- ‘getting in’ poses the question of what role the researcher should adopt. Ideally it should:
- be one that does not disrupt the groups normal patterns
- offer a good vantage from which to make observations
- whyte succeeded in achieving both these aims by refusing all leadership roles, with the one expectation of secretary of the community club, a position that allowed him to take ample notes under the guise of taking the minutes of meetings
- however, it is not always possible to take a role that is both unobtrusive and a good vantage point. Some roles may also invlove taking sides in conflicts, with the results that the researcher may become estranged from one faction or the other, making observations more difficult
13
Q
Staying in
A
- once accepted, the researcher needs to be able to stay in the group and complete the study. Here there is a key problem for the participant observer - having to be both involved in the group so as to understand it fully, and yet at the same time detached from the group so as to remain objective and unbiased
14
Q
‘Going native’
A
- one danger of staying in the group is that of becoming over involved or ‘going native’. By over identifying with the group, the researcher becomes biased. When this happens, they have stopped being an objective observer and have simply become a member of the group
- e.g, in punch’s study of police he found that in striving to be accepted by the tightly knit patrol group he was studying, he over identified with them, even acting as a ‘policeman’ himself - chasing and holding suspects, searching houses, cars and people. Shouting at people who abused his police ‘colleagues’
- at the other extreme, the researcher may preserve their detachment so as to avoid bias, but by remaining detached they risk not understanding the events they observe. Striking a balance between these two extremes is immensely difficult
- a further problem with staying in is that the more time the researcher spends with the group, the less strange its ways come to appear. After a while, the researcher may cease to notice things that would have struck them as unusual or noteworthy at an earlier stage of the research
15
Q
Getting out
A
- in practical terms, getting out of the group at the end of the study generally presents fewer problems than getting in or staying in. If the worst comes to worst, the researcher can simply call a halt and leave. This was Patrick’s experience of studying a Glasgow gang when, sickened by the violence, he abandoned the study abruptly. Others can leave more gracefully, particularly if their observation has been overt. Nevertheless, leaving a group with whom one has become close can be difficult
- re entering ones normal world can also be difficult. Whyte found that when he returned to Harvard after his research, he was tongue tied and unable to communicate with fellow academics. These problems can be made worse if the research is conducted on and off a period of time, with multiple ‘crossings’ between the two worlds
- the researcher may also find that loyalty prevents them from fully disclosing everything they have learnt, for fear that this might harm members of the group. E.g, in the case of criminal groups, exposure of their activities might lead to prosecution, or reprisals against the author.
16
Q
Overt observation
A
- sociologists face the decision whether to use overt or covert observation. Many sociologists favours the use of overt observation, where the researcher reveals their true identity and purpose to the group and asks their permission to observe.
17
Q
Advantages of overt observation
A
- it avoids ethnical problem of obtaining information by deceit and, when studying deviant groups, that of being expected to join in their activities
- it allows the observer to ask the kind of naive but important questions that only an outsider could ask. E.g, the researcher could ask a gang member ‘why do you steel?
- the observer can take notes openly
- it allows the researcher to use interview methods to check insights derived from observations
18
Q
Disadvantages of overt observation
A
- a group may refuse researcher permission to observe them, or may prevent them from seeing everything. As two of the Amsterdam police officers that punch had dine his research with later told him ‘when you were with us, we only let you see what we wanted you to see’
- it risks creating the Hawthorne effect, where those who know they are being observed begin to behave differently as a result. This undermines the validity of the data
19
Q
Covert observation
A
- some sociologists choose to carry out covert observations. However, the use of covert observation raises several practical and ethical issues
20
Q
Practical advantage of covert observation
A
- the main practical advantage is that it reduces the risk of altering peoples behaviour, and sometimes it is the only way to obtain valid information. This is particularly true where people are engaged in activities that they would rather keep secret. As Humphrey’s, who studied gay mens sexual encounters in public toilets notes, ‘there is only one way to watch highly discreditable behaviour and that is to pretend to be in the same boat with those engaging in it”
- if they knew they were being observed, they would change or conceal their behaviour and so the main advantage of observation - that is preserves the naturalness of peoples behaviour - would be lost
21
Q
Practical disadvantages of covert observation
A
- firstly, it requires the researcher to keep up an act, and may call for detailed knowledge of the groups way of life even before joining it. There is always a risk of ones cover being ‘blown’ by even a trivial mistake. Patrick was almost found out when he bought his suit with cans instead of a credit and when he fastened the middle button of his jacket rather than the top one - things the gang would never of done. This is likely to bring the researcher to an abrupt end and may, in this case of some criminal groups, lead to physical harm
- secondly, the sociologists cannot usually take notes openly and must rely on memory and the opportunity to write them in secret. Both festinger et al, studying a religious sect that had predicted the imminent end of the world, ditton, studying theft among bread deliverymen, had to use toilets as a place for recording their observations
- thirdly, the researcher cannot ask naive but important questions, or combine observation with other methods, such as interviews
- fourthly, although pretending to be an insider rather than an outsider reduces the risk of the Hawthorne affect, the addition of a new member can still change the groups behaviour, therefore reducing validity
22
Q
Ethnical issues of covert observation
A
- covert observation raises serious ethical issues for researchers. These often conflict with the practical advantage it brings of observing natural behaviour
- it is immoral to deceive people, obtaining information by pretending to be their friend or ‘in the same boat’. Researchers should obtain the informed consent of their subjects, and reveal the purpose of the study and the use to which its findings will be put. With covert observations, this cannot be normally be done, at least until afterwards
- covert observations may have to lie about their reasons for leaving the groups at the end of the research. Others, such as Patrick simply abandon the group without explanation. Critics argue that this is unethical
- they mat have to participate in immoral or illegal activities as part of their ‘cover’ role
- similarly, as witnesses to such activities, they may have a moral or legal duty to intervene or to report them to the police
23
Q
Advantages of participant observation
A
- Validity
- Insight
- Flexibility
- Practical advantages
24
Q
Advantages of participant observation - validity
A
- what people say they do when asked in a questionnaire and what they actually do in real life, are not always the same thing. In contrast, by actually observing people we can obtain rich qualitative data that provides a picture of how they really live. Supporters of participant observation argue that this is the methods main strength, and most of its other advantages are linked to this
25
Advantages of participant observation - insight
- the best way to truly understand what something is like is to experience it ourselves. Sociologists call this personal or subjective understanding ‘verstehen’, meaning empathy that comes from putting yourself in another persons place
- participant observation allows the researcher to gain empathy through personal experience. By actually living as a member of a group, we can gain insight to no their way of life, their meanings and viewpoints, their values and problems. We come to understand their ‘life-world’ as they themselves understand it. This closeness to peoples lived reality means that participant observation can give uniquely valid, authentic data
26
Advantages of participant observation - flexibility
- participant observation is a much more flexible method. Rather than starting with a fixed hypothesis, it allows the sociologist to enter the situation with a relatively open mind about what they will find. As new situations are encountered, new explanations can be formulated and the sociology’s can change direction to follow them up there and then. In this way, any theorist that the researcher produces are ‘grounded’ in real life
- this open mindedness allows the researcher to discover things that other methods may miss. As whyte noted, simply by observing, ‘I learned answers to questions that i would not have had the sense to ask if i had been using interviews’.
27
Practical advantages of participant observation
- sometimes participant observation may be the viable method for studying certain groups, particularly those engaged in activities that wider society sees as deviant or disreputable. Such groups are likely to be suspicious of outsiders who come asking questions. As yablonsky points out, a teenage gang is likely to see researchers who come armed with questionnaires as the unwelcome representatives of authority
- in contrast, because participant observation enables the sociologist to build rapport with the group and gain its trust, it has proved a successful method of studying delinquent gangs, football hooligans, thieves, drug users, religious sects and other ‘outsider’ groups
- participant observation can also be used in other situations where questioning would be ineffective. This is shown in cicourels, study of how police and probation officers categorise juveniles by making unconscious assumptions about whether they are criminal ‘types’
28
Disadvantages of participant observation
1. Practical disadvantages
2. Ethnical problems
3. Representative
4. Reliability
5. Bias and lack of objectivity
6. Validity
7. Lack of concept of structure
29
1. Practical disadvantages of participant observation
- it is very time consuming. E.g, whytes study took him four years to complete
- the researcher needs to be trained so as to be able to recognise aspects of a situation that are sociologically significant and worth further attention
- it can be personally stressful and demanding, especially if covert
- it requires observation and interpersonal skills that not everyone possess
- personal characteristics such as age, gender or ethnicity may restrict what kinds of groups can be studied. As downes and rock put it ‘not everyone would pass uneventfully into the world of punk rockers or hell angles’
- many groups may not wish to be studied in this way, and some have the power to make access difficult. This is one reason why participant observation often focuses on relatively powerless groups who are less able to resist being studied, such as petty criminals
30
Ethical problems of participant observations
- covert observation in particular raises serious ethnical difficulties, including deceiving people in order to obtain information about them and participating in illegal or immoral activities in the course of sociological research
31
Representative disadvantages of participant observation
- sociologists who use quantitive survey methods usually study large, carefully selected, representative samples that provide a sound basis for making generalisations. In contrast, in participant observation studies, the group studied is usually very small and the ‘sample’ is often selected haphazardly , e.g, by a chance encounter with someone who turns out to be a key informant
- this does not provide sound basis for making generalisations. As downes and rock note, although participant observation may provide valid insights into the particular group being studied, it is doubtful how far these ‘internally valid’ insights are ‘externally valid’, that is generalisable to the wider population
32
Reliability disadvantages of participant observation
- participant observation so much depends on the personal skills and characteristics of a lone researcher that it os unlikely any other investigator would be able to replicate the original study. E.g, as Whyte recognised, his method was to some extent unique to him alone
- also, because participant observation usually produces qualitative data, this can make comparisons with other studies difficult. As a result, it is unlikely to produce reliable data. Positivists, who see sociology as scientific, thus reject participant observation as an unsystematic method that cannot be replicated by other researchers
33
Bias and lack of objectivity - disadvantages of participant observation
- critics argue that participant observation studies lack objectivity
- the risk of becoming too involved and ‘going native’ makes it difficult to remain objective and the sociologists may end up presenting a one sided or biased view of the group
- sometimes, loyalty to the group or fear of reprisals leads the sociologist to conceal sensitive informative. This denies those who read the published study and full and objective account of research.
- participant observation often attracts socialists whose sympathise lie with the underdog. Since it is seen as an effective method for ‘telling it like it is’ from the actors points of view, some of these who use it may be biased in favour of these subjects viewpoints. E.g, Willis was accused of presenting a romanticised account of the lads
34
Validity disadvantages of participant observation
- according to its supporters, the great strength of participant observation lies in its validity. As a form of verstehen, allowing the sociologist to become an insider, it gives an authentic account of the actors world
- positivists reject this claim. They argue that the findings from such studies are merely the subjective and biased impressions of the researcher. Rather then truly ‘telling it like it is’, participant observation simply tells is as the observer sees it.
- supporters of participant observation claim that it does not impose the sociologists own categories and ideas on facts, but positivists argue that in reality the researcher selects what facts they think are worth recording, and that these are likely to fit in with the researchers pre existing views and prejudices
- a further threat to validity comes from the Hawthorne effect. The very presence of the observer may make the subjects act differently. This defats the main aim of participant observation, to produce a ‘naturalistic’ account of human behaviour
35
Disadvantages of participant observation - a lack of a concept structure
- interactionists favour the use of participant observation. They see society as constructed through the small scale, face to face interactions of its members and the meanings that individual actors give to their situation. In their view, participant observation is a useful took for examining these micro level interactions and meanings at first hand
- however, structural sociologists such as Marxist and functionalist see this as inadequate. They argue that because it focuses on the ‘micro’ level of actors meanings, participant observation tends to ignore the wide structure forces that shape our behaviour, such as class inequality or the norms and values into which we are socialised
- in the structuralist view, therefore, seeing things only through the actors eyes will never give us the complete picture. E.g, if the actors are unaware of the structure forces shaping their behaviour, then their own account of their. Lives, revealed through participant observation, will give us at best only a partial view
