naturalistic, controlled, covert, overt, participant, non participant
naturalistic observation - takesplace in the realworld, the participants are morelikely to spend time in their homes, school or work as they go about their daily lives
naturalistic observation (pro) - highrealism: participants are likely to show more naturalisticbehaviour, can be generalisable to other situations
leading to highecologicalvalidity
naturalistic observation (con) - have lesscontrol over extraneous variables
naturalistic observation (con) - lack of control over the research situation
replication of the study will be difficult
controlled observation (pro) - aspects of the environment are controlled in an attempt to give the participants the same experience
often conducted in a lab and uses a standardisedprocedure
controlled observation (con) - behaviour may not be generalizable to real life due to the artificiality of the environment
leading to lowecologicalvalidity
controlled observation (pro) - the researcher selects which participants to observe and standardised the procedure
goodcontrol over extraneousvariables
naturalistic vs controlled
controlled observations have bettercontrol over extraneous variables than naturalistic observations
naturalistic observations have higherecologicalvalidity than controlled observations
covert observation - the participants are notaware that they are being observed and they can’t see someone taking notes / recordings
the observer may be physically present
covert observation (pro) - participants are lesslikely to display socialdesirabilitybias, or be influenced by investigatoreffects
covert observation (con) - lessethical than overt observations as informedconsent can't be contained and noright to privacy
overt observation - the participants can see the researcher and are aware their behaviour is being observed
overt observation (pro) - more ethical than covert observations because informedconsent can be obtained
overt observation (con) - morelikely to be effected by investigator effects or socialdesirabilitybias
overt observation (con) - demandcharacteristics
participant observation - the researcherjoins in the group being observed and takespart in the group’s activities and conversations
participant observation (pro) - by taking part, the researcher builds rapport (insight and understanding) into the behaviour of the participants
participant observation (pro) - more trust and comfort could lead to the particiapnts' behaviour occurring more naturally
participant observation (con) - the participants are morelikely to be influenced by investigatoreffects
participant observation (con) - interpretation of behaviour is biased seeing as it is only from the participants'perspective
researchers may lose objectivity
'goingnative'
nonparticipant observation - the researcher is separate from the participants recording observations w/otakingpart in the groups activities
nonparticipant observation (pro) - the researcher is morelikely to remain objective in their interpretation of the partcipants'behaviour
nonparticipant observation (pro) - less chance of participants 'goingnative'
nonparticipant observation (con) - maylose the valuable insight to be gained in a participantobservation as they are fartooremoved from the people + behaviour they are studying