Observations

• Non-participant observation


  The researcher simply observes the group or event without taking part in it
• Participant observation


  The researcher actually takes part in an event or the everyday life of the group while observing it
• Overt observation


  The researcher makes their true identity and purpose known to those being studied
• Covert observation


  The study is carried out under cover, the researcher's real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied
• Structured observation


  The researcher uses a structured observational schedule to categorise systematically what happens
• Observation may be used in conjunction with other methods, e.g. observing interviewees' body language
• Gaining entry to the group being studied

  • Making the initial contact
  • Gaining acceptance
• The researcher's personal characteristics can be an obstacle to gaining access to a group
• Staying in the group being studied

  • Avoiding 'going native' and over-identifying with the group
  • Avoiding becoming too detached and failing to understand the group
• The more time the researcher spends with the group, the less strange its ways can come to appear
• Getting out of the group at the end of the study

  • Leaving the group can be difficult, especially if the researcher has become close to them
  • Returning to the researcher's normal world can also be difficult
• Loyalty may prevent the researcher from disclosing everything they have learnt, reducing the validity of the study
• Overt observation


  The researcher reveals their identity and purpose to the group and asks their permission to observe
• Advantages of overt observation


  • Avoids the ethical problem of obtaining information by deceit
  • Allows the observer to ask naive but important questions
  • Allows the researcher to take notes openly
  • Allows the researcher to use interview methods
• Disadvantages of overt observation


  • The group may refuse permission or prevent the researcher from seeing certain things
  • It risks creating the Hawthorne Effect, where those being observed begin to behave differently
• Covert observation


  The researcher's real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied
• Advantages of covert observation


  • Reduces the risk of altering people's behaviour
  • Sometimes the only way to obtain valid information, especially about secret activities
• Practical problems of covert observation


  • Requires the researcher to keep up an act and have detailed knowledge of the group's way of life
  • Risk of cover being blown
  • Cannot take notes openly
  • Cannot ask naive but important questions
  • Cannot combine with other methods like interviews
  • Addition of a new member can still change the group's behaviour
• Ethical issues with covert observation


  • Immoral to deceive people and obtain information by pretending
  • Cannot obtain informed consent
  • May have to lie about reasons for leaving the group
  • May have to participate in illegal activities
• Covert participant observation raises serious ethical (moral) 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 group.
• Researchers should obtain the informed consent of the subjects, and reveal the purpose of the study and the uses to which its findings will be put. With covert observation, this cannot normally be done, at least until afterward.
• Covert observers may have to lie about their reasons for leaving the group at the end of their research. Others, such as Patrick, simply abandon the group without explanation. Critics argue that this is unethical.
• They may 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.
• Advantages of participant observation


  • Validity - what people say they do and what they actually do are not always the same, participant observation provides rich qualitative data
  • Insight - allows the researcher to gain empathy through personal experience and understand the 'life-world' as the subjects themselves understand it
  • Flexibility - allows the researcher to enter the situation with an open mind and change direction as new situations are encountered
• Practical advantages of participant observation


  • Can be the only viable method for studying certain groups, particularly those engaged in activities that wider society sees as deviant or disreputable
  • Can be used in situations where questioning would be ineffective
• Disadvantages of participant observation


  • Practical disadvantages - very time-consuming, requires training, personal characteristics may restrict what groups can be studied, groups may not wish to be studied
  • Ethical problems - covert observation involves deception and participation in illegal/immoral activities
  • Representativeness - small, haphazardly selected groups, not a sound basis for generalization
  • Reliability - difficult to replicate due to dependence on personal skills of the researcher, qualitative data makes comparisons difficult
  • Bias and lack of objectivity - risk of 'going native' and presenting a one-sided view, sympathies with the underdog may lead to biased accounts
  • Validity - positivists argue findings are merely subjective impressions of the observer, Hawthorne Effect undermines naturalistic account
  • Lack of a concept of structure - focuses on micro-level interactions and meanings, ignores wider structural forces
• Positivists reject participant observation because its lack of structure means it cannot be replicated or results quantified. They favour structured non-participant observation because it achieves their main goals of reliability, generalisability and cause-and-effect relationships.
• Interpretivists favour unstructured participant observation because it achieves their main goal of validity, showing what people actually do rather than just what they say.