The process of observational research

‘Observation’ rarely involves a single act. Rather, it is a series of steps that builds toward the regularity and precision inherent in our working definition.

• The first step of the process is site selection. A site may be selected in order to respond to a theoretical question, or because it somehow represents an issue of current concern, or simply because it is convenient. However the site is selected, however, it is necessary for the researcher to
• gain entree into the community. Some communities are open to outsiders, others less accommodating. If one needs to work in one of those less inviting settings, added preparations must be made. Gatekeepers, both formal (e.g. police, political officials) and informal (e.g. respected elders), must be approached and their approval and support gained.
• Once having gained access to the site, the individual researcher may begin observing immediately. Those working with teams may, however, need to take some time for training, just to make sure everyone is doing his or her assigned task in the proper manner. If one is working in a situation requiring the assistance of translators or others who live in the community, it may be necessary to spend some initial time orienting them to the goals and operations of the research proj­ect. It may also be necessary to take some time to become accustomed to the site. The more exotic the locale, the more likely will it be that the researcher suffers from culture shock – a sense of being overwhelmed by the new and unfamiliar. But even when working close to home in reasonably familiar surroundings, the researcher may go through a phase of ‘shock’ just because he or she is inter­acting with that setting in the role of researcher in ways quite different from those that characterized earlier encounters.
• Once observation is underway, the researcher will probably find it necessary to make note of just about everything. An understanding of what is and is not central comes only after repeated observations (and probably also consulta­tions with members of the community). In any case, it is crucial that obser­vations be recorded in such a way as to facilitate retrieval of information. There is no universally accepted format for the recording of observational materials. Some researchers prefer highly structured checklists, grids, tables, and so forth; others prefer free-form narratives. Some like to enter data directly into computer software programs, others like to (or must, depending on local conditions) use manual means like notebooks, index cards, and so forth. The bottom line is that the method is best that helps the individual researcher retrieve and analyze whatever has been collected, and this stan­dard will necessarily vary from one researcher to another. Of course, group projects require a standardization of information recording, even if the method selected would not have been the first choice of some individual members of the team.
• As the research progresses, observations will gradually fall into discernible patterns, which suggest further questions to pursue, either through additional observations or other means of research. The anthropologist James Spradley (1980) has referred to the stages of observation as a ‘funnel’ because the process gradually narrows and directs researchers’ attention more deeply into the elements of the setting that have emerged as essential, either on the theo­retical or the empirical level.
• Observations continue until a point of theoretical saturation is achieved. This means that the generic features of new findings consistently replicate earlier ones.

Source: Angrosino Michael (2008), Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1st edition.