Types of observational research

Although in its earliest manifestations as a research tool observation was sup­posed to be ‘non-reactive’, in fact observation presupposes some sort of contact with the people or things being observed. Ethnographic observation (as opposed to the sort of observation that might be conducted in a clinical setting) is con­ducted in the field, in naturalistic settings. The observer is thus, to one degree or another, involved in that which he or she is observing.

This question of degree speaks to the kind of role adopted by the ethnographer. The classic typology of researcher roles is that of Gold (1958), who distinguished four categories:

  • In the complete observer role, the ethnographer is as detached as possible from the setting under study. Observers are neither seen nor noticed. Such a role was thought to represent a kind of ideal of objectivity, although it is pretty much out of favor because it can lend itself to deception and raise eth­ical issues that contemporary researchers try to avoid. Nevertheless, some interesting and valid examples of the genre continue to appear, such as Cahill’s (1985) study of interaction order in a public bathroom. This study was concerned with routine bathroom behavior. Over a nine-month period, Cahill and five student assistants observed behavior in the bathrooms of shopping malls, student centers on college campuses, and restaurants and bars.
  • The observer-as-participant role finds the researcher conducting observa­tions for brief periods, perhaps in order to set the context for interviews or other types of research. The researcher is known and recognized, but relates to the ‘subjects’ of study solely as a researcher. For example, Fox (2001) conducted observations in a prison-based group designed to encourage ‘cognitive self-change’ among violent offenders. Fox’s research purposes were explained to and endorsed by the state Department of Corrections, as well as by the facilitators and members of the group. ‘Although I interact with other participants,’ she says, ‘most of the time I take notes quietly.’
  • The researcher who is a participant-as-observer is more fully integrated into the life of the group under study and is more engaged with the people; he or she is as much a friend as a neutral researcher. His or her activities as a researcher are still acknowledged, however. For example, Anderson (1990) and his wife spent fourteen summers living in two adjacent communities, one black and low-income, the other racially mixed but becoming increasingly middle-to-upper income and white. During this time he developed a study of interactions involving young black men on the streets of the two communi­ties. Those young men were aware of the stereotype evoked by their status, and resented the way they were treated (i.e. avoided) by others who assumed they were dangerous; but they were also able to play up that presumed char­acter in order to achieve certain advantages in some circumstances.
  • When the researcher is a complete participant, however, he or she disappears completely into the setting and is fully engaged with the people and their activities, perhaps even to the extent of never acknowledging his or her own research agenda. In traditional anthropological parlance, this stance was somewhat disparagingly referred to as ‘going native’. On the other hand, there is considerable support for the development of ‘indigenous fieldwork’, that is, research conducted by people who are members of the culture they study (da Matta, 1994, has discussed this matter in some detail). It is sometimes assumed that a ‘native’ of the culture will achieve greater rapport with the people being observed, although that is not necessarily the case, as sometimes ‘blending in’ totally fatally compromises the ability of the researcher to conduct the research. It is an interesting paradox that at both ends of the continuum – whether the researcher is fully engaged in or completely detached from the setting – ethical problems related to deceptive practices may arise. As a result, most ethnographers position themselves somewhere within the second two roles.

Given the focus on those two forms of engagement, it is not surprising that analysts now tend to discuss roles in terms of membership (see, e.g., Adler and Adler, 1994):

  • Researchers who adopt peripheral membership observe and interact closely with the people under study, and thereby establish identities as insiders, but they do not participate in those activities constituting the core of group mem­bership. For example, researchers studying drug culture on the streets of a big city would need to establish themselves as people who are known and can be trusted, even though it is understood that they will not use or sell drugs them­selves (see, e.g., Bourgois, 1995).
  • By contrast, those who adopt an active membership role do engage in those core activities, although they try to refrain from committing themselves to the group’s values, goals, and attitudes. For example, the anthropologist Christopher Toumey (1994) studied a group of creationists; he participated fully in their meetings and socialized freely with them at their homes, although he made it clear that as an anthropologist he could not agree with their philosophical position on the theory of evolution.
  • Researchers who take on complete membership, however, study settings in which they are active and engaged members. They are also often advocates for the positions adopted by the group. For example, Ken Plummer (2005) discusses the ways in which he came out as a gay man, became involved with a political movement to reform laws about homosexuality in his native Britain, and began to study the gay scene in London in the late 1960s.

Ethnographic research in which the researcher adopts one of these membership roles may be termed participant observation, which is a ‘process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of par­ticipants in the research setting’ (Schensul et al., 1999, p. 91). We should not, however, think of participant observation as a research method; it is, rather, a ‘strategy that facilitates data collection in the field’ (Bernard, 1988, p. 150). The term is a combination of the role of the researcher (participant of some sort) with an actual data collection technique (observation). Researchers may, of course, use other data collection techniques (surveys, archival searches, interviews) while they are participants in the community under study; but the assumption is that even as they do these other things, they are still being careful observers of the people and events around them.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *