PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION COMPARED TO METHODS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Participant Observation Compared To Methods Of Qualitative Research



Participant Observation Compared To Methods Of Qualitative Research

Participant Observation

Participant Observation, as the name suggests, involves the researcher being open with the group they are going to study. In other words, before joining a group the researcher is likely to inform the group's members (either personally or through the agency of a sponsor) about such things as the purpose of the research, it's scope, how long the research will last and so forth. (Smith, 2005) In this respect, therefore, the research is done with the permission and co-operation of the group and the fact of being open with the group being researched carries with it certain advantages and disadvantages as far as the overall conduct of the research is concerned.

SponsorA "sponsor" is someone within the group you want to study who is willing to both vouch for you and explain your presence to the other group members. Sponsors are often a good way for researcher's to gain entrance to a group - especially if the sponsor has a relatively high status within the group - because other group members are less likely to show hostility to the researcher if their presence is both explained and justified by the sponsor. (Smith, 2005) A classic example of sponsorship is William Whyte's study ("Street Corner Society") in which he observed the activities and behaviour of an American Street gang. Although a lot older than the gang members, Whyte was accepted by them because his presence was explained and protected by his friendship with the gang's leader, "Doc".

Ethics

For some sociologists the question of whether or not you have the group's permission to study them is a question of ethics - in this instance, does a researcher have the right to study a group or individual without their knowledge and / or permission? Whatever the rights and wrongs of covert research it's evident that Participant Observation neatly avoids this potentially tricky question.

Open

In simple terms, the technique here is that of "hanging-around" the group, observing behaviour, asking questions about that behaviour (when appropriate) and recording what is happening. The researcher is involved, to some extent, with the group itself (although not necessarily as a full participating member) and experiences things as group members experience them. In basic terms, therefore, the group being studied is observed in its "natural setting" (rather than from the "second-hand" reporting about "what goes on" that is received from questionnaires and interviews). (Smith, 2005)

AdvantagesThese advantages fall in to three main categories.

Firstly, if you're able to join a group openly, the problem of access can be fairly easily overcome.

Secondly, it also goes some way to resolving a major problem with this type of ethnographic research, namely that of how to record data while observing people's behaviour.

Finally, Participant Observation makes it less likely (although it may never completely overcome the problem) the researcher will "go native" (that is, become so thoroughly-integrated into the group you're studying you cease to become an ...