Observer Presence
Running head: OBSERVER PRESENCE
Qualitative observational research describes and classifies various cultural, racial and/or sociological groups by employing interpretive and naturalistic approaches. It is both observational and narrative in nature and relies less on the experimental elements normally associated with scientific research (reliability, validity and generalizability). Agar (1980) suggests that qualitative inquiry relies more on appearance, verisimilitude and transferability. On the other hand, Bosk (2001) emphasizes the importance of credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability in qualitative studies. Qualitative observational research consists of over 30 different approaches which often overlap and whose distinctions are subtle. The type of approach used depends on the research question and/or the discipline the researcher belongs to. For instance, anthropologists commonly employ ethnomethodology and ethnography, while sociologists often use symbolic interaction and philosophers frequently use concept analysis (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007). A frequent criticism of ethnographic research is that ‘observer effects’ will somehow bias and possibly invalidate research findings (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Spano, 2005). Put simply, critics assert that the presence of a researcher will influence the behavior of those being studied, making it impossible for ethnographers to ever really document social phenomena in any accurate, let alone objective way (Denzin, 1989). Implicit in this negative evaluation of ethnographic methods is the assumption that other methods, particularly quantitative methods, are more objective or less prone to bias (Agar, 1980; Forsythe, 1999). This article is an initial response to that criticism.
Observer effects
Also sometimes referred to as ‘researcher effects,’ ‘reactivity,’ or the ‘Hawthorne effect’, are often understood to be so pervasive that ethnographers must make de facto explanations about how they will attempt to minimize them (McDonald, 2005; Shipman, 1997). By doing so, however, ethnographers effectively legitimize the concern. For instance, a key part of grant proposals is a description of the methods that ethnographers will mobilize to prevent their presence from becoming an intervention or changing the behaviors and activities of those whom they are studying (Agar, 1980). Of course, the implication is that individuals will behave better (e.g., more ethically, more conscientiously, more efficiently) when being observed. In part this concern is a response to ethnographers’ relative methodological indifference, unlike researchers using statistical methods, to measuring the extent of any bias introduced or calculating the reliability and validity of their data (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007). Importantly, observer effects are framed as inevitably bad because they indicate a ‘contamination’ of the supposedly pure social environment being studied (Hunt, 1985). Some methodologists advise qualitative researchers to hone an awareness of possible observer effects, document them, and incorporate them as caveats into reports on field- work (Patton, 2002). Others encourage ethnographers to seek out explicitly evidence of observer effects to better understand, and then mitigate, ‘researcher-induced distortions’ (e.g., LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Spano, 2006). The possibilities that the ethnographer can both have an effect and by doing so tap into valuable and accurate data is seldom explored in contemporary literature on methods (e.g., Speer and Hutchby, 2003).
References
1. Agar, Michael (1980) ‘Getting Better Quality Stuff: Methodological Competition in an Interdisciplinary Niche’, Urban Life 9(1): 34–50.
2. Atkinson, Paul and Hammersley, Martyn (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis.
3. Bosk, Charles L. (2001) ‘Irony, Ethnography, and Informed Consent’, in B. Hoffmaster (ed.) Bioethics in Social Context, pp. 199–220. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
4. Denzin, Norman K. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Hunt, Morton M. (1985) Profiles of Social Research: The Scientific Study of Human Interactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Goetz, Judith Preissle (1982) ‘Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research’, Review of Educational Research 52(1): 31–60.
7. McDonald, Seonaidh (2005) ‘Studying Actions in Context: A Qualitative Shadowing
Method for Organizational Research’, Qualitative Research 5(4): 455–73.
8. Shipman, Marten D. (1997) The Limitations of Social Research (4th Edition). London:
Longman.
9. Speer, Susan A. and Hutchby Ian (2003) ‘From Ethics to Analytics: Aspects of
Participants’ Orientations to the Presence and Relevance of Recording Devices’,
Sociology 37(2): 315–37.
References: 1. Agar, Michael (1980) ‘Getting Better Quality Stuff: Methodological Competition in an Interdisciplinary Niche’, Urban Life 9(1): 34–50. 2. Atkinson, Paul and Hammersley, Martyn (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis. 3. Bosk, Charles L. (2001) ‘Irony, Ethnography, and Informed Consent’, in B. Hoffmaster (ed.) Bioethics in Social Context, pp. 199–220. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 4. Denzin, Norman K. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 5. Hunt, Morton M. (1985) Profiles of Social Research: The Scientific Study of Human Interactions 6. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Goetz, Judith Preissle (1982) ‘Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research’, Review of Educational Research 52(1): 31–60. 7. McDonald, Seonaidh (2005) ‘Studying Actions in Context: A Qualitative Shadowing Method for Organizational Research’, Qualitative Research 5(4): 455–73. 8. Shipman, Marten D. (1997) The Limitations of Social Research (4th Edition). London: Longman. 9. Speer, Susan A. and Hutchby Ian (2003) ‘From Ethics to Analytics: Aspects of Participants’ Orientations to the Presence and Relevance of Recording Devices’,
Qualitative observational research describes and classifies various cultural, racial and/or sociological groups by employing interpretive and naturalistic approaches. It is both observational and narrative in nature and relies less on the experimental elements normally associated with scientific research (reliability, validity and generalizability). Agar (1980) suggests that qualitative inquiry relies more on appearance, verisimilitude and transferability. On the other hand, Bosk (2001) emphasizes the importance of credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability in qualitative studies. Qualitative observational research consists of over 30 different approaches which often overlap and whose distinctions are subtle. The type of approach used depends on the research question and/or the discipline the researcher belongs to. For instance, anthropologists commonly employ ethnomethodology and ethnography, while sociologists often use symbolic interaction and philosophers frequently use concept analysis (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007). A frequent criticism of ethnographic research is that ‘observer effects’ will somehow bias and possibly invalidate research findings (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Spano, 2005). Put simply, critics assert that the presence of a researcher will influence the behavior of those being studied, making it impossible for ethnographers to ever really document social phenomena in any accurate, let alone objective way (Denzin, 1989). Implicit in this negative evaluation of ethnographic methods is the assumption that other methods, particularly quantitative methods, are more objective or less prone to bias (Agar, 1980; Forsythe, 1999). This article is an initial response to that criticism.
Observer effects
Also sometimes referred to as ‘researcher effects,’ ‘reactivity,’ or the ‘Hawthorne effect’, are often understood to be so pervasive that ethnographers must make de facto explanations about how they will attempt to minimize them (McDonald, 2005; Shipman, 1997). By doing so, however, ethnographers effectively legitimize the concern. For instance, a key part of grant proposals is a description of the methods that ethnographers will mobilize to prevent their presence from becoming an intervention or changing the behaviors and activities of those whom they are studying (Agar, 1980). Of course, the implication is that individuals will behave better (e.g., more ethically, more conscientiously, more efficiently) when being observed. In part this concern is a response to ethnographers’ relative methodological indifference, unlike researchers using statistical methods, to measuring the extent of any bias introduced or calculating the reliability and validity of their data (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007). Importantly, observer effects are framed as inevitably bad because they indicate a ‘contamination’ of the supposedly pure social environment being studied (Hunt, 1985). Some methodologists advise qualitative researchers to hone an awareness of possible observer effects, document them, and incorporate them as caveats into reports on field- work (Patton, 2002). Others encourage ethnographers to seek out explicitly evidence of observer effects to better understand, and then mitigate, ‘researcher-induced distortions’ (e.g., LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Spano, 2006). The possibilities that the ethnographer can both have an effect and by doing so tap into valuable and accurate data is seldom explored in contemporary literature on methods (e.g., Speer and Hutchby, 2003).
References
1. Agar, Michael (1980) ‘Getting Better Quality Stuff: Methodological Competition in an Interdisciplinary Niche’, Urban Life 9(1): 34–50.
2. Atkinson, Paul and Hammersley, Martyn (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis.
3. Bosk, Charles L. (2001) ‘Irony, Ethnography, and Informed Consent’, in B. Hoffmaster (ed.) Bioethics in Social Context, pp. 199–220. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
4. Denzin, Norman K. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Hunt, Morton M. (1985) Profiles of Social Research: The Scientific Study of Human Interactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Goetz, Judith Preissle (1982) ‘Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research’, Review of Educational Research 52(1): 31–60.
7. McDonald, Seonaidh (2005) ‘Studying Actions in Context: A Qualitative Shadowing
Method for Organizational Research’, Qualitative Research 5(4): 455–73.
8. Shipman, Marten D. (1997) The Limitations of Social Research (4th Edition). London:
Longman.
9. Speer, Susan A. and Hutchby Ian (2003) ‘From Ethics to Analytics: Aspects of
Participants’ Orientations to the Presence and Relevance of Recording Devices’,
Sociology 37(2): 315–37.
References: 1. Agar, Michael (1980) ‘Getting Better Quality Stuff: Methodological Competition in an Interdisciplinary Niche’, Urban Life 9(1): 34–50. 2. Atkinson, Paul and Hammersley, Martyn (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis. 3. Bosk, Charles L. (2001) ‘Irony, Ethnography, and Informed Consent’, in B. Hoffmaster (ed.) Bioethics in Social Context, pp. 199–220. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 4. Denzin, Norman K. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 5. Hunt, Morton M. (1985) Profiles of Social Research: The Scientific Study of Human Interactions 6. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Goetz, Judith Preissle (1982) ‘Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research’, Review of Educational Research 52(1): 31–60. 7. McDonald, Seonaidh (2005) ‘Studying Actions in Context: A Qualitative Shadowing Method for Organizational Research’, Qualitative Research 5(4): 455–73. 8. Shipman, Marten D. (1997) The Limitations of Social Research (4th Edition). London: Longman. 9. Speer, Susan A. and Hutchby Ian (2003) ‘From Ethics to Analytics: Aspects of Participants’ Orientations to the Presence and Relevance of Recording Devices’,