Participant Observation In Sociology
Participant observation is a form of observational research method where the researcher takes part in the event or the everyday life of the group while observing it. Participant observation is classified into two types, covert – where the group is unaware that they are being observed by a researcher as he assumes a false identity and overt observation is where the researcher reveals his true identity and purpose to the group being studied, therefore making them aware that they are being observed.
Interpretivists highly favour the participant observation method be it covert or overt as a way obtaining data. They believe that because people’s behaviour is influenced by the interpretations and meanings they give to social situations the researcher’s …show more content…
task is to gain an understanding of these interpretations and meanings. Hence why interpretivists argue that participant observation is a suitable method, because it provides an insight into the attitudes, feelings and values of individuals and groups.
There are times when participant observation may be the only method appropriate for studying certain groups, particularly those engaged in illicit activities.
Naturally such groups are likely to be cautious and suspicious of strangers who come prying into their private lives. Which is why when James Patrick (19730 wanted to conduct a study on a Glasgow gang he had to change his name and gain access to said gang through a student he had previously taught.
However because of how time-consuming participant observations are, it poses as a practical disadvantage for researchers. This can be seen by how long it took for William Whyte (1943) to conduct and complete his ‘Street Corner Society’ study – four years to overtly observe young men from an inner-city Italia community in Boston, USA.
By contrast participant observation allows the sociologist to gain empathy (verstehen) through personal experience. By actually living as a member of a group, they can gain insight into their way of life, their meanings and viewpoints, their values and problems. This is demonstrated by john H. Griffin’s ‘Black Like Me’ (1959) study. Griffin wanted to experience first hand the impact of white racism on black people and so using medication and sun lamp treatments darkened his skin. He travelled around the Deep South of the USA, living and working as a black man and concluded that ‘with [my]…decision to become a Negro I realised that I, a specialist in race issues really knew nothing of the Negroes problems’ this closeness to people’s lived reality means that the findings from participant observation can give uniquely valid, authentic
data.
With overt participation, because the researcher makes their intentions and identity known to the group, their presence may introduce the Hawthorne effect as members of the group may start to behave differently. For example, by trying to second guess what the researcher wants them to do and act accordingly. Thereby undermining the validity of their observations. An alternative solution would be for the researcher to covertly observe the group, meaning that they assume a false identity and partake in their activities. This reduces the risk of altering people’s behaviour, and making covert participant observation a good way of obtaining valid information.
All the same there are consequences of using participant observation. Ethical issues such as deception, participating in illegal/immoral activities, consenting and recording behaviour are associated with covert participant observation and often conflict with the practical advantage it brings of observing natural behaviour. It is immoral to deceive people, obtain information by pretending to be their friend or ‘in the same boat’. Researchers should reveal the purpose of the study and the use to which its findings will be put, unfortunately with the use of covert participation this cannot be done.
Notwithstanding all types of participant observation allows the researcher to obtain a rich source of qualitative data that provides a picture of how people live. Giving reason as to why it is a research method favoured by sociologists, especially those interested in gaining in-depth, rich, detailed qualitative data on people’s way of life.
Interpretivists highly favour the participant observation method be it covert or overt as a way obtaining data. They believe that because people’s behaviour is influenced by the interpretations and meanings they give to social situations the researcher’s …show more content…
task is to gain an understanding of these interpretations and meanings. Hence why interpretivists argue that participant observation is a suitable method, because it provides an insight into the attitudes, feelings and values of individuals and groups.
There are times when participant observation may be the only method appropriate for studying certain groups, particularly those engaged in illicit activities.
Naturally such groups are likely to be cautious and suspicious of strangers who come prying into their private lives. Which is why when James Patrick (19730 wanted to conduct a study on a Glasgow gang he had to change his name and gain access to said gang through a student he had previously taught.
However because of how time-consuming participant observations are, it poses as a practical disadvantage for researchers. This can be seen by how long it took for William Whyte (1943) to conduct and complete his ‘Street Corner Society’ study – four years to overtly observe young men from an inner-city Italia community in Boston, USA.
By contrast participant observation allows the sociologist to gain empathy (verstehen) through personal experience. By actually living as a member of a group, they can gain insight into their way of life, their meanings and viewpoints, their values and problems. This is demonstrated by john H. Griffin’s ‘Black Like Me’ (1959) study. Griffin wanted to experience first hand the impact of white racism on black people and so using medication and sun lamp treatments darkened his skin. He travelled around the Deep South of the USA, living and working as a black man and concluded that ‘with [my]…decision to become a Negro I realised that I, a specialist in race issues really knew nothing of the Negroes problems’ this closeness to people’s lived reality means that the findings from participant observation can give uniquely valid, authentic
data.
With overt participation, because the researcher makes their intentions and identity known to the group, their presence may introduce the Hawthorne effect as members of the group may start to behave differently. For example, by trying to second guess what the researcher wants them to do and act accordingly. Thereby undermining the validity of their observations. An alternative solution would be for the researcher to covertly observe the group, meaning that they assume a false identity and partake in their activities. This reduces the risk of altering people’s behaviour, and making covert participant observation a good way of obtaining valid information.
All the same there are consequences of using participant observation. Ethical issues such as deception, participating in illegal/immoral activities, consenting and recording behaviour are associated with covert participant observation and often conflict with the practical advantage it brings of observing natural behaviour. It is immoral to deceive people, obtain information by pretending to be their friend or ‘in the same boat’. Researchers should reveal the purpose of the study and the use to which its findings will be put, unfortunately with the use of covert participation this cannot be done.
Notwithstanding all types of participant observation allows the researcher to obtain a rich source of qualitative data that provides a picture of how people live. Giving reason as to why it is a research method favoured by sociologists, especially those interested in gaining in-depth, rich, detailed qualitative data on people’s way of life.