Participant observation is perhaps the most personally demanding and analytically difficult method of data collection to undertake. It requires us as researchers to spend a great deal of our time in surroundings that we may not be familiar with; to develop and sustain relationships with people with whom we have little personal affinity; to take a lot of notes on apparently mundane activities; to expose ourselves to incidental risks of the environment of interest; and to spend months of analysis after the fieldwork, analyzing field-notes and diaries. Yet, for those of us hoping to do qualitative research, it is known to be a most rewarding method, yielding interesting insights into participants’ social lives and relationships that far outweigh any benefits derivable from fixed design methods.
Robson distinguishes four different participant observer roles:
- Complete participant: the researcher employing this role hides their identity as an observer and attempts to engage fully in the activities of the group or organization under investigation. This method could be used to collect more accurate data by a researcher investigating, say, a racist or fascist organization. It advantages, notwithstanding, its clandestine approach has strongly been objected to in terms of being ethically indefensible.
- Participant as observer: the researcher adopts an overt role, making their presence and intentions known to the group. Some have raised doubts as to whether the observer will be able to establish the necessary level of rapport with the participants after revealing their identity. As Robson observed, it is important for the observer to get the trust of key member of the group.
- The marginal participant: the researcher is uninvolved and detached, and merely, passively records behavior at a distance (e.g., a researcher sitting in a classroom, making observations of pupils and their teacher).
- Observer as participant: here the researcher makes known their status as researcher but moves away from the idea of participation. This would usually call for relatively more formal observation (e.g., ownership and structure of a firm, rather than its internal practices and norms) than either informal observation or participation. Here, there is a higher possibility of misunderstanding as as the researcher and participants are not as bonded as is the case with other observational methods. Robson argues that it is still questionable whether the researcher can be said to be a complete non-participant since he/she becomes a meaningful member of the group throughout the duration of the research.
Comments
Thanks, Anaga, for the nice rccap of participant observation roles. Your write-up prompted me to revisit the advantages and disadvantages of observation as a research method. The foremost advantage of the observation method is its directness. It constrasts with other methods like interviews or surveys where the data is processed or filtered through the participant, introducing issues such as differences between what people say or report and what they do, or really feel. 'Real world' or field observations also have advantages over observations of a laboratory setting or of contrived settings. A foremost disadvantage of observational methods is the impact of the observer on the situation under observation. Either extreme (ensuring that the observed is unaware of the observer or observation underway or the omnipresence of the observer resulting in the observer ignoring their effect - hidden camera versus ignoring of the camera in 24x7 reality show type taping) are problematic.
So I would agree with your statement, Anaga, that participant observation is perhaps the most personally demanding and analytically difficult method of data collection to undertake.