Research Methods 7

Observation

Interpretivist sociologists are interested in understanding how people live their everyday
lives and argue that the research method of observation is the best possible way of
understanding why people behave the way they do because it gives firsthand insight
into how people interpret the social world around them. People can be observed in
their natural environment and the sociologist records their normal everyday behaviour
by getting inside their heads and seeing the world through their eyes.

Types of observation

There are essentially two different types of observation:

(1) Non-participant or direct observation – this has been used extensively in the
field of health and usually involves the researcher sitting and observing an activity
such as a pupil-teacher interaction in the classroom. The researcher plays
no active role.

It is argued by supporters of this type of observation that because the researcher

is detached and therefore objective, he or she is less likely to take sides
and be biased in the way they interpret the group’s behaviour. Moreover
because the researcher is not making any decisions or joining in activities, the
group itself should not be influenced by the observer.

However, critics disagree and note that the observer is likely to be observing
artificial behaviour caused by their actual presence. This type of observation
also gives us little insight into the reasons why people behave the way
they do.

(2) Participant observation – this is the most common type of observation and
involves the sociologist immersing themselves in the lifestyle of the group
they wish to study. In other words, these sociologists participate in the
same activities of the group being researched and observe their
everyday lives. Participant observation can be either

 overt, i.e. the researcher joins in the activities of a group but some or all
of the group know that the researcher is a sociologist and is actively
observing them, or

1
  covert or complete, i.e. the researcher conceals the fact that they are
doing research – he or she pretends to be a member of the group.
Goffman’s research was of this type because patients, nurses and doctors
thought he was a PE teacher.

The aim of participant observation, whether it is overt or covert, is to understand what is

happening from the point of view of those involved, to ‘get inside their heads’
and to understand the meaning that they give to their situation.

 The research, then, is ethnographic which means that is naturalistic, i.e. it is

done in the environment in which the respondents normally find themselves and is
not based on the artificial situation created by an interview or questionnaire.

 It produces qualitative rather than quantitative data about how people

interpret the world around them – the data gathered often ‘speaks for itself’
and gives real insight into people’s feelings, motives, experiences, attitudes
etc.

However, this type of research often takes many months and even years to
complete.

The strengths of participant observation

(1) Interpretivist sociologists are very keen on this method because the
researcher-observer sees things through the eyes and actions of the people in
the group. The researcher is placed in exactly the same situation as the group
under study and experiences what the group experiences. Life is therefore
seen from the same perspective as the group. The sociologist as a result of
this closeness to the group experiences ‘verstehen’ – this means that the
sociologist can empathise with the group, and understand why members of
the group act the way they do because the sociologist has experienced the
same situation. This results in highly valid research data.

(2) A good researcher will focus on ‘looking and listening’, and going with the
flow of social life once they have gained entry to the group. Skilled
researchers will not try to force the pace or interfere with or disrupt
‘normality’. A good deal of participant observation, therefore, involves ‘hanging
around’ – this informal and spontaneous aspect of participant observation also
ensures the validity of the data.

(3) Interpretivist sociologists point out that often what people say and what
they actually do are sometimes very different. People lie, exaggerate,
mislead etc in questionnaires and interviews. Often people are not aware that

2
 they are acting in the way they do. However, in observation studies, the
sociologist can see what people really do and the truth is more likely to
be recorded.

(4) Observation can be supplemented with asking informal questions although if

the researcher is carrying out covert research, this might arouse suspicion and
mistrust. Observers sometimes develop special relationships with key people
within groups who they can question so that they can clarify the motives for
particular types of behaviour and therefore not misinterpret the behaviour of
individuals in the group.

(5) Interpretivists point out that observation can generate new ideas and lead to
new insights, i.e. the sociologist might see things that inspire ideas that they
would not have had if they had only been using questionnaires and/or
interviews. Looking back on his observation of a street-corner gang in Boston,
William Whyte noted ‘As I sat and listened, I learned the answers to
questions that I would not have had the sense to ask if I had been
getting my information solely on an interviewing basis’.

(6) Interpretivists like observation because what the researcher observes is first hand
and not the product of what he or she thinks is important as is often the case with
questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires and interviews are artificial
situations and often the sociologist has made up his or her mind as to what is
important as symbolised by the questions and pre-set answers. However, with
observation, by watching and listening, a participant observer has the chance
to discover the priorities and concerns, the meanings and definitions of
the people being studied in their everyday natural contexts.

(7) Participant observation takes place over a long period of time and therefore allows
an understanding of how changes in attitudes and behaviour take place
over months and years. Other methods such as questionnaires and interviews
only give us a snapshot picture, i.e. an understanding of the moment the
questionnaire was filled in or on the day the interview was conducted.

(8) Observation may be the only practical method available to research hard-to-
reach groups such as criminal gangs or religious sects who may be hostile
to conventional society or engaged in illegal or deviant behaviour. However,
observation of these groups is likely to be covert unless you are sponsored by a
trusted member of the group or you can offer the group some sort of service or
role.

3
The weaknesses of participant observation

(a) It can be very difficult to gain entry to a group and even if this is achieved, it
may be difficult to be totally accepted by them. Success at this stage is
dependent on whether the observation is overt or covert. If overt, the sociologist
may need to offer the group a service if he or she is to be accepted and trusted. If
covert, the sociologist will need to share the social characteristics of the
group being observed and will need to be a good actor.

(b) The biggest problem, especially with overt forms of participant observation, is
observer or researcher effect. This means that the presence of the observer
may result in the group acting less ‘naturally’ because they are aware
that they are being observed and studied. In Bill Whyte’s study, Doc, the
leader of the gang said to Doc, said that he used to do things on instinct but
now thought about how he was going to justify his actions to Whyte.
Some sociologists recommend a ‘settling in’ period where no notes are taken.
The sociologists should only begin the observation once they are satisfied that
the group takes their presence for granted. However, the overt observer can
never be sure that their presence is not undermining validity. Covert observation
is less likely to lead to this effect.

(c) Some observers can get too close or attached to the group they are
observing and consequently their observations become biased. The
observer becomes too sympathetic towards the group and ‘goes native’, i.e.
the observer loses detachment and objectivity, and identifies too closely with
the group. Paul Rock suggests that if the group a sociologist is observing no
longer surprises or shocks the observer, the researcher has lost their
objectivity and the research should be brought to an end. Rock argues that a
good observer will always be critical of the group they are studying.

(d) A major problem with observation is ethics. For example:

 Some sociologists object to this method because it involves lying to people

and misleading/manipulating them. People are unable to give their
consent to having this type of research conducted on them.

 The sociologist may be forced to take part in criminal or immoral

activities in order to either gain or retain the trust of the group or to
protect their cover.

 It can also bring with it great danger to the sociologist. The African-
Caribbean sociologist, Ken Pryce who carried out a very successful
participant observation of St. Pauls in Bristol was actually murdered whilst
attempting to carry out a participant observation study of organized crime.
4
  Eventually the researcher must leave the group – this too raises ethical
issues, especially in regard to covert observation. Is it right to pretend to
be someone else and use the friendships made in the group for
research purposes? Could the written up research get the group into
trouble with the police? Is there any risk of harm, ridicule or reprisal to those
identified by the researcher?

(e) There can be major practical difficulties with observation. Firstly, these types of
studies generally take months and in some cases, years and require terrific
dedication. They are consequently very expensive projects.

Secondly, recording the observations and conversations can be a real problem

in both overt and covert forms of observation. The researcher needs to write
up conversations whilst they are still fresh in his or her mind but
constantly taking notes can be off-putting to those who are being
observed. If the researcher is carrying out covert observation of a criminal or
deviant group, writing stuff down or disappearing for periods to do so may arouse
suspicion and put the researcher in danger. However, most researchers will
keep a research diary documenting the everyday activities of the group and to
reflect on problems that they might have experienced.

(f) Positivist sociologists generally disapprove of observation studies for a number of

reasons. Firstly, they question the reliability of both overt and covert
participant observation because there is no way of knowing whether the
findings of the researcher are true or not since it is impossible to repeat the
research and verify the data. Often the success of the research is due to the
personality of the sociologist and the unique relationships he or she has established
with members of the group. Another sociologist who attempted to replicate
this may produce quite different results.

Secondly, positivists criticise observation studies for their lack of

representativeness because they are either very exotic and therefore not
typical of ‘average’ people, (e.g. observation studies have tended to focus on
people like jazz musicians, members of the National Front, people who believe that
the world is about to be destroyed etc), or the number of people actually
observed at any given time is quite small. The observer cannot be everywhere
observing large numbers of people. In view of these small numbers, it is not
possible to generalize from the findings of participant observation to
members of similar groups.