TEXT RETURNED FOR DIDACTIC PURPOSES

Techniques of social
science research.

DATA. OBSERVATION.
INTERVIEW. QUESTIONNAIRE

Alain Blanchet Professor

at the University of Paris

Rodolphe Ghiglione
Professor at the University
of Paris

Jean Massonnat
Professor at the University
of Aix-Marseille

Alain Trognon
Professor at the University
of Nancy

Madrid: Narcea, 1989.

1889 pp.
Paris: Bordas, 1987. Original title: Les techniques d'enquête en sciences sociales.
Observer, interviewer, questioner. TR. by Guillermo Solana Alonso.
 Index
PRODUCE DATA, by Alain Trognon...........................................................................
Introduction...........................................................................................................................
1. Observation and experimentation................................................................................
n.______1• 11° _ 1.1 _ ________________
Paradox of observation...............................................................................................
Paradox of experimentation........................................................................................
NA/ - 11,•11
More than a complementarity.....................................................................................

OBSERVE, by Jean Masonnat...........................................................................................

Introduction...........................................................................................................................
Why observe in human and social sciences?.........................................................................
1. Definition and general problems................................................................................
r•1 • •Ar 1 •O•1 •1
Observation in the human and social sciences...........................................................
Observation: way of developing knowledge..............................................................
Theoretical, methodological and practical depth........................................................
2. Research trajectories..................................................................................................
Place of observation in research trajectories..............................................................
Theoretical and methodological options to organize data production..........................
3. Observation practices and construction of a study device.........................................
Research Practices Inventory......................................................................................
TO__1__________________’11___1_• ___•____-1- -1__-____•1
Construction of boxes or observation records............................................................

INTERVIEW, by Alain Blanchet..........................................................................................

1. Limits of the device and its use....................................................................................
Status and definition...................................................................................................
Problematic use and design........................................................................................
2
. Interactive conception of communication levels.............................................................
The social situation.....................................................................................................
The communication contract......................................................................................
The intervention system..............................................................................................
3. T________1__1_______••________
Interventions and speeches.........................................................................................
The declarations..........................................................................................................
The reiterations...........................................................................................................
The interrogations.......................................................................................................
4. Verbal interactions.....................................................................................................
The logic of verbal interactions in the interview........................................................
Experimental studies...................................................................................................
The construction of meaning......................................................................................
SURVEY, by Rodolphe Ghiglione..................................................................................
Introduction......................................................................................................................
1. Referential constructions and survey.........................................................................
T_______ _ •__•1• ________________________
Communication is a contract......................................................................................
The co-construction of the reference..........................................................................
2. Objectives: questionnaires and alternative method...................................................
T1 •_________________1 1____________•• 1 _ 1 1___•______•1
The question of estimation or description..................................................................
Questionnaire and hypothesis testing.........................................................................
3. Conclusions................................................................................................................

2
PRODUCE DATA
By Alain Trognon

3
 Introduction

The social sciences, like the others, do not operate on raw data, but on produced, processed data. The study
of data production processes is therefore vital in the social sciences. But there are several ways to approach it.
One, the most common, is the "catalog of methods." But catalogs have two drawbacks worth considering:
1. Firstly, they reify the methods of data production, not so much because of the authors' will but because
the "catalogue" genre requires separating the methods from the contexts in which they are developed
and applied. To the same extent, the potential and novice user is induced to adopt the same attitude
towards the methods as towards the items in a supermarket.
2. Second drawback, linked to the first: of the data production processes, catalogs only return the least
dynamic and least inventive part.
More specifically, it is the data production processes in the social sciences that we would like to inform the
reader about, starting with the place of these processes in experimentation.
As we wanted to produce a work that was more "training" than informative, we deemed it appropriate to
address the notion of production processes, deriving from this the main problems of application and
interpretation. This interpretation is always related to the types of methods used.
We will address these issues in a predominantly practical way, based on real examples chosen from research
work, in order to introduce the production processes most commonly used in the social sciences: observation,
non-directive research interview, questionnaire. and, above all, the problems corresponding to its application.

4
 1. Observation and experimentation

Traditionally, and more in social psychology than in sociology, observation and experimentation are opposed;
There are few works that do not evoke this distinction that has already become almost ritual. It is true that the
question of the scientific nature of the social sciences and, especially, of social psychology, is at stake. It could
even be said that there is negotiation, and sometimes to such an extent, that experimentation and observation are
the banners behind which less courageous, more prosaic struggles are undertaken, for credits and positions, in
short, for "vulgar" interests, at least from the point of view of scientificity. There is no reason to be scandalized;
The users of the social sciences, including researchers, are men and to this title they respond to the social
psychology of groups. And furthermore, all sciences, including those of Nature, show analogous phenomena.
The obstacles that Lavoisier's followers raised in the path of those who, to their misfortune, had discovered
organic chemistry, are well known.
And it would be enough for the reader to consult any work on the history of science and epistemology,
whatever the problem, to feel edified.

This is not, however, a reason to deviate from the problem posed by the observation/experimentation
opposition. Serge Moscovici formulates it like this (Moscovici, 1984, Pp. 17 and 18):
«Working in the field, a little like the clinician, the psychosociologist tries to record in a precise and
systematic way the activities in which people engage in their normal framework. Take notes or use the tape
recorder, video, film (...). Due to the small number of people or the limited opportunities for observation, it
is not possible to draw certain conclusions. However, suggested hypotheses or ideas can be an excellent
way to capture certain phenomena in all their complexity.
(...) One of the most common forms of observation is, certainly, the survey. In this framework,
psychosociologists use the interview procedure to study people's feelings, preferences, representations or
actions. They are encouraged to express themselves as fully as possible and their statements are recorded
on a tape recorder. These are interview surveys. It is, however, common to use a questionnaire composed
of precisely formulated questions: “What
((.rT:. _1 I . .L1:.>0) . 1 .1 11X 1.
”

"Do you think about the death penalty?" “Do you have contacts with police officers?”, to which the person
must give no less precise answers, formulated in advance; more precisely, choose among the answers
provided the one that corresponds to your opinion.
Instead, experimentation tries to provoke a series of reactions under conditions determined in advance.
The experimenter's hypothesis is what defines both these conditions and the series of expected reactions.
Therefore, on the one hand, it delimits the causes, and on the other, it foresees the effects. Thus, Sheríf's
hypothesis assumes that the influence of the group will be stronger the more ambiguous the object of the
judgment is. Consequently, subjects will be presented with a screen on which a certain number of dots
appear and they will be asked to each say out loud how many there are. It is expected that the more
numerous the points are and therefore the more difficult and uncertain to count them, the more individuals
will influence each other in their answers.
Experimental research resorts to two factors: the one that the experimenter varies systematically - here
the number of points - is called the independent variable , the behavior resulting from the experimental
manipulation - here the convergence of individual judgments - is called the dependent variable .
(Nioscovicí, pp. 17 and 18.)

Moscovici prefers the experimental method to the observation method, but advocates their complementarity.
For the rest, as he warns, there is no way to proceed otherwise. In fact, these two methods have existed in social
psychology since its constitution. Furthermore, they nourish each other. Ultimately, each has its drawbacks. We
will add that each one encounters difficulties whose taking into consideration leads to calling into question the
ideal they are trying to achieve.

Paradox of
observation
Observation tries to record in a "precise and systematic" way, objectively, "the activities in which people
engage in their normal framework." But, as Moscovici (1984) rightly points out,
«The people affected by this investigation know most of the times that they are observed. They do not
speak or behave as they would normally do with each other” (Moscovici, p. 17).

This paradox of observation is abundantly illustrated in ethnological, sociological and psychosociological

literature. Instead of an overall theorization, let's look at two illustrations.

5
 Studying witchcraft in the forest, Favret-Saada (1977) notes that:
«There is no neutral position of expression: in witchcraft, the expression is war. Whoever speaks is a
belligerent and the ethnographer like everyone else” (Favret-Saada, p. 22).

In fact, the directed word depends on the position occupied by the observer and/or the position attributed to
him in the field of observation. Being outside the field gives you the denial. The observer who is "inside"
receives, on the contrary, a speech that varies depending on whether he is in the position of the sorcerer or the
disenchanter:
«The first point that must be clarified in the ethnography of spells consists, therefore, in knowing who
each 'informer' believes he is addressing, since he has radically different discourses depending on the place
in which he places his interlocutor. To someone who is not convinced he will say: 'spells do not exist'; 'that
no longer exists'; 'it is an old thing'; 'existed in the times of our ancestors'; 'that exists, but not here, go to
Saint-Mars' (or Montjean or Lassay, or somewhere else); 'they are very behind there'; 'Ah, the spells! I
don't like that nonsense at all!' Someone 'convinced' is spoken to differently depending on whether they are
placed in the position of being bewitched or disenchanted. You do not speak to the alleged witch, but that
silence is a speech, the silent affirmation of a fight to the death, which always produces some effect"
(Favret-Saada, p.

«More seriously, the bewitched person himself, when he addresses an ethnographer, supposedly only
admits the
official theories of misfortune, he is quick to talk about himself as the doctor, the teacher and the
ethnographer usually do. He claims to have only indirect and distant knowledge of the facts, like
'superstitions of backward people', or like 'beliefs of the ancients'; the passage between old and backward is
quickly crossed.
At first, or
overloaded when witchcraft
made is presented
unrecognizable; Whatas the belief
matters to theofindigenous
another, all information
is that whoeveris therefore necessarily
listen—that is, the ethnographer who necessarily participates in objectivist language—cannot recognize
you in what you say. He only talks about witchcraft on the condition of distinguishing himself from it and,
consequently, presenting it as a particularly infantile, abracadabra and ridiculous construction” (Eavret-
Saada, p. 28).
This behavior is still surprising; the "informant does not hesitate to devalue himself before a "neutral"
observer; In reality, the informant identifies a person who is a priori unfavorable and with whom he, therefore,
has nothing to negotiate. This behavior has been pointed out in very diverse fields of observation, always where
the observation relationship is part of unequal social treatment.
Let us see, for example, how Labov (1978, pp. 117-124) the readaptations experimented to observe the
linguistic behavior of an eight-year-old child who normally speaks a stigmatized variety of English: black
American.

«An interview with a black child in a New York school, one among hundreds. The boy enters a room where
there is a tall, friendly, white interviewer; He places a toy on the table in front of him and says: 'Tell me what
you can about this.' (His remaining interventions appear in parentheses.)
(12 seconds of silence)
(What do you think this looks like?)
(8 seconds of silence)
A space ship,
(Hmm)
(13 seconds of silence) like uuuun... reactor,
(12 seconds of silence) like an airplane.
(20 seconds of silence)
(What color is it?)
Orange (two seconds) Yyyy... white (2 seconds) and green. (6 seconds of silence)
(And what could you do with this?) (and so on).
(...) The verbal behavior that we have just seen is not due (...) to any lack of aptitude on the part of the
interviewer. It comes much more deeply from regular socio-linguistic factors, always present in an
asymmetric situation and which act on the adult and the child. We have encountered it frequently during
our work in the ghettos. Typically, we work with children between the ages of ten and seventeen, but each
time we have wanted to explore the verbal ability of eight or nine year old children we have needed
different techniques. Thus we begin a series of interviews with the brothers of Thunderbirds. Extracted
from that series, is Clarence Robins' interview with León L., eight years old, who, regarding topics that
arouse lively interest among
older boys, formulates the same minimal responses that we have observed previously:
CR: Well, if you saw a boy kicking another boy who is on the ground, or hitting him with a stick, what
would you do?
Lion: Hmm...

6
 CR: Wouldn't you tell him that he had to fight fairly?
Lion: I don't know.
CR: You don't know? Wouldn't you do anything?... Huh? I can't hear you.
Lion: No.
CR: Have you never seen someone hit in a horrible way?
Lion: ... No... (and so on).»

It is not a question of the topic of the talk, because when the interviewer addresses a more neutral issue, León
does not modify his behavior. However, the interviewer is black, "he grew up in Harlem and (...) knows the
neighborhood and the kids who live there well."

«Thus we decided to use this interview with León as a test for our own knowledge of the socio-linguistic
factors that control discourse. and in the one now presented we contribute the following modifications to the
social situation:

1. Clarence shows up with a packet of crisps, thus making the interview an occasion to eat them.
2. He has brought with him Leon's best friend, eight-year-old Gregory.
3. We tried to reduce the disproportion of heights, asking Clarence to sit on the floor (the meeting took
place in León's room); from one meter eighty-four was thus reduced to about one meter.
4. Clarence has introduced taboo words and topics, showing with León's surprise that anything could be
said in front of our microphone, without fear of punishment. From these changes we deduce a
difference very clear information regarding the volume and style of the speech.

CR: There are some who say: 'Does your mother drink pee?'
León: (quickly and holding his breath): ;Vaaava!
Greg: ;Whoa!
Lion. And also 'Your father eats poop for breakfast!'
CR: ;Oooh! (series).
León: And they say that your father... 'Your father eats poop for dinner!'
Greg.: Well if someone messes with me, I tell them CBS and CBM.
CR: And what does that mean?
León: CONGO-BOOGER SNATCH (approximately: Congo Flea Catcher) (laughs).
Greg... Well, there are times when I say BB.
CR: And what is that?
Greg: BLACK BOY! (To León, who eats chips), this is an MBB.
CR: MBB? What's that?

7
 Greg... MERICAN BLACK BOY
CR: Oooh...!
Greg: Anyway, Americans and whites are similar, right?
Lion. And they talk about Allah.
CR. Ah! Yeah?
Greg... Yeah.
CR. What do they say about Allah?
Lion. To the... Allah is God!
Greg: To the...
CR: And what else?
Lion: I don't know the rest.
Greg: Allah... Allah is God, Allah is the only God, Allah...
Lion: Allah is thesonof God.
Greg.: But can it work miracles?
Leon: No.
Greg.: I know who can work miracles.
CR: Who?
Lion: The true God.
(...) The observer is now forced, of course, to completely modify his conclusions regarding León's verbal
ability. The child who spoke in monosyllables, who had nothing to say about anything and who did not
remember what he had done the day before, has completely disappeared. Instead we see two boys who have
so many things to say that they keep interrupting each other and who apparently have no difficulty expressing
themselves in English. To such an extent that his speeches are enough to offer us the full range of
grammatical procedures that we need to know to analyze black American language.

Paradox of
experimentation
The experimental method is more ambitious than the observation method. While the latter is content to take
note as best as possible of a state of affairs, the ideal of the former is to experience the causality of a state of
affairs; in short, to submit to the test of facts a relationship between a cause (in Moscovici's example, the
ambiguity of the object) and an effect (in Moscovici's example, the influence of the group). And this, by
systematically varying the properties of the cause and formulating the hypothesis that a variation in the cause
corresponds to a variation in the effect. In the experimental method, therefore, it is the hypothesis that is vital
because through it "the proof of the facts" is operationalized. The care that experimentalists bring to the
realization of the experimental situation and which some mistakenly judge as manic cannot be explained in any
other way: for the proof of the facts to be relevant, it is essential that it is of course the cause invoked by the
experimenter that is produces the effect and not, as they say, an "incident" cause (Desportes, 1975; G. Lemaine;
J. M. Lemaine, 1968, pp. 83-178; J. M. Lemaine, 1975). Because the experimental subject
- it is reassuring - is active in the context of experimentation. With his values, his norms and his strategies he
interprets the situation that constitutes him the experimenter and reacts to such interpretation. In such a way that
a quiproquo is not excluded from the experimental method, as from the observation method (César, Trognon,
1983).
For example, it is assumed, based on transformational linguistics (Eberhart, Trognon, 1971; Trognon,
1976, 1986) that negative sentences are perceptually more complex than affirmative sentences. Sentences of
two types are proposed to the experimental subjects (the independent variable is the transformational
complexity of the sentences) and the subjects' reaction times are observed (dependent variable), for example,
in a verification task. Experience generally confirms the prediction. But is syntactic complexity the efficient
variable of experience? It is doubtful because in Wason's experiences, where negative phrases are conceived
as reactive interventions (Moeschler, 1982) to affirmative statements known to the subjects, the reaction times
to these phrases do not differ from the reaction times to affirmative phrases. . The existence of an incident
variable will therefore be suspected: the experimental situation itself and more precisely its artificiality.
«Statement “the train was not late this morning” does not appear, in ordinary situations, as an adapted
statement any more than if the train is usually late: the negation is presented here as the correction of a
previous, or habitual, statement, or simply possible (...).

8
 It is then understood (...) the special difficulty of negation in usual experimental tasks: to understand it,
subjects have to previously reestablish the statement that it corrects; while, in the ordinary use of language,
this form usually comes from the context" (Caron, 1983).

But incident and other parasitic variables are trifles compared to the “Rosenthal effect.” If you want to
understand what it is about, it is essential to return to the purpose for which an experimental situation is carried
out: to test a concomitance hypothesis. For the experience to be conclusive, it is necessary that the hypothesis
can be invalid; in short, that "in play with nature", the experimenter can be contradicted. But here we are taught
that the experimental subjects would present a tendency tendency to carry out the experimenters' predictions
whatever they may be. If the statement were true, no experimental research, at least in the human and social
sciences, could ever confirm a prediction, since it would always confirm it. This is what Rosenthal and his
collaborators have been constantly trying to establish for about twenty years. As? Well, with the help of an
experience! It is arranged like this:
«A researcher who will be called the main experimenter wants to show that some subjects automatically
make the predictions that other experimenters, who are called naive experimenters, make about the
subjects' behavior. To do this, the main experimenter experimentally induces certain hopes among the
naive experimenters. The independent variable manipulated in this experience is constituted by the hopes
of the naive experimenters, the dependent variable being the behavior of the subjects. Whether this, all
things remaining equal, varies according to the expectations of the experi- ents. naive mentors, the effect of
a hope is established" (Flieller and Trognon, 1985, pp. 550555).

It is true that the experiments carried out by Rosenthal are not exempt from criticism (see Lemaine and
Lemaine, 1969): the variables are not always well controlled; The tasks to which the experimental subjects are
invited perhaps induce them excessively to calculate hidden intentions beneath those proclaimed by the naive
experimenters, etc. In the same sense, Carlier and Gottesdiener (Carlier and Gottesdiener, 1975, Pp. 219-241)
have shown that in 19 control experiments, only 5 involved a Rosenthal effect. Finally, the test itself proposed
by Rosenthal and his collaborators fails to convince: Why wouldn't the main experimenter induce his own hopes
of confirming the Rosenthal effect? But if this happens, this effect can no longer be proven for the same reason
as before. In this way the Rosenthal effect hypothesis leads to a regression to infinity. In other words, it
engenders a paradox (Flieller and Trognon, 1985). These reasons, added to each other, do not, however,
authorize us to disregard the Rosenthal effect.'
More than a complementarity

Observation and experimentation thus encounter logically similar obstacles. Each one in their own way tries
to avoid them.
1. In the experimental method, completing the context and especially dissociating the conception and
realization of the experience and entrusting this second task to operators who ignore the hypotheticals.
theses and have no contact with those who conceived them.
2. In the observation method, multiplying the points of view
and therefore, the observation procedures.
This is how Labov and his collaborators proceeded to study black American language in the
hope that the contrasting effects of the application of multiple methods would capture a reality
independent of observation, objective in short.
3. Or you can also abandon a rule of exteriority that generates a perverse effect. This is the method called
participatory observation, varying the degree of participation of the observer from simple presence to
presence under the control of a third party (Spradley and Mann, 1979), to active participation.
Favret-Saada becomes an assistant to a disenchanter.
4. Or finally, participatory observation and outside observation will be combined, like Labov.

The two methods sometimes present such a considerable degree of complexity that one is led to doubt the
representativeness of the highlighted behaviors, as Caron (1983) did when he denounced the artificiality of these
psycho-linguistic experiences in which they are introduced:
«(...) operations that do not take place in the natural conditions of communication but are imposed by
the conditions of experience; prevent the performance of operations that, regularly carried out under natural
conditions, do not find the possibility of being carried out under experimental conditions; to conceal, for
lack of attributing the means to control them, operations that correspond to the normal treatment of the

9
 statements but that, since they are not foreseen by the experimenter, are developed behind his back (Caron,
pp. 168-169)».
Furthermore, there is (was?) available in psycholinguistics a theory of the relationship between the behavior
required of subjects in the experience and their natural linguistic behaviors. Which authorizes (did authorize?)
more or less the experimenter to generalize the observed effects (Clark, 1973, Pp. 335-359). But this situation is
exceptional.
Although it is beginning to be thought that the obstacles encountered by observation and experimentation
correspond to a single phenomenon: interaction (Trognon, 1985, Pp. 558-561), there is still too often an effort to
forget it through the application of an experimental method or an observation method, especially in social
psychology; fact all the more surprising in that there are theorists of the interaction between the "founding
fathers" of this discipline, such as G. H. Meadk But it is true: although Jacques (1979, 1982, 1985) has already
developed an epistemological framework, it is still difficult to see how it is possible to operationalize the notion
of interaction 4 Would it perhaps be necessary in social sciences to replace an epistemology of states with an
epistemology of the processes?
In any case, it is seen that in terms of rigor or the ideal of rationality, observation does not yield anything to
experimentation (Vcrmersch, 1984, Pp. 297-303). It is no longer the opposition between the field and the
laboratory that distinguishes these two trajectories. It is possible to carry out experiences on the ground, which
are certainly more difficult to carry out (Leplat, 1976, Pp. 25-30), but the purification of the context does not
necessarily lead to the elimination of the incident variables. Properly, experimentation and observation are
complementary. This is the argument most frequently found in texts, because the material of the first is provided
by the second: «In psychology (...) discoveries are not made in the laboratory but through chance or systematic
observation. ", writes Paul Fraisse in an article entitled "In the beginning was observation." But 105 texts also
appear discreet: because experimentation necessarily and organically contains observation, what experience(s) in
social sciences does not employ observational?
Thus the idea of separating observation and experimentation, starting from opposing them, is based on a
partial analysis. Observation is of course before experimentation, but it is also at the core of it, because
observation is the instrument of access to the effect that the experimenter tries to delimit through the dependent
variable. Simply, observation no longer works by itself; It encompasses the experimental route.
The next chapters are dedicated to the presentation of the production processes most often used in social
sciences, the questionnaire, the non-directive research interview and observation.
The operations involved in each of these processes and the problems they raise are specific. That is why each
of the processes must be presented in itself. However, each of these processes establishes a situation of
interaction between the observer and the observed, between the researcher and the researched, between the
interviewer and the interviewed. This interaction situation more or less deforms some parameters of the
"ordinary" interaction, different depending on the processes considered. Consequently, it is a theory of
interaction that allows us to understand what happens in these different processes. The authors of the chapters
that follow this one each express it in their own way.
There are many issues that have not been addressed in this introductory part and that, however, would have
deserved to be.
— Epistemological issues such as the role played by data production processes in the objectivity or
scientificity of social sciences;
— moral questions: is it legitimate to obtain data, sometimes without the subjects knowing? theoretical
questions, for example: are all the phenomena that the social sciences deal with accessible in
principle ? Or are the production processes limited to a certain type of phenomenon, those that are
produced by modular structures, as it seems sustain Fodor (1986)?;
— historical issues (Leclere, 1979);
- and many others.
It should already be evident that there is no data production process that does not interfere with the
knowledge for which it has been designed to train. Stated like this, comments are unnecessary. What is
important is not so much to notice that an original reality is not accessed through a production process, but rather
to specify the nature of this interference. We find it doubtful that the product of a process is purely an artifact,
created from head to toe.

For example, the poor language creativity displayed by a black ghetto child interrogated by a white adult is
in no way caused by the production process as such. Labov is not wrong. The child adopts defensive behavior
because the process reproduces, at least from his point of view, a "normal form" 6 of interaction: the
dissymmetrical interaction of evaluative purpose where everything the child says can virtually be used

1
 against him. In such a way that one would even go so far as to affirm that what is called into question is not
the artificiality of the interaction produced by the observation process, but precisely its "naturalness." In other
words, the black child's conversation with a white adult is no more or less natural than the conversation with
a peer. However, the first is in some sense wrong and the second is correct, why? If it is about observing the
linguistic behaviors of the child in the group to which he belongs, the first procedure is erroneous, but it is not
if it aims to study avoidance behaviors in a dissymmetric situation. In this way, if we try to observe the
linguistic behaviors of the child in the group to which he belongs, the conversation of the black child and the
white adult does not require the good context.
Generalizing a little, it will be said that, given a research objective, the further the interaction carried out by a
production process is from the interaction that normally causes the intended event, the less relevant the
production process is. The relevance of a production process constitutes, therefore, a relationship between
contexts with respect to an objective 7 . In short, in social sciences, and certainly in other fields, the question is
never simply how to produce, but rather what is produced by activating what context(s) and according to what
regulated deformation(s). Many other questions that will now be addressed, production process by production
process and in accordance with a unitary theoretical framework where each production process will be
conceived as an interaction situation that applies all the parameters of the interaction, particularizing some of
them. .

1
 NOTICE
By Jean Massonnat

Introduction

Observation is a trajectory of developing knowledge, serving multiple purposes that are inserted in a global
project of man to describe and understand his environment and the events that take place there.
Observation also lends itself perfectly to reflective analysis of the way in which man involved in social life
(social agent) develops his knowledge. For this reason, it contributes to the general training of social agents
(researchers, professionals), developing in them a research attitude.
The work of the observer that interests us is specified through oral or written presentations about what has
been observed. By way of illustration, we will attach the story that a person gives of his activity when he wakes
up and the reports that different observers provide from the filming of this sequence.
Report of the interested party. This Friday I woke up in the morning a little earlier than usual, at 7:30 a.m.
After some exercises to loosen the numbness in my legs, I went to the window to check the weather. I like to
know very early how I have to get dressed in the morning...
Observer 1: 7:30 a.m., alarm clock rings; 7:40 a.m., he gets out of bed, standing on one foot, hesitating;
7:41 a.m., walks around the room three times in both directions; 7:45 a.m., he leaves the room and goes to the
balcony; 7:45 a.m., observe the sky from left to right; 7:46 a.m., look at the thermometer and barometer.
Observer 2: An elderly person wakes up reluctantly. Your first care is to loosen the joints; The second is
knowing how to dress to go to work.
Observer 3: After the alarm goes off, a 45- to 50-year-old man stretches in his bed for ten minutes before
setting foot on the floor. Then he walks around the room a few times with the unsteady step of someone who
has done a lot of exercise the day before or of someone who suffers from arthritis. With a firmer step he
moves directly towards the living room window that overlooks the balcony. He scrutinizes the sky with a
doubtful grimace, looks in the direction of the thermometer, perhaps hesitating between going back to bed or
getting ready to go out.
Observer 4 : Summarize your observation like this:
Place Position Movement Number
Body trajectory orientation
1. Bed Lying
down 10
Left, right Up
2. Cana Sitting He straightens up Above
3. Bedroom Standing Straight: 2.50 m. window bed 3
Standing Straight: 7 m.
4. Living room Bedroom- balcony
5. Living room Standing Still
3
Head movements
from left to right
Standing Still
6. Living room Lift your head

Observer 5: An osteopath kinesitherapist notes this: This man suffers from his joints due to an imbalance
that corresponds more to his bone static than to his lifestyle.

1
 A quick analysis shows that:
— observer 1 has decided to proceed with a physical examination of the actions;
— Observer 2 has preferred to provide the two major meanings he retains;
—for observer 3, the events are indicated in their chronology and accompanied by several plausible
interpretations;
— Observer 4 has concentrated his observation on an exhaustive description of the movement of the
observed person, based on its theoretical definition and the milestones that specify it;
— observer 5 directly provides an interpretation of the
phenomenon with the help of an implicit theoretical pigeonholing.

The desire to reflect reality is very noticeable in observers 1, 3 and 4. The

The intention to make the recipient access the observer's meanings is seen more clearly in protocols 2 and 5.
The diversity of these productions also allows us to delimit the field of what will be addressed in the text.
First of all, we are interested in observation in a situation, in which the observer produces knowledge about an
observed object, different from him. This knowledge is explicit and transmittable. Furthermore, the explicit
testimony provided by the agent about his own action or self-observation will find its place, either in the
previous phase of an investigation, or in certain stages of the observer's training (see the third section). On the
contrary, we will not take into consideration here the observation practiced daily to regulate our behavior;
proceeds silently; it is rarely explicit and communicable.
The central delimitation of what will be addressed concerns the development of knowledge through
systematic observation of problems studied in situations. The systematic nature corresponds to the regularity
with which the observer applies the data collection procedure. If observable behaviors and significant events
continue to be observed, if externally visible manifestations and their fluctuations can also become means for the
study of problems not directly perceptible. By doing so, observation is less forced to concentrate on the
individual characteristics of the agents and to be more interested in the actions and interactions between the
agents observed, as well as their social significance in the context in which they occur.
For us, observation is more than a technique or a method of data collection. It is a management of knowledge
development. It opens the way to a new conception of description in ethology and in the human and social
sciences. This perspective tries to avoid the cut established in the sciences by a large number of sociologists
(Ackermann, et al., 1985; observer 1, preceding), practiced in the natural sciences and the understanding-
interpretation obtained by reconstruction of the meaning in the social sciences (observer 2 or 5).

Why observe in human and social

sciences?
The use of observation in the human and social sciences is limited but has developed over the last ten years.
There are four essential reasons for this extension:

OBSERVATION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHOD

Astrophysics
It remains, in fact, the only accessible way, for example, to study the movements of stars in the cosmos, as
witnessed by the development by astrophysicists of increasingly powerful observatories.

Ethology

In ethology, the absence of language directly accessible to man imposes a systematic but not exclusive
recourse to observation. Along with the so-called descriptive observation that aims to establish relatively stable
behavioral repertoires, Vauclair (1984) distinguishes "recognition observation", to become familiar with the
species studied in order to specify the objective of the research, from "naturalistic observation". », as a method of
systematic collection guided by a question.

1
Ethno/ogy

The recourse to observation is equally imposed whenever a difference in culture and language separates the
observation from the observer.
This is, for example, the problem of the ethnologist Young (1962), trying to show through observation that
the harshness of the rites of initiation of boys into adult life in societies distributed throughout the globe is a
function of the existence of male solidarity organizations.

Child psychology

Early childhood psychologists, who study the social behaviors of very young children before the birth of
language, also use observation (Brazelton, 1981; Bresson, de Schonen, 1985).
It involves, for example, observing agonistic and affiliative activities in groups with a focus on social
ethology transferred and adapted from animals to humans (Strayer and Trudel, 1985).
The study sometimes aims to establish the behavioral repertoire of children in their relationships with
physical or social objects (Gouin-Decarie and Ricard, 1985).
Finally, the observation of the social behaviors of young children in daycare centers is associated with
ecological experimentation (Legendre, 1985). The author varies the organization of the socio-physical
environment to appreciate the effects of such a change on the social life of children from 15 months to 3
years.

The child's recreational activities constitute, in short, a topic that certainly lends itself to prior observation
of language acquisition, as does the study of the behaviors of babies brought into early contact with water
(Jardel-AJíes, 1980) or even after language acquisition.
The study of M. c. Hurtig, M. Hurtig and Paillard (1971) thus relate the social forms of the recreational
activities of children aged 4 to 6 years in the playground (idle activities, parallel activities, forms of
cooperation) with the content of these activities (exercises, fiction , use or creation of re glas).

OBSERVATION IS A SPECIFIC MODE OF APPROACH

OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Numerous works attest to the existence of differences between the intentions, verbal anticipations or
predictions of behaviors collected through a questionnaire and the actual behaviors of those same people.
Bickmann (1977) cites research in which the prediction is not made.
Observation of the effective action allows us to show that the fact of returning the coin found in the
telephone booth is not independent, as had been predicted, of the physical appearance of the plaintiff.

Observation is sometimes a method used in conjunction with an experiment to ensure that the experimenter's
action plan (Lippitt and White, 1972) has been well translated into action.
Observation, finally, is the privileged method for studying the dynamics of animal behaviors and human
behaviors in their context.

OBSERVATION IS A METHOD ADAPTED TO

THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

For some years now, European research in the human sciences has been increasingly interested in the study
of complex social objects (relationships between working life and life outside of work, driving a car, the
acquisition of concepts...). Observation is increasingly used to capture the issues that are currently most
interesting: the ways of acquiring knowledge, the ways of functioning of subjects faced with problems and,
finally, the mechanisms of restructuring achievements in the course of life. existence (Caron, 1983).
Since the seventies, sociology has known the questioning of the dominant constructivism that "tries to
relate social action and social order with external structures of genesis, which determine the agents behind
their backs" (Quére, 1985). . In parallel, we notice the development of a so-called "ethnomethodological"
approach that tries to describe and understand how social acts guarantee "the intelligibility, the assignability
(of the sense of rationality) of their actions" (Quéré, 1985, p. 8) and develop knowledge about social

1
 structures. Harold Garfinkel, leader of this current, advocates a descriptive practice of observables, that is, of
the operations, methods and practices that attest to the knowledge that agents possess of social life. Access to
meaning is carried out through non-systematic direct observation and also through interviews and the study of
documents produced by the workers.

1. Definitions

and general

problems

Observation in the human and

social sciences

The polysemy of the word is attested to by the eleven meanings indicated by Littré in 1877 (republished in
1978). The oldest (15th century) refer to "the action of conforming... to one's word or to the laws"; or also:
"remain in a place from where one watches (...), either to transmit information or to formulate objections
regarding the objects and people observed."
The contemporary bibliography of human and social sciences maintains five major meanings:
1. Observation as the place or institutional context in which a diagnosis is made: observation room, center
or class.
2. Observation as an action strategy for educators and social workers: set of acts that contribute to
education or diagnosis.
3. Observation as a stage or research method. For a long time, direct observation, the method of tests and
questionnaires have been grouped under this term.
4. Observation assimilated to the product or result of the action of observing: all empirical data collected
then takes on that name. The product of direct observation becomes an ob serviceable
5. Observation is more rarely defined as a process (Bunge,
1984; Kohn, et al., 1978). We will now characterize the set of psychological operations in action in the
act of observation.

The observation:
way of developing knowledge

An overall definition is required before a more in-depth analysis of the epistemological, theoretical and
methodological problems it raises.
As we have pointed out in the introduction, observation provides a double way of developing knowledge: it
helps to answer questions about the object studied and to analyze the way in which one proceeds to choose these
questions and develop a strategy. Knowledge allows the observer to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, develop
systematic knowledge about the object and regulate his professional conduct. The construction process is most
often carried out by confrontation between several observers, who in turn are in a contractual relationship with a
plaintiff (observed, research or production organization) or with the people who provide the observation ground (
institution, social agents). Unlike other research trajectories that are marginalized from social dynamics,
observation remains very inserted in it, especially during its initial phase; The observer himself seeks interaction
with other colleagues for the purposes of self-control, but is also pushed to negotiate with social agents, who fear
being judged without being able to explain themselves, conditions of access to the object of study, conditions of
realization and use of the results.
Management can be captured more precisely through the relationships established in the course of the
different work phases between the five most determining aspects.
Object-centered observation begins, in effect, at the initiative of someone: a researcher, an association, a
manager, a professional. These associates develop projects based on their position and their priority objectives
but also on their past experience. The observer-researcher will determine an object of study, more or less at the
intersection between his initial project and that of the plaintiffs. After some global, non-concentrated observation
sequences, the observer will specify the nature of the observed phenomenon and the questions it raises. You will

1
then be induced to delimit the observed situation, that is:
— the context in which the observation will take place (usual, prepared or transformed context);
— the mode of presentation to be adopted and the information provided to agents;
— the choice of aids and exercises that allow the relevant activity to be observed.

Delimiting the situation even further, the observer will define, in interaction with associates and agents, the
conditions for the development of his work:
- duration;
— place of material;
— position of observers;
— selection modes adopted;
— relationship between observer-observed;
— annotation technique.

In fact, the situation can only be observed if the observer has previously mobilized, alone or collectively, a
set of conceptual and methodological means to clarify a research question, conceive an adapted observation
device and propose an overall organization of the work. The quality of the data produced, the interest of the facts
constructed and, ultimately, what will be communicated to the different recipients depend on the quality of the
means applied.
The construction of knowledge about the object is added to a reflection on the management of the observer:
— explanation and justification of the options at each stage;
— connection of the projects, the results and the reasoning adopted.

This reflection not only allows regulations in the course of the successive stages of observation, but also
contributes to the personal, epistemological and methodological training of the observer.
Let us now return to the choice and formulation of the initial question after a global observation of the
situation. It is necessary to accept "wasting time" to determine a research question that is not the simple
evocation of a discomfort, a difficulty at work or an observable field.
Some examples will quickly illustrate the four levels of analysis of a problem formulated from a class
observation and then worked on collectively:
— . Delimitation of an anchor point or indication of a dysfunction:
«I have noticed difficulties in getting certain students to write and others to express themselves
orally."
—. Delimitation of an object of study in terms of field or topic:
"I'm going to study the students' modes of expression."
«Why this field and not another? Who has already asked the question
So? What more precise question do you want to answer?
— . Delimitation of an object of study in terms of the question to be studied:
«I would like to know if this verification corresponds to the characteristics of the students (age,
sex...).»
«I would like to know if the verification corresponds to the nature of the exercises or the characteristics
of the students. Can other questions be asked? How to define the terms used?
—. Delimitation of a problem that must be studied in a given time with the available means:
«I want to know if the duration and quality of the written or oral argumentation of students who
succeed equivalently in the discipline corresponds to the nature of the proposed exercises .»

The meaning of the words in italics must be specified to proceed to the development of the observation
device. The preparation of the device is, therefore, determined both by the issue taken into consideration, the
point of view of the observer, which is translated into the definitions assigned, and by the technique of detection
of the observable manifestations or indices, that is, that is, by the signs that allow the question posed to be

1
inferred.
The raw data produced, the questions raised out of time, the traces of activity observed, are then treated at an
increasingly integrated and abstract level. An oral or written report is then transmitted to the recipients, and in
forms adapted to the objectives pursued.
In short, observation is a way of developing knowledge from problems that are directly observable or not,
for the purposes of culture, professional training and research. The ob Systematic observation is carried out
from direct or filmed contact with situations that allow the study of previously explained problems. Alone or
in a group, the observer constructs increasingly elaborate meanings based on a selection of information
through sight and hearing. The different selection and treatment operations mobilized throughout the act of
observation are strongly influenced by the degree of precision of the problem studied; These operations are
equally requested by the observer's previous analysis frameworks, by those required directly, and finally by
the device constructed to produce data. All this work is specified in a description, of explanatory or
comprehensive scope, communicated to some interlocutors, according to forms that correspond in part to the
contractual relationship that links them with the observer.

Theoretical, methodological and

practical depth

How to specify our definition and delve into it? One possibility is to examine the problems that this
management poses in the scientific field considered.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS LINKED TO THE ELABORATION OF KNOWLEDGE

What knowledge can be acquired by observation?

The total and prolonged immersion of the observer in the observed situation can trigger intense mutual
involvement of the partners. Through this contact they operate a certain form of regression that leads them to
schematic analyzes carried out in a fusional communication.
A prolonged observer-observed contact, carried out in other relational conditions, can lead the observer to
integrate by imitation a part of the know-how or attitudes of the other. There is no doubt that this form of
acquisition exists; Very different theoretical currents such as those of Wallon and Bandura make it play an
important role in the young child or throughout life (Winnikamen, 1982; Fortin 1985).
There is also no doubt that acquisition by observation requires the back and forth that we advocate between
the definition of a point of view, or set of explicit propositions about the object studied, and the directly studied
issue, whether observable or not. This mode of elaboration, permanently mediated by language, allows the object
to be better qualified and, above all, to answer the question posed by this object. The observation carried out in
this way helps the observer to identify individual knowledge construction procedures and to know their
spontaneous centers and analyses. An observer of gymnastic activity can
very good, by
For example, unknowingly privileging aesthetic aspects in relation to the technical complexity of the
movements.

What is the link between observed phenomena and scientific facts?

The thesis of causal theory recalled by Bunge (1984, p. 58) states that "our perceptions are never spontaneous
or random, but are legitimately produced by extraperceptual objects." According to the philosophical hypothesis,
objective facts ontologically precede the facts of experience, the only perceptible ones. We consider that this
thesis of the "discovery of the hidden meaning" accounts for a limited number of physical laws whose
formulation is totally independent of the observers and the conditions of observation (theory of relativity, theory
of gravitation...). In human sciences, the established laws are dependent on the conditions of observation and
sometimes even on the choice of indicators. Under these conditions, scientific fact does not determine our
observations, whether it has been constructed by them. These various constructions then influence the
development of various points of view on the observed phenomena. The experienced observer is the one who
agrees to contribute to this coming and going between what the organization of the phenomena reveals and the
knowledge previously built on them to develop new knowledge.

1
PROBLEMS OF METHOD

Implicated knowledge and uninvolved knowledge.

The rule from the physical and material sciences is to build knowledge without interfering in the
phenomenon studied. This position of exteriority is more difficult to maintain in ethology and the human
sciences. It is certainly better in experimentation, although the fact of selecting the subjects of the experiment
through money, blackmail regarding the title or volunteering creates a relationship with the task whose impact
on the results is not measured. .
The suggested rule is to control the observer's involvement without trying to cancel it. The four examples
proposed below mark the growing involvement of the researcher:

— ° The observer intervenes without warning those observed and does so in such a way that it is not
detectable. This is sometimes the only solution to study certain problems: the soliloquy in the child, the
co ammunition in station rooms or public gardens, for example.
—° The observer limits his involvement to the establishment of an employment contract and the obtaining
of the conditions that favor his integration as much as possible.
—° The observer begins by making himself admitted and known before intervening. The ethnologist who
observes cultural rites and the work psychologist proceed in this way.
—° The observer wants to get involved in studying a phenomenon through the changes it tries to cause.
The rule then is that the script of the intervention is perfectly explicit and that totally external observers
are used.

CAN THE OBSERVATION SITUATION BE PREPARED?

The observation of a complex natural situation is often desired because it is considered more valid (Bickman,
1977, p. 251), but it is a difficult study to carry out. Then a preparation of the natural situation of those observed
is desirable. It can be done in three ways:
— ° For minor modifications to the working conditions of those observed. The action studied focuses on
precise tasks, free from the constraints of the usual work of the people observed.
—° By introducing a task, equivalent to the usual task but more observable. It then facilitates the
constitution of strokes, in the form of a drawing, or the annotation of expanded movements.
—° Finally, by coupling an initial observation in the field with the simulated observation in the laboratory.
The essential aspects of the studied phenomenon are thus reconstructed and observed with greater
precision.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVATION AND RESEARCH

What is the specificity of the observation

in research?

The proposed course of action is applied to situations inserted in a social context. These situations can be chosen
in all fields of social life at work and outside of work. Depending on the interests of the interested parties, the
researcher or the observed, the research can be oriented towards different types of issues. The work already
carried out in the fields of education, health and work or on transversal themes allows us to see privileged
perspectives and focuses. In most cases, these are cross-sectional, precise and focused studies on exhaustive
classification and on the enumeration of very fine segments of behavior, such as the detailed study of facial
expressions (Léventhal and Sharp, 1965), the inventory of gestures (Ekman and Friesen, 1969) and the inventory
of pedagogical acts listed by Postic (1981).
There is a noticeable evolution in the work of ethology and psychology. The ethologist considers less and
less the establishment of behavioral repertoires. He is increasingly interested in the means of verifying general

1
 questions about animal sociability. This is the case of Thierry (1985), trying to compare affiliation
interactions, according to the category of the animal in the group, between several species of primates. But
ethology is also increasingly interested in describing complex behaviors: that of communications between
children in daycare centers (Montagner, 1978) or that of the stereotyped gestures of the visually handicapped
(Dumont, Markovits, 1982).
In psychology, a double evolution justifies the increasing recourse to observation to study cognitive activity.
After detecting the large operational structures that set the upper and lower limits of the subjects' capacities,
psychologists are interested in the way in which they apply their structures to specific tasks. The analysis of
procedures describes the subject's reasoning through the chain of actions, linked at the same time to its structural
capacities and to the demands of the task to be treated (Mendelsohn, 1981). At the same time, particular attention
is paid to the link between the significance of the contents of the problem to be solved and the modalities of
functioning applied by the subjects (Longeot, et al., 1982). The second evolution of cognitive psychology was
manifested on the occasion of the Rouen colloquium in 1981.
Many of the works presented tried to determine the logic of the subject when learning complex tasks, such
as the operation of the lathe in mechanics (Dole, 1983) or complex notions, such as the concept of
electromagnetic wave (Cornetti, et al. 1983).

THE CONDITIONS OF THE ACT

OBSERVATIONAL

The construction of knowledge is also linked to the conditions in which the observer works. These are
defined by the set of material and representative elements that influence, directly or not, the development of the
act of observation. Among these we classify:
— the personal determinants and the agents' projects; the relationships they maintain with each other and
with the situation;
— and finally, the first action decisions or their first results.

These determinants act directly and combining in all phases of the action. But it is possible to think that
certain families of determinants act more specifically at certain times. Thus, an important role at the beginning of
observation can be attributed to:
— the history of the subject;
— their training;
— your experience;
— the actual (and perceived) conditions provided to the observer;
— the questions you ask yourself or are asked.

Afterwards, data collection is undoubtedly more directly influenced by the institutional context, by the spatial
and temporal conditions in which it is developed, by the contract that binds all agents, by the existence or non-
existence of a collection device. systematic data. The repeated production of signifiers is modulated by the
privileged modes of perception, personal or acquired by education (alternation of global perception and details,
own sensibilities...). This production is also modulated by the first observables produced, by the existence or
non-existence of intra-individual and inter-individual regulations (collective modification of what has been
carried out until then). Finally, the treatment of the observables and the elaboration of the message to be
transmitted are probably very
influenced
by the previous knowledge, the choice of the recipient and the type of action that is intended to be carried out on
him (describe, write a report of the exploratory work..., ).
The observation conditions influence the theoretical and practical positions adopted by the observer. They
can also alter the reciprocal attitudes between observer and observed: feeling of annoyance, impression in the
observer of being a "voyeur" or a pursuer, feeling of being judged, deprived of knowledge or of showing off to
the observed. Finally, these conditions favor or do not favor the activation of general biases in the selection of
the observation (Barker, 1973, cited by Michicís, 1984):
— The halo effect is the dominant impression on the observer that is applied to the set of observables;
— The Hawthorne effect is a general activation effect, more or less lasting among those observed and due

1
 to the presence of the observer, perceived as valorizing;
— the congruence or contrast effect: linked to the distance between what is observed and the observer's
previous experiences or analyzes;
— concentration on the salient elements, on the strong moments in the activity to the detriment of the
other moments and the breaks in the activity.
The impact of these effects can be partially reduced by the training of the observer and his training in the
systematic collection of data.

OPERATIONS IN ACTION IN THE PROCESS

OF ATTRIBUTION OF MEANING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE

Observation mobilizes general operations in action in every perception of a present physical object: selection
of indices, categorization, naming, association with experiences, classification and production of phrases to give
an account to others. To observe is also to perceive complex social objects within a socially characterized
situation in which physical, animal or human objects interfere.
Observation is no longer limited to testifying to the existence of these various elements. It is proposed to give
an integrated set of meanings about a phenomenon that is most often not directly perceptible.
The first cognitive operations of the observer are linked to an initial form of activation of the global frame of
reference available to the observer (analysis schemes, knowledge, experiences), on the occasion of the first
contact with the observed situation. The a priori ideas about this situation and the ideas that emerge from the
initial moments of observation evoke a kind of found knowledge and experience. This loose activation will help
organize the continuation of a floating observation and the concentration on some indices. Accurate perceptions,
added to the ideas that are associated with the situation as a whole, generate almost immediate understanding in
the observer. A first exchange between observers then facilitates the emergence of a field of study, of a question
and then of a studyable problem. This concentration leads to a more selective activation of the observer's frame
of reference . Then certain modes of approach, knowledge and systems of judgment are specifically mobilized to
explicitly formulate the problem considered and to carry out an inventory of the relevant signs or indices in order
to continue the study.
The research work of Taylor and Crocker (1981) on memory testifies that the schema or "cognitive structure
that represents a field... and that includes plans to interpret and collect the information referred to this schema"
helps to remember better. faster and more stable fixation of the information presented. We have shown (Cassano,
Massonnat, 1982) that, by using the organizing scheme of the notion of need, it is possible to obtain relatively
stable changes in the representation of this notion. Ehrlich (1985) advances the most general hypothesis to
explain the installation of a specifically activated frame of reference: as the observer has a more precise idea of
the question being explored or of the general lines about how to pose it, there would be a constitution of a
particular arrangement of concepts, of available operations, momentarily connected and active. This
circumstantial activation would organize a first selection of information whose interpretation would stabilize or
modify the activated analysis framework. This hypothesis seems compatible with the idea of a selectivity of
information gathering, which would be determined by the superposition or juxtaposition of several activated
subsystems, which we will describe as filters. Droz (1984) speaks of "epistemic filters", to which we will add the
existence of "situational or socio-institutional filters" and "experiential filters". The first implicit reading boxes
refer us to knowledge, ways of formulating problems and preferential modes of reasoning. The latter evoke
certain attitudes, group positions (ethical, socioeconomic, cultural...). The latter concern the sensitivities
acquired by the observer through his previous life experiences: sensory preference, privileged relationship with
individuals and with objects...
The research does not explain to us under what conditions these circumstantial frames of reference are
activated and how the order of request operates. But it is quite understandable that, once undertaken, such an
action influences the set of operations required for the elaboration of meanings.

1. The first operation called "objectification" tries to structure, to provide known forms that are as
invariable as possible from one culture to another. This operation is also manifested through all the
information that helps the absent recipient to construct a meaning: details about the way the image is

2
 constructed, inventory of the constituent elements of the situation, spatial and temporal location of these
elements. The observer tries to reflect certain parts of reality and reconstruct the others with the help of
very frequently used words and symbols commonly recognized in his group and that of the recipient of
the message. The prototypical forms are integrated into the most common forms of expression. The
observer also signs his membership in groups and facilitates communication with absent people. The
term objectification partly encompasses the meaning given by Barthes to the "denotation of reality by
words." It underlines the socially well-recognized link between the sign and the signifier and evokes its
economic and utilitarian aspect in linguistic exchange.
2. The second operation called "subjectification" indicates the observer's specific point of view on the
subject, his placement in the perceived situation, his way of organizing the reading and sometimes the
resonance that the object has had on him. This operation allows the observer to testify with his personal
or collective experience through the forms, impressions and judgments that are his own. The meaning
we give to this operation delimits a very weak intersection with the term "denotation" of semioticians
and linguists (evocation of a more difficult marginal or lateral meaning by the addressee).

We consider that the two operations evoked contribute to giving meanings whose names are organized into
increasingly organized phrases, stories and comments. Writing an observation report for a specific recipient
causes an even more structured reworking of the message.

Hypothesis of an opposition nexus

and complementarity between operations

The two isolated operations can produce different units of meaning that are differentiated and completed in
content and in their communicative function. The properties of these operations appear when one of them is
experimentally blocked. It is then noted that the imbalance in the functioning of one or another of these
operations affects the understanding of the message and the questioning that follows. The absence of
objectification translates, for example, into a codification or a discourse that becomes delusional due to a lack of
relationship with the reality described. On the contrary, the absence of subjectivation makes it difficult to
categorize the perceived elements and many of these are no longer differentiated (see observer 4, in the
introduction). The observer's usual functioning can be analyzed from his written reports. By content analysis it is
possible to deduce the relative proportion of elements that refer specifically to one of the two operations
mentioned or to neither. This proportion varies from one individual to another regarding the same situation. It
also varies depending on the nature of the situation: describing easily identifiable objects or analyzing cognitive
activity; finally depends on the relationship of impli cation of observation with the situations found: painfully
experienced phenomenon or new phenomenon. Ongoing research will have to specify the interest and limits of
this performance indicator to differentiate the specific or joint effects of observers and situations.

Relationship between the operations described

and objective-subjective qualifiers

It is necessary to distinguish the operations in action in the construction of meanings from the judgment that
can be formulated about their product. Is it possible, beyond terminological proximity, to describe all the results
of objectification as objective and all the results of subjectification as subjective?
The answer depends on the definition given to these qualifiers. We consider that:
— "objective" qualifies a faithful description (or reflection-image of the objects), without partiality,
without arbitrary or tendentious transformation;
— "subjective" then characterizes a description that transforms the object and indicates the subject's
affective reaction to the object.

Based on these definitions, a researcher who analyzes the written protocols of observers confronted with a
fixed image will be able to estimate the distance of each shape produced in relation to reality, referring to the
perception statistics of this image. Whatever the strength of the observer's structuring of the material and

2
whatever the freedom in relation to the most frequent forms, the researcher will consider this form as a product
of objectification. A naive witness would tend to describe as "subjective" the less structured forms and those that
are at a distance from the pregnant forms that he perceives.
On the other hand, a small part of the products of subjectification may be classified as subjective. It is the
points of view of the observers that express the impact of the object on their own people. But, as we have already
mentioned, the observer's point of view is not reduced to this impact of the object on affectivity, since it also
expresses the differences of place, role, competence, epistemological points of view, etc.
In short, the rational delimitation introduced allows us to remain in the spirit of Bunge's (1984) definition:

«Scientific observation is a premeditated and enlightened perception, a selective and interpretive operation
in which ideas have at least as much weight as sensory impressions: this makes them relevant for conceptual
knowledge and at the same time makes them a source of error.»

To better understand this text, the term "error" could be replaced by the idea of a diversity of points of view
marked by transformations, gaps and forgetfulness.

2
 2. Research trajectories

The data produced is a consequence of a "filtering" of reality organized according to a general management,
with the help of a collection device that clarifies a theorized reading of the object studied.

What are the major research trajectories that give direct observation a place?
What are the major methodological options for systematic data collection?
What are the different systematic observation practices?

Place of observation in research

trajectories

The figure below outlines four research trajectories practiced in human and social sciences. Through
different forms of relationship with reality, they associate (3 and 4) or do not associate (1 and 2) direct
observation and experimentation to produce scientific facts. The quality of the facts produced differs: trajectory
1 tries to clarify and argue a hypothesis, 1b, 2 and 3 try to establish explanatory laws of the phenomena studied,
and 4 aims to apply an established law in a certain context. social.

2
 Comprehensio Systematic description Explanation Verification
n Tendency Hypothesis of a law
Hypotheses Laws
Intra- Inter-group regularities Application or
Experiment-
individual Experie adaptation
regularities nce
mint
Deduction tion Observation
Experimentati Hypothesis
on Induction
Experimentation
Consequence
deduction Experiment-

floating Systematic Texts Hypothesi

observation observation s Global
Works before Determine tion observation
Group I rivers essence of a regularity or sys theme
Group 2 them by induction
Previous
CASE works
CASE COMPARISON
and/or
obser
vation
PATH I PATH 2 PATH 3 PATH 4

INDUCTIVE ONLY INDUCTIVE ONLY HYPO- INDUCTIVE- INDUCTIVE

(prepared from
AND TETIC-DE- HYPOTHETICA DEDUCTIVE
Vermersch, 1984)
COMPARISON DUCTIVE (from L- DEDUCTIVE HYPOTHETIC
Cattel, 1966) (fromAL
Hilgard, cited by
(from Fraisse Gagn, 1963
and Piaget, 1963 and
Reuchlin, 1969)
and Ketele, 1981)

Fig. 1, Place of observation in the main research trajectories.

Read each trajectory vertically, from bottom (starting point) to top (intended objective).

PATH 1:
BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATION (VERMERSCH)

Research path 1 is based exclusively on direct observation of the case; It aims, for example, to study the way
in which an individual or a group solves a technical problem. Procedure 1 in the previous figure refers to two
types of practices evoked by Vermersch (1984, p. 289).

a) The researcher may have made a series of direct observations but without systematic data collection
and without the possibility of subsequently carrying out this on a film (procedure 1a). In an effort to
understand the structure and dynamics of each case, the researcher then tries to specify, through
floating, poorly concentrated observation, the presence or absence of expected signs and to remain
attentive to unforeseeable events. After the fact, this same researcher can clarify certain regularities of
individual or group problem-solving behaviors and advance hypotheses about what generates them.
b) The second research practice (1b) proceeds to a systematic and previously planned data collection. The
cases observed are no longer chosen based on the demands of the job, but at different moments of training, with
different instructions or different provisions of the task to be solved.

2
 It is then possible to carry out in good conditions the description of intra-individual regularity (Hurtig, Pinol,
Colas, 1985), but it can be abandoned for another logic, which has as its objective the determination of regularity
or laws, this time to the group scale. The more controlled the public's choice is, the more concentrated the
observation is and the more similar this management is to the comparison that we are now going to present.

PATH 2:
EXCLUSIVELY HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE (CATTEL)

Research path 2 is described by Cattel (1966) as "exclusively hypothetico-deductive." The direct observation
of reality is replaced by the analysis of previous research works, privileging those that have used the same
method.
1. By adopting spiral management, the researcher first determines, through inductive reasoning, some
regularities from which he formulates a hypothesis about what determines them or about their
consequences.
2. He then devises a study device to verify it and, by deduction, clarifies precise expectations on one or
another of these points.
3. Finally experiment with the help of a built device.

Comparing the results with the hypotheses allows another loop of the spiral to be undertaken. The dynamic
description of behavior in the constructed situation is disregarded in favor of an explanation of the
regularities in terms of the influence, separate or joint, of the different sources of variation judged relevant. In
this case the risk lies in seeing research engender one another on second-hand problems "until the vein is
exhausted or until it reaches a dead end" (Ketele, 1981).

PATH 3:
INDUCTIVE-HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE

The third research trajectory will be described as "inductivehypothetical-deductive." The researcher here
associates hypothetical-deductive management by experimentation with inductive management by observation,
carried out previously. This management illustrates quite well the options preserved by Fraisse (1963), for whom
observation is the indispensable precondition for experimentation. It constitutes, of course, an obligatory step,
but its role is limited to preparing the experimental cycle that becomes, in fact, a driving force in the
development of scientific knowledge. Observation begins to obtain the status of an autonomous method in the
inventory of methods in psychology established by Reuchlin in 1969 (1973 edition).
The description of this trajectory is provided by the experimentation in a natural environment by Lippitt and
White (1947, cited in 1972), focused on the study of the specific influence of different forms of group animation
by adults on the behaviors of children in recreational workshops. .

PATH 4:
DEDUCTIVE-INDUCTIVE (GAGNE)

The fourth research path will be described as "deductive-inductive." It relies on laboratory experimental
results to previously carry out new experiments that prepare the application of a general law to a precise social
context. Observation becomes an increasingly important element as it approaches the context and the public to
which it is applied. Gagné (1963), cited by Ketele (1981), describes the six stages of research aimed at the
application of general knowledge about learning in a specific educational situation:

1. Research on learning without concern for the corresponding character of education (path 2 used for
multiple loops of the spiral).
2. Research on learning with human subjects and on contents similar to those taught in schools (path 3 is

2
 desirable).
3. Research on learning with content or problems extracted from school programs and with children
chosen based on their school level. Trajectory 3 can then be used in the laboratory or in the field. The
analysis of the programs and the observation of the classes are required for the construction of the tests
and their instructions.
4. Research referring to school learning that integrates the previous results carried out by teachers within a
general observation device. Otherwise, experimentation takes place in selected classes.
5. The preceding device is adapted to a better sampled and, therefore, more diversified audience.
Observation of the wording and appreciation of errors allow the latest modifications to be made.
6. Arrangement of the programs and material and, finally, construction of usage notes for generalized
practice.

Theoretical and methodological

options to organize data
production

The organization of a systematic observation involves the construction of an observation device to produce
data. By this we understand a precise inventory of the ideas that must be verified with the observable indicators
explicitly listed. The device also includes instructions for using this inventory individually or collectively and a
sampling plan for data collection. Finally, the observation device integrates the list of questions for the
application of a complementary technique: brief questionnaire or interview of some people observed.
When the researcher has delimited the research questions posed with respect to his object of study, the
conception and construction of the device are determined by the positions adopted on seven dimensions. The
poles of these dimensions most often express the extreme options of a continuum (Ketele, 1983).

GLOBAL OR CONCENTRATED OB5ERVATION?

The option refers both to the extension of the field that will be the object of observation and to the degree
of regularity in the selection of information.
1. A floating observation applies to a broad field, that is, to a multitude of issues, a plurality of events and
people. It proceeds with sustained attention, open to the expected and the unforeseen, with flexibility to
notice forgotten indexes or judged a priori less relevant.
2. The concentration or location of the observation causes both a limitation of the field of study and a
more regular selection of the observables.
During a first contact, floating observation is imposed. Afterwards, only concentrated observation is
practiced, unless the research is carried out collectively and maintains these two forms of collection. This choice
is less banal than it seems. It corresponds to opposing beliefs and epistemological positions. Thus, the choice of
global observation reveals a desire to capture everything, to achieve everything at the same time, but also the
conviction that knowledge is built on the most significant events, no matter how singular they may be.
On the contrary, the choice of concentrated observation manifests a desire to limit the field in order to know
it better. Added to this is the conviction that the existence of a regularity of phenomena guarantees a better basis
for constructed knowledge.
The systematic observation that we recommend varies the degree of localization according to the moments of
work. It is one of the possible procedures. There are, in fact, works whose concentration is limited from the
beginning to the end of the research:
This is the case of a work by Bales (Heyns and Lippitt, 1950, cited by Lévy, 1972) to study interactions in
work groups.

On the other hand, other works are concentrated from beginning to end.
Loventhal and Sharp (1965, cited by Bickman, et al., 1977) proceeded in this way to describe facial
expressions: no less than 18 categories have been appreciated to qualify the state and movement 1110111•11111 —1 •
1

of the forehead, eyebrows and eyelids.

NARRATIVE OR ATTRIBUTIVE OBSERVATION?

2
 1. Narrative observation leads to a relationship that corresponds precisely to the chronology of events and
their chain and qualifies the successive states of those observed. This capture mode is frequently used
to keep a logbook, to report a visit, to follow the evolution of children over the course of the first
months of life... Systematic observation uses this mode of collection during the pre-research phase and
at the end of the research to facilitate communication with certain recipients.
2. Attributive observation proceeds by detecting the presence or absence of phenomena, and the
attribution, by inference, of certain properties or characteristics on the chosen parameters (intensity,
succession...). The fragmentation of reality into units of meaning and then its affectation or attribution
to certain categories are systematized in observation with pre-established boxes. The attributions thus
made are facilitated by the existence of hypotheses and by preparatory exercises agreed upon between
observers. In its absence, the observer takes reference points linked to his own experience of the
observed situation. This involvement leads him to privilege his own thesis or simply what, for
example, values it in a debate with other researchers.
Systematic observation privileges reference to attributive observation for the central part of the study. In
order to prevent the fragmentation of reality from turning into a definitive division, the observer writes down the
chronology of events. Here too, collective work makes it possible to take advantage of the complementarity of
approaches at different moments of the study.

OBSERVATION WITH WEAK OR STRONG INFERENCE?

1. When the inference is weak, the observer focuses on what is visible, audible, and therefore directly
perceptible and immediately re-transcribes it.
2. When the inference is intense, the observer interprets the perceptible observables as the sign of a
hidden intention, of an internalized cognitive or affective process, of a strategy often not directly
accessible to the observed and the observer.
Inference is increased by the simple fact that a time interval separates observation and retranscription. But
the inference increases even more when the project consists of making a judgment, as exam juries, inspectors,
evaluators and experts do. As we have already pointed out, inference is part of the normal functioning of
observation. Without it we could not give meaning to the observables. The problem consists, then, of seeking
favorable conditions for a controlled practice of inference. It is possible to consciously eliminate or differentiate
the project of evaluation from the project of explanation. It is possible to refuse to observe certain objects as
character traits, as certain ideological and imaginary positions or as certain very abstract concepts (the body
schema, meta-consciousness...). The observer can also place himself in favorable conditions at the time of
collection and coding: either by preparing the categories and coding immediately, or even better, by recording
and coding later with justification of the inferences made. In any case, the controllable, stable and repeatable
nature of the inference corresponds to the previous existence of descriptive works that reveal relationships
between observable indicators and more abstract categories used. This is how a researcher proceeds to qualify,
for example, an implicit rule of functioning cognitive development or the organization of problem-solving
behavior.
Ketele (1983), quoting the research of Ronsenshine and Furst
(1973), attests that the strongest correlations between predictor (teachers' behavior) and criterion (students'
performance) are obtained with instruments with the highest level of inference. He concludes that the choice of
the degree of inference depends on the objective sought. Choosing a variable with a high level of inference is
preferable when the objectives of the observation are predictive; that of variables with a weak level of inference
is more suitable for diagnosis and description.

OBSERVATION OF A NATURAL OR CREATED SITUATION?

1. The situation is said to be natural when the observed subjects remain in their usual or familiar living
environment. This concerns, for example, the observation of children's games in the vicinity of large

2
 buildings, or the assembly of an engine in a workshop.
2. These situations can be prepared, that is, reduced or modified for the study, without altering their
structure: the games are observed on the day when the adolescents who prevent them are absent; The
setup will be done in a smaller room, next to the garage, with better lighting and a lower chance of
being interrupted by customers.

Thus, and to observe the acquisition of notions of physics by science students working in groups, we
replaced the usual study of the polycopied course with some collective exercises that raise the concepts
studied (Cornetti, et al ., 1983). Each group filmed and observed was isolated in a room, while usually several
groups worked in the same room. In exchange, the chosen groups had a stable existence throughout the year,
with their usual numbers. The proposed task was very similar to the group testing situations to which the
students of this experimental university training were subjected.

As we have already pointed out previously, recourse to the natural situation facilitates generalization and
reduces the number of stages in an application research (path 4). Professionals and students appreciate carrying
out research in a natural situation despite its difficulty. There are, however, two preparation possibilities:

— choose among all natural situations those that facilitate the study under consideration (Weick, 1968), —
and above all reduce the ambitions of the project in order to prepare the observation situation.

Preparation may become more important, and then the situation will be said to be manipulated or created.

1. In the first case, the experimenter inserts his intervention plan in real groups, integrating it in the best
possible way into their life habits. Manipulation often refers to the choice of the task, the instructions
and the way of encouraging and governing it over time. Professionals are then trained to apply the
researcher's device under control, integrating some

2
 limitations of the terrain (Massonnat, Piolat, 1982).
2. In other situations, manipulation consists of maintaining the task and introducing experimenters into
groups partly constructed for research. The comparative observation of the animation styles of Lippitt
and White (1950, cited by Lévy, 1972) is a good example in this regard. The most profound
transformation of the situation occurs when the observation situation and the observed activity are
constructed to add to the previously established observation plan. The groups chosen are either natural
groups or groups constructed during the duration of the observation.
An idea is imposed: the preparation of natural situations, without making their specificity disappear, is not
only possible, but desirable. It corresponds to a more precise delimitation of the object of study.

NON-PARTICIPATORY OR PARTICIPATORY OBSERVATION?

The options now addressed concern the presence and action of the observer. The first of them requires vital
methodological choices: the degree of observer-observed distance or the degree of intervention of the researcher
in the observed activity. We know that the observer is always involved in the issue he intends to address, the
public he chooses and certain individuals he especially follows. An increasing scale of intervention can be
established in the situation, depending on whether it is more or less visible to those observed and more or less
participatory in the action itself observed.

The degree of visibility of the device and the practice of collecting information
The presence of an external individual who takes notes can provoke reactions and, above all, create a
representation of the situation among those observed whose effect on the object studied is uncontrollable.
Wallon has shown very well the influence of the adult's gaze on the mobilization and performance of children.
Subsequently, some research has shown the existence of a link, for example, between the scheduled
displacement of an inspector in a primary class and the performance of students during rant the same time.
Children located in the vicinity of the inspector, under his gaze, perform better than children located at a
distance. This dominance should not make us forget that the fear of control generally provokes opposite
reactions of stimulation or inhibition, depending on the tasks and the subjects. Overall, the degree of reactivity
decreases with the age of the children, with information about the observation and with its duration. But there
always remains a certain uncertainty about its real effects. The methodological requirements encourage
maximum discretion on the part of the observer and the device, even going so far as to completely camouflage
them in the eyes of those being observed, as researchers sometimes do with animals and small children: use of
mirrors without quicksilver, observation at distance with the help of binoculars, recording of movements using
electric beacons. This methodological principle leads to dissimulation but is opposed to a deontological principle
that requires that no investigation of private life be done without information to the interested parties (Bickman,
1977). In this system of double limitation, the researcher cannot possess a single rule. He is pushed to achieve a
compromise, case by case, exceptionally reaching compliance with only one of the two rules.

If a researcher actually intends to study spontaneous reactions in a waiting room or an admission hall in a
hospital, he has no more
than a solution: not say anything to those interested and be discreet.
On the contrary, if another researcher intends to study mother-child language in the family, he must inform
those interested and accustom them to his technique, sensibly adapting his methodological requirements.

Does the observer assist (active presence of the observer) or does he intervene in the observed situation to the
point of modifying it to reach another form of knowledge by implication? It is possible to distinguish three forms
of observer intervention.

2
1. The first allows minimal intervention (information, contract...) and maintains a maximum distance from
the object studied to intrude as little as possible into the situation. This is currently the most frequently
practiced modality of work in natural sciences, ethology and psychology. The development of
recording systems has undoubtedly expanded the dominant remote placement movement.
2. The second level of intervention is more marked. It refers to a fairly long presence of the observer with
the groups: populations or tribes observed without really integrating into them and without traversing
have to modify them from the inside. Passive participatory observation has been well illustrated by
Margaret Mead (1966, p. 32):

«The participant observer enters the game, observes but does not touch anything (...). "He strives to
study, down to the smallest details, the customs of the human beings with whom he mixes and
scrupulously takes care to leave them intact, considering them as a precious contribution to science."

This attitude continues to be that of a very large number of ethnologists, etoecologists and
psychologists who practice an ethological approach. It is increasingly used by journalists who pre They
tend to study the life of certain closed institutions (psychiatric hospital, prison) or penetrate the mystery
of certain environments (trafficking of foreigners in the world of work, drug environment...).
3. There is a third form of intervention, even more marked, and it is what Ketele (1981) calls active
participatory observation. The observer aims to understand the dynamics of a situation, modifying it in
central aspects.
The action research work of Mira Stamback's team illustrates this practice well. Convinced that action
on the student does not seem to reduce academic failure in any way, she tries to show that changes in
the conception and management of the class can, by their nature, constitute a relevant alternative
solution. This researcher and her team propose research in collaboration with teachers, in which the
observer can

3
 change positions with the person in charge of the class. A narrative observation of the two agents
allows us to demonstrate an eventual reduction in failure and formulate hypotheses about what is
responsible for the induced social dynamics.
This practice requires extensive experience in the two main adjustments. It has meaning and interest
when it is necessary to establish a break in a current of research that is blocked. New ways of posing
problems and new hypotheses may emerge. These case studies limit the possibilities of comparison of
the first analyses, since what is primarily intended is the understanding of the dynamics of each group
or unit observed.

Professionals are undoubtedly the first beneficiaries of research. Researchers, on the other hand, suffer from
difficulties in extracting general ideas from their global observations and narratives. But we must not forget that
his project also consists of questioning the dominant trend in research: the use of test administration practices.
EXPLANATORY TRANSVERSAL OBSERVATION
OR LONGITUDINAL FUNCTIONAL?

The options referring to this parameter concern both the way of data collection and the choice of the nature of
the observed object. What extreme forms of assemblages do we notice between these two aspects?
1. Cross-sectional observation is interested, for example, in specifying a question related to the care
techniques practiced in a health service during a certain period in the morning. In this regard, the
observer chooses several services and hospitals in a given geographical unit on the basis of the
equivalent sick rate per service. The number of professionals observed only once will be fixed or in
advance and distributed among the different observers. The order in which the different professionals
will be observed and the choice of the observers assigned to them will be strictly planned. The
objective is, of course, to achieve a representative vision of care practices, taking into account the
diversity of patients, health workers, services, days and unpredictable limitations. Measurement
reliability checks should be integrated into the planning: some professionals will be observed
simultaneously by two observers. The treatment of observables will allow us to note the frequency of
the different types of acts practiced during the chosen period. Above all, the researcher will be able to
try to appreciate the separate and combined effects of variables such as the type of work organization,
the type of hospital and the day of the week, referring to the interindividual differences between
healthcare workers (variance analysis). In this example, the transversal practice of observation serves
an essential concern: appreciating the respective influence of relevant variables on the issue addressed.

2. At the other pole of the parameter studied, longitudinal observation is characterized by the systematic
collection of data to describe and understand the dynamics of a complex behavior in the face of a
precise task. A group of individuals is then observed in an individual situation facing a standardized
task with possible intervention instructions planned in advance. This approach corresponds to what
Vermersch (1984, p. 299) calls “a simple observation plan.” With this procedure, emphasis is placed on
chronological milestones, co-appearance, chaining of acts and sometimes on the a posteriori comments
of the person who has just tackled the task. The coding of these indicators can only be carried out after
a videoscopic recording and a complete retranscription of the set. The use of a dominant narrative
observation procedure, supported by a systematic detection of some indicators, allows the researcher to
characterize the way in which each subject proceeds and regulates their activity (Blanchet, 1981;
Vermersch, 1985).

Longitudinal observation conceived in this way is more interested in the dynamics of individual and group
functioning in the face of a task, while transversal observation privileges the detection of the variables that cause
differences in performance and work procedures.
Between these two extreme assemblies there are some intermediate techniques not reducible to the preceding
ones. A careful examination allows us to notice that these longitudinal studies are close to cross-sectional studies
due to the issues addressed and the treatments carried out. This is the case whenever the collection chronology is
associated with an attributive observation with a box. The dynamics of the procedure are difficult to reconstruct
at the time of data processing. It is then abandoned in
benefit of an analysis of the relative frequencies of each observed index (Cornetti, et al., 1983).
The preceding analysis shows that this parameter of methodological choice (transversal-longitudinal) is, first
of all, the consequence of the choice of a priority concentration of research. Once the major methodological

3
options have been determined, let us now examine the practices of systematic observation, that is, the different
techniques embedded in a broader project.

3. Observation and construction practices

of a study device

Inventory of research
practices

The term practice encompasses:

—choice of recorded observables.

-know to do;
—techniques and sometimes complex systems based on theoretical options or observation
practices.

We will follow the classification logic used by Bickman (1977, pp. 265-285), according to the degree of
structuring used by the researcher and according to the moments of the research.

WEAK STRUCTURING PRACTICES

A series of four techniques allows researchers and social workers to acquire an understanding of the context
in which they will then operate.

1. Creation of slide or photo montages by the architects to observe the place where they are going to work.
Making collections by historians, naturalists and geologists to keep traces of their own observations or
explorations. Finally collection of specimens by archaeologists and geographers as indications of certain
locations or signs of a technique of manufacturing.
He set
of these objects or their representation results from an occasional or systematic observation, during an
exploration of sites or the periodic creation of a collection.
2. Maintenance of a logbook or diary in which observations and impressions are recorded with a certain
regularity. This notebook is sometimes used to ensure the monitoring of certain cases in the hospital, at
school or of certain captive or live animals in reserves. Most of the time, a list of titles or themes
channels a floating, involved observation, made in a natural situation in a
3. followed but not systematic. Depending on the quality of the observation and its analysis, these
documents may or may not exceed the level of knowledge of the environment or of a population.
4. Records of visits, of practical work from previous experience, of a course in a laboratory, providing
observations framed or guided by research concerns. They provide an inventory of studyable issues and
the real conditions of research intervention. Thus, the minutes of the work meetings of a management
group in a class or in a company or in a research laboratory constitute valuable material for psychological
or socioanalytical analyzes on the functioning of the aforementioned groups. In this way, there are
systematic traces of a narrative observation, capable of providing reference points for the study of the
dynamics of this group.

3
 5. After Lofland, Bickman (1977) evokes observation through the researcher's participation in a social
situation that will be further examined: for example, the study of decision-making in an urban planning
commission by a sociologist. The researcher regularly attends commission meetings, takes notes and,
with the help of other techniques (interviews), tries to answer a list of questions determined in advance.
An attempt is made to establish knowledge of the individuals, the working conditions, the issues
addressed, the collective strategies used... Notes taken on the fly should now separate facts or statements
from opinions or impressions, from the questions raised. After each session, the observer re-examines his
or her notes and constructs narrative observation sheets. They will then be evaluated in separate files that
will guide the choice of the problem studied and its initial formulation.

We address a second range of prior research techniques. They are based on a series of almost systematic,
precise observations, focused on notable events, on specific moments, on detailed memories and finally on
systematically recorded cases.

1 . Sample notes describe behavior in context, along a chronological axis for

prolonged stages. Barker and Wright (1951), cited by Bickman (1977), have described the com
behavior of a boy throughout an entire day, that is, 420 pages of text. Inferences about the motives or
intentions of the observed subject are stimulated. The objective is to reach a global understanding of
behaviors with reference to the context. The ethologist Kummer (1968), cited by Michiels Philippe
(1984, p. 155), proceeds in the same way to describe the social behaviors of Hanadrya baboons
between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.:

«7 h. 05, the two individuals are on a rock on the right bank of a river flowing north. Adults groom themselves
while their little ones play.
7 a.m. 09, Circum (the youngest) gets up and goes towards Pater (the oldest), emitting a grunt of contact. They
exchange glances. Circum heads north. All the animals follow them: Circum, his females, all the small ones,
Pater's female...».

2. Anecdotes are used by sociologists and historians. Their purpose is the description of precise episodes or the
understanding of a notion by a specific audience. Observation is carried out in a natural environment; It is
systematic and narrative. It concludes with the preparation of a report that is evaluated in a classification of the
types of events or problems susceptible to further investigation. Brandt (1972), cited by Bickman (1977, p. 273),
specifies the means to reinforce the quality of this procedure:

a) Take notes during the observation, to write the anecdote as soon as possible after having observed it.
b)Include in the minutes the essential statements and acts of the central characters.
a) Provide details about the circumstances: place, date, precise circumstances, participants and agents.
b) Record the reactions of the other participants or their lack of reaction.
c) Use direct quotes in quotes.
d) Respect the chronology.

e) Describe the main units of global behavior and the associated secondary units.
f) Be precise in vocabulary to describe important details. Do not abuse adjectives or adverbs.
g) After the report, another investigator becomes aware of the anecdote and questions the witness. The
whole is then typed.

3. Flanagan's (1954) analysis of critical incidents is a technique close to the preceding one.
It refers to all incidents that contribute to progress, the development of work and all incidents that delay,
slow down or make that action fail. There are four criteria that more accurately delimit a critical incident or a
significant event in work psychology: it is an observable human activity; The defined situation must allow
the understanding of the activity studied; It must also include clear purposes and intentions; Finally, the
incidents considered must be especially effective or ineffective in relation to the purposes of the activity

3
 observed. Technically, the analysis begins with the delimitation of the official and effective purposes of the
task or position studied (interviews). The observation that follows refers only to the relevant events; It is
carried out systematically and repeatedly according to a certain sampling of positions, places, professionals...
It concludes with a story accompanied by comments for each of the fifty to one hundred critical incidents
noted when dealing with a simple task. The stories are then classified into categories related to the object of
study. If a job is analyzed, the categories are in terms of stage operations, demands; If it is about training, it is
completed by categories of required and parasitic knowledge... The categories are recomposed as the analysis
is carried out and the collection of incidents is concluded when they stabilize. Bickman (1977, p. 269) reports
on an adaptation of the technique described in the sociological approach to work for Glaser in 1965. It is then
called "constant and cooperative analysis method." The procedure corresponds to the one we have described.
Its exploitation is broader: it leads to a written formulation of the theory

4. Full recording, or with a minimal selection, of cases, scenes of animal or human life, filmed from a distance
or in close-up. The observer, who has decided on recording methods, retranscribes the entire corpus in writing
(verbal and non-verbal exchange, molecular or segmented behaviors). Process We were able to analyze the
methods of solving problems in physics by students working in groups (Cornetti, et al., 1983). The retranscribed
corpus included all the essential verbal exchanges and gestures in relation to the representation of concepts in
physics. We also transcribe the simultaneous oral interventions that took place, taking into account the presence
of seven people in the group. This is also what Bonnet (1980) does when studying identification behaviors (cited
from Michiels-Phílippe, 1984, p. 247). He points out children's imitation behaviors like this:

«Jacqueline, 8 months: moves the sash of a window as her father just did in front of her.
Edwige, 16 months: opens and closes her mouth as I just did before her; He stops doing it as soon as I make
that gesture again.
Jess, 20 months: presses with his foot on the lever that allows him to open a garbage can, as I just did in front
of him. »

STRONG STRUCTURATION OBSERVATION PRACTICES

We address the techniques and methods used to systematically describe behaviors with the help of a
previously adapted theoretical conception. Certain techniques only refer to observation, others only use it in a
secondary way.
The practice of action-observation illustrates this last category, which involves two methods.

1. The first is the clinical-experimental method used by Piaget and his team. Each child is faced with a task:
first interrogated; he is then asked to act and later asked again based on an observation of his activity.
Observation does not focus on the details of the manipulation but on the eventual existence and complexity of
the behavioral scheme that has been put into action. The marking and classification of the applied scheme are
immediate. The experimenters experts No need
retranscribe the details of the subject's activity to carry out this verification operation quickly, because
the choice of counter-suggestion issues depends on this diagnosis. The researcher's priority here is a
rapid and repeated diagnosis of the operations carried out by the subject to infer from there the available
or mobilized cognitive structure. In this perspective, precise and explicit observation is secondary,
although it functionally serves the researcher to establish his diagnoses. The protocols formulated by
researchers actually give little room for precise observation outside of the question-answers, as shown by
the corpus of the study of the development of physical quantities (Piaget and Inhelder, 1962). This is a
volume conservation protocol, tested with the help of a container with water and a ball of plasticine:

«Read (10 years): The ball: —This goes up in any case, the ball occupies a place in the water (the
experience is carried out and the level is marked, then the ball is recovered and cut into seven u eight
small pieces). And so? —That will take up more room. Oh, look (the pieces haven't been thrown into the
water yet), it has grown (it looks bigger). These pieces take up more space! Because? —Because the

3
 pieces are larger, if you want to rebuild the ball, all the pieces will no longer fit. —Can't you remake the
ball? —If you tighten it well, you will get the same size, but you need to tighten it well. (But with respect
to a tight ball like a sausage, Ler admits conservation as probable.) It also rises a little, the same as the
ball or not? —Approximately, there is not much difference, perhaps none at all" (Piaget and Inhelder, PP.
67-68).

2. Another more recent practice of "action-observation" consists of having the recording or recording of a
group work session followed, for example, by an analysis carried out on a tape recorder with each
member of the group filmed. The observed becomes an analyzer of his own role to clarify his choices
and strategies. The observer then has a double analysis, his own and that of the agent, to codify his
group activity. We have used this practice in order to decipher an object construction activity carried
out in a group by three adults.

Analysis of traces, files and texts

Traces are all forms of tangible marks that remain after the action is completed. They report directly on the
result of the action (written work; drawing; opinion

3
at the end of the session; set of decisions made and recorded during work), but also about the strategies of
individuals in action or their movements in a living space. The observer who wishes to collect them is forced to
create the conditions of their appearance in the organization of the task or space and the conditions of their analysis
in the organization of their collection and treatment. The computer can now help store the subjects' successive
manipulations. In animal psychology, the use of fluo powder rescent and the arrangement of radioelectric detectors,
which directly encode the positions and movements of animals in a natural environment, allow Bovet's team (1986)
to study the place of randomness in exploration behaviors.
This type of production makes it possible for us to establish an important rapprochement between content
analysis and observation. This link is twofold: on the one hand we will later show that an observer with a box treats
the facts as a specialist in content analysis of a text, and on the other hand the observer can become a specialist in
the analysis of his own speech or of the others The common point is the activity of classifying words, phrases,
behaviors, in a meaning system!
Historians, linguists and social psychologists are interested in discourse analysis. The study of archives also
involves reference to the history of concepts and practices. When approaching the analysis of documents and
archives we undoubtedly reach the limits of the extension of observation as we have defined it. Indeed, in most
cases, the observer does not witness the production of these traces. It's also not a starter.

Construction of a category system

After an exploratory study, the researcher may choose to develop an explicit categorization system to code, as it
is produced or later, the information and meanings that interest him or her. Observation becomes the attribution of a
unit of meaning or a unit of behavior to categories previously deduced from the way in which the problem studied is
formulated. The use of boxes corresponds to a systematic observation with immediate or deferred coding (film) of a
non-participant observer who is interested in studying the role of certain factors at a given time. Specifically, the
observer notes the appearance of some specific signs, the most significant and only these, or then codes, as they
occur, all the units of meaning that have a relationship with the problem addressed (Roux, 1982).
Nothing prevents the pigeonholed observer from being interested in the succession and chaining of the coded
elements; It is technically possible. But we are forced to point out that those who have been pigeonholed have more
often than not disregarded this aspect of things in favor of dividing complex behaviors into fragments that they try
to enumerate. In the case of direct and immediate encoding, it is not possible to reconstruct the overall behavior. It
will be necessary to think about other forms of coding to reconcile the advantages of a systematic attributive coding
and the concern to answer questions related to the development of behaviors:
How do various individuals act at a given moment in a complex activity? Is this interaction equivalent from one
moment to the next of the activity or that of both groups?
The quantification possibilities offered by boxes constitute a considerable advantage for the purposes of
comparison and formalization of reality. These possibilities cannot, however, allow us to affirm, as Postic (1981)
does, that we will practice an "objective observation of behavior." We proceed, in fact, to objectifying attempts at
reduction that are worth what our formulations of the problems and our capacities for their correct translation into
categories are worth.

Beyond these general considerations, we are going to directly address the methodology and technique of
constructing the boxes.

Construction of boxes or observation

records

INOPERANT OPPOSITION BETWEEN SIGNS

AND CATEGORIES

The construction of a box inevitably runs into an opposition that dates back to Medley and Mitzell (1963)
between the "method of signs" and the "method of categories."

3
 1. The first method, called analytical, begins by previously writing a list of behaviors, activities or events that
may or may not occur during the duration of the observation (example: fighting, running, asking
questions...).

«The observer is limited to waiting for the manifestation of the behaviors that appear on the list in which
they will have to be checked (Bickman, 1977, p. 276).»

2. The second method aims to construct categories, that is, a regrouping of behaviors - that have an equivalent
meaning - taking into account the problem studied. Throughout the duration of the observation, all
observable units (or signs) that bear a relationship to the problem are classified into one of these categories.

In reality, we did not notice any relevant differences between the methods. In both systems, an inventory of
signs has been established that have a meaning in themselves and in relation to a theoretical system. The essential
distinction lies in the nature of the issues addressed: inventory of signs for the first, system and attempt to read a
problem for the second. The second distinction depends on the preceding one: the degree of inference is weak or
non-existent for the observer with the first system, while it is more important in the second, since it will be
necessary to verify each time the existence of a link between the directly perceptible and the observable. the most
abstract meaning of the category in which it will be placed. These are, in short, differences of degree, but not of
nature.

EXTENSION AND LIMIT OF THE FIELD

OBSERVATIONAL

Is it the observability of things that determines the field of what can be studied through observation?
Observability can be defined as what is directly observable with the human and technical means available. There
are thus observables that cannot be perceived for technical reasons.

For a long time, for example, it was believed that the atom did not exist, since it was not observable. Later, in
1951, E. W. Muller managed to obtain photographs of atoms by using a new microscope. Conversely, it happens
that we perceive objects or phenomena, such as flying objects, that do not identify tified objects, for which we
have a multitude of observations, often very detailed, and yet these objects pose such problems to scientists that
they have decided on their non-existence.

For there to be an observable, two conditions are needed:

1. First of all, it must be perceptible or "visible."

2. Then, there must be a theory or an explanatory system that makes sense of it.

This confirms the role of ideas in observation in general, but especially when it comes to indirectly observable
objects. We infer about them from a symptom or a directly perceptible clue (Bunge, 1984, p. 57). For an observable
to acquire the rank of an indication, a theory or previous empirical work must demonstrate a covariation in the
changes between the directly observable element (indication) and the indirectly observable element (meaning
phenomenon).

Directly observable objects

We place the manifestations of behavior in a broad sense in this category. We will distinguish with the ethologist
Beaugrand (1984, p.170) different levels of organization of this behavior, going from the most molecular to the
most massive: motor patterns with a functional unit (displacement of a limb, color vision), coordinating the
individual acts various motor or gestural patterns . Beaugrand continues to call behavior complex social
interactions, problems that affect the life of entire groups (cooperation and hierarchy) and those that influence the

3
life of a species (reproduction in mammals...). In the field of human sciences, and from the moment in which the
phenomena studied involve the coordination of several behaviors, in turn integrated, we will talk about behaviors .
The manifestations of behavior are directly perceptible while the set in which they are inserted is not and meaning
is provided, with a purpose, an organization and regulations between subsets.

Indirectly observable objects

The list is long, especially in human and social sciences. The level of study of the organization of behaviors and
the modes of structuring and functioning of major individual and social functions are involved. Contrary to what
behaviorists believe, every problem is observable or can become so from the moment reliable links are established,
first with the help of theorization and then through empirical work between observable signs or patterns of signs,
and the object studied not directly perceptible. At each moment, the state of previous research delimits the border
between possible observations and risky observations.

ELEMENTS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION

IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OBSERVATION BOX

Boxing, when it exists, constitutes an important piece of the observation device. It represents a system of systematic
analysis, intermediate between the observed object and its theoretical representation, whose rules of selection and
attribution of information are rigorously defined.
The construction of a box involves the preparation of a filtering system and the definition of the rules of use for a
class of problems. Four elements will be the subject of special attention: the system of categories, the units of
division of reality, the definition of a collection system that combines category and choice of unit, the sampling plan
for data collection and finally the modalities. instrument control (Cambon, Winnikamen, 1977).

How to create a category system

To observe is to summarize, to classify. Classification can take different forms, from a simple juxtaposition of
observables or categories to a system of hierarchical complementary categories, through systems of several
dimensions, each of them represented by a grouping of categories. The category system can evolve from the
beginning of pre-research to the beginning of measurement; It can evolve from the simple to the complex, from
juxtaposition to integration with a progress in theorization, with the formulation of a problem to be studied or with
access to improved recording systems.

A category is a unit of meaning that justifies the grouping of several observables called indicators or clues, which
have the value of signs. The category results from a "dimensioning" of reality or clarifies an idea directly linked to a
concept. It must be intermediate and deduced from the concept and have corresponding observables. It must be
conceived in such a way as to avoid a series of obstacles.

1. The first, of a theoretical order, when the category is not linked to any concept or is formulated
abstractly, too close to the concept.
2. The second, of an operational order, concern either a too large extension given to the category, or its
disappearance with reference to a single observable.

VARIOUS FORMS OF CATEGORIZATION

OF THE BOXES

3
Checklist to point out directly observable behaviors

These are juxtapositions of often numerous observables (shapes, movements, actions...) of which we want to know
their relative frequency. The observer's inference is weak or null, depending on whether or not it is a first
observation and whether the behavior is more or less easy to extract, as the following examples show:

1. . Relative frequencies of acts of contamination of public gardens by pedestrians. The observable signs
are:

«Throwing papers, throwing cigarette butts, walking where it is prohibited, uprooting plants, writing on
benches...» (massive observables).

2. Inventory and frequency of parasitic gestures of some students during the last class hour of the day:

«Manipulate objects without making noise; hit with an object on the table; take something from a partner;
hitting a neighbor on the back or head; draw or scribble; stretch your legs, hit the floor; kicking other
people's objects; don't look anywhere; call a partner; oral exchange at a distance..." (massive observables).

3. Reactions of the participants in a diagnostic group towards the group observer:

«Talk about him, addressing others, talk to him directly, do not talk to him either directly or indirectly...»

4. Detection of incidents or behaviors that express the notion of aggression by a teacher towards the person of
a student:

«Hurtful personal observations in public, refusal to respond to the student, critical remarks about the
person...

Boxes for a theorized description and the study of questions about action

The desire to describe and answer specific questions implies at the same time the delimitation of the field, the
explanation of the unity of the meanings and, simultaneously, greater exhaustiveness in the collection of data.
Describing based on theoretical options and studying a problem generally imply more inferences on the part of the
observer at the time of data coding:

1. Bickman (1977, p. 278) cites research that describes students' behavior in class with undefined categories:
"sociable, friendly, absorbed in the task..." In the absence of definition, the observer can do nothing but
evaluate!

2. Bales (cited by Lévy, 1972) has established a framework for the extensive analysis of interactions in task-
focused groups. The author implicitly defines the group as a grouping of equals who have common
objectives. Solving a problem requires that individuals contribute to the progress of the task and that the
group can form, function, and then separate. This definition is specified as follows in a box:

Notions linked to Dimensions of the

Categories Observables
definition activity and life of the
group

3
 problem solving Try to find answers
1. makes suggestions
activity

2. Give your opinion

3. Provides guidance
Ask questions
4. Request information Give an address
5. Ask for opinions
Evaluate, wish Repeat,
6. Ask for suggestions
clarify Repeat, confirm
Evaluate Ask for an
address
Activity related to Positive and mixed 7. Seems friendly Appreciate others, give
social and emotional socio-affective activities help, joke, laugh
dynamics
Accept, understand
8. Relax tension Passive withdrawal
Negative and mixed 9. He agrees from the discussion
socio-affective activities 10.would not you agree

11.expresses tension
12.Seems hostile Devalues others

One could of course argue about the great ambition of the author in applying this classification to all the

4
 task groups, which requires a fairly broad categorization. In the same way, one could point out the great
similarity of certain categories (2 and 3, 5 and 6) and the unequal presence of non-verbal observables according to
the categories. But we have here a good example of a box with a broad descriptive purpose whose use in research is
considerably reduced.

3. Drummon (1981) gives the example of a description of the behavioral patterns of a fish (lobistis
reticulatus). Each pattern is classified based on three formal criteria chosen a priori:
- location in the space that concerns the place where the fish is or where it is heading, assessed
with reference to some elements of the environment;
- orientation in space, appreciated by the position of the axis of the animal's body in relation to
that of other individuals: parallel movements or forming an angle between them;
- three-dimensional topography, appreciated by the position or displacement of the body's axis
in relation to other individuals and the physical environment.

4. Beaugrand (1984) proposes a classification system for the fighting behaviors of another fish (the green
swordfish) with the help of an abstract system of categories, determined in a first series of observations.
Structures of complex behaviors constitute the observables or surface units. Among these, the author
manages to extract units described as "deeper" or "concepts" that in turn serve to determine a more
abstract notion called "meta-concept." This work illustrates an inductive and intensive approach in its
way of accurately observing relatively massive behavioral units.

Units of More units Metaconcepts 1 Metaconcepts 2

surface deep Aggressiveness Social hierarchy
observables Concepts
Ripple'
side
Threat behavior
Deployment
side Behavior
Yo aggressive-
Stroke Behavior climbing dominant
Bite offensive

Flight Defensive behavior Defensive behavior-dominated withdrawal

Withdrawal
posture

This reading box can now be used in a descending manner, the hierarchy of which is established in an ascending
manner based on the observables. Indeed, other researchers may start from the observation, in other species, of
stable individual strategies (climbing or withdrawal) to search by deduction for the appropriate categories and
observables.

Boxes for the study of problems that are not directly observable

The observer's project consists of testing an idea, a question, a formulated hypothesis relating to a problem not
directly perceptible. The researcher then dedicates himself to verifying or noticing the existence of a symptom-
cause type link between observable signs and the internal dimensions studied. When you cum Under this condition,
the work of the observer approaches the action of recounting and systematic description previously examined. But
when it is not met, the observer runs the risk of making stronger and more frequent inferences to find the stable link
between the observable and the dimension studied. The evolution towards this type of research is relatively recent.

4
It corresponds to an expansion of the behaviorist theoretical perspectives that were considerably dominant between
1930 and 1960.
The main topics studied in this perspective are the study of the functioning of the human operator in his practice and
the organization of his behaviors. Ethologists, since Hinde (1966), Beaugrand (1984) and Vauclair (1984), also
proceed to functional studies, regrouping behaviors on the basis of common supposed purposes or consequences
(play, exploration, aggression) and more recently to the study of the cognitive activity of certain animal species.
From this perspective, observation must admit the fact that an observable role does not always have the same
meaning (it does not refer to the same function) depending on the context and the moment in which it is noticed.
Consequently, the observable-function link must be checked regularly. Some examples of work now allow us to
illustrate this functionally inductive or ductive (Lehner, 1979).

1. Postic (1981) carries out a study with an inductive dominant trajectory. It previously records the nature and
frequency of the pedagogical acts of science teachers in a functional perspective. It establishes a
correspondence between each pedagogical act and a dominant intentionality of the teacher. A definition of the
pedagogical act allows us to deduce a classification:

«A pedagogical act is any intervention by the teacher, verbal or non-verbal, that aims to either establish
communication with the students to transmit the message, control it or that also has the goal of appreciating
the behavior of the students, obtaining the modification of their attitudes or exercise regulation of their
activities" (p. 133).
«Verbal activities dominate among the 19 categories retained: ask a question to the whole class, point to a
student, present, make an experiment, pass between the rows, make a judgment... Furthermore, after the first
observations, a list of the dominant intentions is established by comparing the intentions perceived by the
observer with those formulated by the teacher. A list of 15 intentions is retained: state the problem, guide the
research, transmit content, seek precision, rectify errors, stimulate... The observation box becomes a matrix of
19 lines (acts) and 25 columns (intentions), in which each observed unit is placed at the intersection of a line
and a column. Through successive regroupings, the author manages to determine three functions: framing,
information, alert, associated respectively with 10, 3 and 6 pedagogical acts. We are far from the list of the
nine functions established a priori by Landsheere and Bayer (1969): organization, imposition, development,
personalization, positive feedback , negative feedback , concreteness, positive affectivity and negative
affectivity.

2. Vermersch (1985) questions the way in which a subject guided by a written instruction performs the
requested task. It is more precisely interested in the nature and dimensions of the actions carried out by the
subject in relation to the number and volume of the instructions provided to him.

The author successively films ten teenagers who are preparing to make an apple pie in a kitchen with a
instructions that involves placing the recipe on the left and the necessary ingredients on the right. The slogans
are placed vertically 3 meters from the subject so that the camera can identify both the gestures and the
direction of the gaze. The analysis of the retranscribed protocols reveals a great fragmentation or atomization
of the subjects' actions in relation to the a priori functional division proposed by the slogan. The author is
interested in characterizing the subjects' procedure to compare it with the proposed norm: reading an
instruction followed by one or several elementary actions. The results show that the 3W. of the subjects'
chains corresponds to the reading of an instruction followed by all the necessary actions. 30W is appreciated.
of chains as corresponding to the fragmentation of an instruction into several elementary actions after one or
several readings. Finally, the 67W. of the chains corresponds to a short action followed by a reading. In other
words: "put the flour in the salad bowl" is broken down into: reading the instruction, moving to pick up the
salad bowl, resuming reading before going to get the flour... The author is later interested in showing that this
fragmentation of the action is not linked to difficulties in understanding, but to some functional strategies of
the neophyte.

Vermersch's research has been carried out from an inductive perspective with the help of systematic and
4
 descriptive observation to address general theoretical problems: organization of the task and organization of
the action, articulation between reading and execution of the action among neophyte operators.

3. From a more deductive perspective, Massonnat and Piolat (1982) proposed to test some hypotheses about the
mechanisms of information selection and interpretation of the reality observed by an observer. In the absence
of achieving direct production of the elements of the observers' frame of reference, we attempt to
experimentally induce implicit hypotheses or prehypotheses about the observed learning activity. This filmed
activity was taken into consideration due to its structuring characteristics that could conform to or oppose the
induced hypotheses.
The contradictory hypotheses induced referred to the idea that the activity carried out by the group learning
computer science was beneficial, or was not, for the progress of the acquisitions of two subjects unequally
active in the course of the two six-minute filmed sequences. . The same observation box was transmitted to
two experimental groups and artificially connected with contradictory hypotheses. A second observation was
carried out with the record of six categories resulting from the crossing of two factors:

— the degree of interpretive inference required of the observer:

observe the verbal and non-verbal participation and expressions of understanding by those observed
of the ongoing activity;
— the second factor subdivided each preceding category into activity and inactivity indices.

The effects of induction were appreciated with the help of this box applied to two subjects whose degree of
activity varied. The results confirmed the impact of each induced system on the selection of the information
collected. They also confirmed the influence of the structuring of reality in this selection. But this influence of the
induced hypotheses interacts with those of the structure of the observed object; Induction acts much better on the
overall less active subject than on the subject whose participation in learning is more accentuated. The influence is
more marked below a certain level of activity.
This work informs us about the cognitive functioning of the observer in the selection, coding and attribution of
meanings. We see that, when there is a theoretical reading of the problems studied, observation can contribute to
explaining psychological processes that are not directly observable.
Beyond the diversity of functions of the boxes we have just referred to, there are certain principles that must be
respected during the construction of these devices.

REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE RESPECTED

IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF CATEGORIES

The choice of categories respects a series of principles.

1. Categories should be discreet and exclusive. The unit of meaning or behavior of two neighboring
categories must be different, in such a way that an observable is classifiable in one category and only in
this one. Respect for this requirement leads to a precise definition of all categories, the boundaries between
categories and the observables that are inserted in each of them. It directly improves the reliability of the
observers.
2. The observables that specify each category must be homogeneous, that is, equivalent from the point of
view of the criterion, concrete or abstract, that has been used to construct the categories. Thus, all the trips
of a child in a daycare center, defining the same category, must be homogeneous from the point of view of
the chosen criterion, for example the length of the journey traveled.
3. The categories related to each dimension of the problem studied
They must be exhaustive. They must allow us to classify all the observables that throughout the
observation have a relationship with the dimensions considered.
4. The number of categories that must be established depends on the problem addressed, on the fact that the
coding is carried out directly or not, or from a filmed document, on the degree of training of the
4
 observers... A neophyte observer, who directly codes the description of a behavior, will hardly be able to
classify more than ten categories. This problem no longer arises in practice for the experienced researcher.
Beaugrand (1984, p. 175) counterintuitively suggests multiplying proximate categories rather than merging
them during the pre-research phase. On the contrary, he advises the opposite for the decisive phase of the
investigation. It is necessary to reach a compromise between the coarseness of the coding phase and the
precision sought in the results.
5. The requirements indicated above must be respected in each of the dimensions explored by the observer
and not globally in the entire observation device. The nature of the object studied sometimes requires
relating data collected in several dimensions. In this way, the same unit of group activity that learns notions
of physics (Cornetti, et al., 1983, p. 89) has been successively characterized according to four parameters:
«the nature and function of the intervention, the degree of complexity of the object to which it refers, the
existence or not of a confrontation and, finally, the estimation of the cognitive process launched. For each
of these four boxes, the general principles mentioned have been applied.

CHOICE OF UNITS
AND SAMPLING PLAN

An interruption of the continuous flow of observables constitutes a delicate problem that can receive all kinds of
solutions, but which in itself influences the results and their interpretations. It sometimes happens that the problem
is partly addressed by the choice of categories. Indeed, when observation refers to segments or patterns of well-
defined behaviors, the observer signals their presence as they appear without taking into account their duration. It
then only remains to set the beginning and end of each unit, most of the time based on the pauses or discontinuities
noted.
On the contrary, when the researcher is also interested in the duration of each observable, the coding changes. An
observable that lasts for a certain duration will be counted in as many "states" as units it comprises and, if it lasts a
short time, as an "event", according to the distinction made in ethology by Altman (1974).
The researcher may finally be interested in the chain of behaviors. It is then necessary to agree, as Beaugrand (1984,
p. 181) suggests, a time interval beyond which it is clearly a chain and beyond which it is considered to be a new
sequence (Solari, et al. ., 1982).
When observation aims to describe objects that are not directly observable and respond to problems, delimitation is
proposed at several levels. It is then necessary to question the duration of each observation period or temporary
sample. In educational psychology, the duration of a course or an intercourse delimits the unit. When an action
unfolds over one or several days, as happens at work or in social life, the observer repeats and disperses the
observation sessions over this new temporal unit. At a second level you have to decide whether to take into
consideration the meaning, the duration or the combination of the two.

1. In the first case, the unit of meaning can be limited to each of the different ideas included in a group oral
intervention (Cornetti, et al., 1983). Sometimes a unit of communication direction towards the same person
is taken as a milestone. Menez (1983), who is interested in the effects of the quality of teacher-student
integration and the individual cognitive progress of the child, has built a system of communication units
that is supported by the functional units that compose They carry out several exchanges in class. The three
notions of feedback, social integration and openness allow Menez to conceive a hierarchical system of
exchange units:

— The first level includes one-way communications: monologue where one of the interlocutors asks the
question and answers himself.
— The second level is described as interactionist: the teacher addresses the class and one or more students
respond.
— The third level brings together sequences of prolonged exchanges with one or several evaluations.

The units are then regrouped into qualified sequences, depending on whether they are interactionist or not.

4
 2. The unit of duration is widely used. Researchers mark the observables every 15, 30, 60 seconds, or every
few minutes and have 15 to 30 seconds to attribute them to a category. A phenomenon that lasts is then
pointed out several times, unlike the previous procedure, where it was only pointed out once. Can you go
from one coding system to another? As Altmann (1974) suggests, coding in short units (less than the
duration of the shortest behavior) allows us to obtain both the frequency of the intervals in which the
behavior occurs and a fairly reliable estimate of its duration. The difficulty of moving a posteriori from
one coding system to another explains why certain researchers have tried to find a coordination between a
unit of meaning and a unit of duration. Postic (1981, p. 141) asks his observers to previously code each
pedagogical act. But when this act extends beyond thirty seconds, a second encryption is carried out. The
duration reinforces the importance attributed to the unity of meaning.

Sampling techniques

They are the techniques that allow direct observation to solve focusing problems, while compensating, in the case
of long observation, the impossibility of recording the phenomenon exhaustively. Altmann (1974) is the author who
has presented all these techniques in a detailed and critical manner. The three most frequent are:

1. Successive centers (or focalizations) on different individuals (or groups) during a precise period of time.
2. Sampling in sequences: it is observed from beginning to end and in its complexity in a chain of behaviors. It is
difficult to program a ritual in animals or at the beginning of a conflict on the playground. This technique is used
to observe certain sequences of sporting gestures that are frequently repeated in the course of the game. It is
practiced in the field in ethology and in filmed documents.
3. Instant sampling: Through a quick visual scan, the observer notices what an individual (or all individuals) in a
group is doing. Beaugrand (1984, p. 204) gives an example of the work of measuring the distances between
eight fish in an aquarium whose walls are gridded to study their relationship.

domination.

In social psychology and educational psychology, other limitations are added to the sampling procedure of
individuals and events.

For example, the time at which observations are carried out (during the day, week) and even the time of the
observed sequence (beginning or end) is controlled.
Sometimes the nature of the task and the presence of the animators are also controlled.
Finally, the groups or classes that will be taken into consideration are controlled.

The quality of the sampling work provides the researcher with guarantees of being able to give a satisfactory
representation of the global reality, but also of its fluctuations depending on the moments. cough, of the actors or of
the contexts.

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS AND TESTING

OF THE METROLOGICAL QUALITIES OF THE INSTRUMENTS

1. All data processing techniques are applied to data produced by observation according to their nature
(quantitative or qualitative) and according to the characteristics of the problems addressed (study of the
effects of factors, study of the dynamics of chains, approach of the organization of behaviors). The simpler
or more advanced the initial theorization, the clearer the operationalization will be and the more the
observer can be satisfied with simple treatments: frequencies, percentages, calculation of indices (Flanders,
1972).
2. Visualization is essential when trying to account for a chronology in action (Cornetti, et al., 1983) or the
dynamics of a treatment process such as, for example, the one used by Savoyant (1971) to describe the
treatment process. of a control operator in the chemical industry.

4
 3. Validity is a notion that can be grasped in different ways. A first question lies in knowing whether or not
the links between categories reflect the links between the dimensions of the problem studied, otherwise
measured. We have referred to the conditions that must be met to ensure the link between indications and
the signified dimension. But it is also worth trying to know whether or not the regularities determined by
observation are artifacts of method. One may ask about the degree of representativeness of the measures in
relation to the phenomenon studied in its real extent. Measuring the latter or external validity is long and
expensive. It is also logical to be interested in the conditions of the construction of the device and the data
collection: duration of the observation and good sampling distribution.
4. Reliability is a measure of the stability of codings made by the same person at different times. The degree
of familiarity with the instruments and fatigue make this index vary between the beginning and the end of
the work. But reliability also checks the degree of agreement between two observers working at the same
time. The calculation of correlation coefficients can appreciate the degree of similarity between
measurement procedures of two people, at the same time, or even that achieved by a person at different
times of work. Most of the time, reliability is estimated by the degree of agreement between two observers
by calculating the relationship: number of agreements (total agreements + total disagreements). This index
varies between O (no agreement) and 1 (total agreement). Usually, the aim is to obtain an agreement
greater than 0.8. Overall, reliability progresses according to Bickman (1977, p. 283) with sufficient
training, in the use of well-defined broad categories, with weak inference of coding and with the use of a
small number of categories. The only thing left is not to confuse reliability or working agreement between
observers with objectivity or guarantee of truth.

THE OBSERVATION:

A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE AND A TRAINING CHALLENGE

We hope to have shown that observation progressively changes its scientific status . It is constituted as a
trajectory of elaboration of knowledge related not only to some objects, but also to some actions and some human
and social problems that are not directly observable. This evolution causes a diversification of the forms of
description and reestablishes in the human and social sciences previously relaxed links between description,
explanation and understanding.
The formative stake of observation continues to be, on the contrary, insufficiently explored since the attempt by E.
Bick (1964) applied to the training of London paediatricians.
The experience acquired during these last fifteen years in the fields of initial and continuing training leads us to
suggest a more intense and more thoughtful use of observation. It can contribute to the development of a research
attitude useful in the training of all social workers. It can also provide support for new professional intervention
strategies based on direct contact with work environments.

GRADES

1)) The prestigious journal The Behavioral and Brain Sciences dedicated a special issue to him. (3, 1978).
2) When reporting an experience, no one is obliged to justify it with respect to the
natural or supposedly such behaviors. But the most basic morality will demand that one be forced to do so as
soon as the results are theorized, referring no longer to the experimental context, but to the everyday one.
3) It was Francis Jacques who drew my attention to this point.
4) See Verbum , 7 pp. 273 (“L'intercolution”); Connexions , 1986, 47 (“L'intersubjectivité”); Psychologie et
education , 1986, X, 1 (“Decrire et expliquer en Psichologie”).
5) “Au début était l'observation”. Cahier de psychology cognitive , 1982, 2, 2, 166-169.
6) “Normal form” in the sense of ethnomethodology. For a presentation of this notion see P. Bange: “Points de vue
4
 sur l'analyse conversiotennelle”, Drlav. 1983, 29, 1-28: the notion of “formal form” is very close to that of the
“interaction script.” See R. d. Schank R. Q. Abelson, “Scripts, plans and knowledge”, IJACAI, Tifilis, 1975.
7) From a formal point of view, this is a matter of k-isomorphism. See THAPENIS, D.: K-ISOMORPHIMS,
Theory and Uncertainly. Delphes University, Draft, 1975 THAPENIS, D. and PAPAMALAMIS, R.: “Theorica
deil k-Isomorphismi”. Reviste Internazionale delle Matematice Social. 314, 1980, pp. 3-19.