Conducting a participant observation study

Conducting a participant observation study

1. Sociologists face two main issues when conducting a participant observation study: getting in, staying in, and getting out of the group being studied, and whether to use overt or covert observation.

2. To do the study, the researcher must first gain entry to the group they wish to study. Some groups are easier to enter than others; joining a group of football supporters would be much easier than joining a criminal gang. Making the initial contact with the group may depend on personal skills, having the right connections, or even chance: Polsky found his talent as a pool-player was useful in gaining him entry into the world of poolroom hustling, Patrick found that he was able to join a gang due to his youthful looks and his past history with one of the members, and Fairhurst was hospitalised for back pain and used the opportunity to conduct a study on being a patient.

   • To gain entry to a group, the researcher must win their trust and acceptance. Forming a bond with a key individual is often useful, as Thornton did in her study of clubbing and the rave scene. Sometimes, however, characteristics of the researcher may be an obstacle and cause suspicion. Thornton found that, as a 23-year-old foreigner, members of the group did not trust her intentions. Having said that, such barriers can be overcome. Liebow, a white researcher, managed to gain entry to a black gang in Washington DC. Some researchers go to remarkable lengths to gain acceptance, but arguably none more so than Griffin. Griffin, who was white, used medication and sun lap treatment to change his skin colour and pass as black. He then travelled around the southern America, experiencing the impact of racism first-hand. At the time of his research, public amenities such as schools, cafes, hotels and transport were all segregated, and black people faced discrimination on a daily basis.
     • ‘Getting in’ conveys what role the research should take. It should be one that doesn’t disrupt the group’s normal patterns, but does offer a good vantage point from which they can make accurate observations. Whyte succeeded in achieving both of these aims by refusing all leadership roles, with the one exception of secretary of the community club, a position which allowed him to take ample notes under the guise of taking the minutes of meetings. However, it’s not always possible to take a role that is both unobtrusive and also a good vantage point.

3. Once accepted, the researcher must remain in role in order to stay in the group and continue the study. This raises a key problem for the observer: having to be both involved in the group in order to understand it fully, and at the same time remain detached from the group in order to remain objective and unbiased. One danger of staying in the group is becoming over-invested. This is often referred to as ‘going native’. By over-identifying with the group, the researcher becomes biased. If this happens, they will no longer be an objective observer, instead they will be a true member of the group. For example, in his study of the Amsterdam police, Punch found that in striving to be accepted by the tight-knit patrol group he was observing, he over-identified with them, and even began acting like a policeman himself.

   • On the other hand, the researcher may preserve their detachment so as to avoid bias, but by remaining detached they risk not truly understanding the events the observe. Being able to find a middle ground between these two possibilities is very difficult. A further problem of remaining in the group is that the more time the researcher spends with the group, the more normal the group’s behaviour will become to them. After a while, the researcher may cease to notice unusual behaviour. Following his research, Whyte said: “I started as a non-participating observer, and ended as a non-observing participant.”

4. Getting out of the group when the study finishes presents fewer problems than getting in and staying in. If need be, the researcher can simply leave. This was the way Patrick’s research concluded; sickened by the violence he witnessed when studying a gang, he abandoned the study abruptly. Other researchers leave more gracefully, especially if their observation was overt. Nonetheless, the research may have created close bonds with the subjects, and leaving can be difficult.

   • Re-entering one’s normal world may also prove difficult. Upon returning to Harvard University, Whyte found he was tongue-tied and unable to effectively communicate with fellow academics. This problem is further emphasised when the research is conducted over time, with multiple ‘crossings’ between the two worlds.
     • Researchers also occasionally find that loyalty to subjects prevents them from fully disclosing all collected data. Fear that the subjects, who they may come to view in a sympathetic light, may be damaged by the publication of their research can cause them to conceal data, and such concealment will reduce the validity of the study.

5. Sociologists must decide whether to use overt or covert observation. Most opt for overt, where the subjects of the observation are aware of the researcher’s true identity and purpose and have consented to being observed. Overt observation has several advantages - e.g. it avoids the ethical problem of obtaining information by deceit, and the issues that arise when a covert researcher is expected to participate in criminal activities - but also has many disadvantages - e.g. it risks creating the Hawthorne Effect; those who are aware that they’re being observed begin to behave differently as a result, undermining the validity of the data.

   • Because of the disadvantages of using overt observation, some sociologists opt for covert observation. However, the use of covert observation raises several practical and ethical issues. The main practical advantage of covert observation is that it reduces the risk of altering behaviour, and furthermore, sometimes it is the only way to obtain valid information. This is particularly true where people are engaged in activities that they’d rather keep secret. If subjects are aware they are being observed, they may change or conceal their behaviour. The main advantage of observation – viewing people behaving in the natural way – would thus be lost.
     • However, covert observations also have disadvantages. First, the researcher is required to keep up an act, often needing to know detailed information about the group’s way of life before even joining it. Furthermore, a trivial mistake may reveal the researcher’s true identity. Discovery would likely bring the research to an abrupt end and may even lead to physical harm. Secondly, the sociologist can’t take notes openly, having to rely on memory and the opportunity to write down observations in secret. Finally, although pretending to be an insider reduces the risk of the Hawthorne Effect, the addition of a new member can still alter the group’s dynamics, thus reducing validity. Covert participant observation raises serious ethical issues for researchers. These issues often conflict with the practical advantages of covert observation, and so the researcher must decide if the pros outweigh the cons.