In Anthropological research, Participant Observation is one of the most used methods for data collection particularly when conducting qualitative research. Howard Becker and Blanche Greer define participant observation as an observation of some social event , the events which precede and follow it, and explanations of its meaning by participants and spectators, before, during, and after its occurrence.
In Anthropology, the method of Participant Observation is used to observe participants in a natural setting. Participant Observation is the overarching term for a group of different research approaches, focusing on the five senses. It focuses on personal responses, such as observation, discussion, life history and interviews. This approach provides a sense of authenticity and validity allowing the creation of relationships between the anthropologist doing the research and the subject of the study. It is a way of the researcher immersing themselves in the culture they are studying. It results in a first hand account, giving insight into a particular culture. . An example of this is the work of Paul Stoller in ‘Crossroads: Tracing African Paths on New York City Streets” we can see the uses and limitations of using Participant Observation as a research method.
Participant Observation is a very useful approach however it has its disadvantages. Limits to its efficacy include the fact that there is no standardised system of recording or measuring, so it cannot be repeated in other settings. This means that it can be unrepresentative and that it is very difficult to extrapolate generalisations to apply the findings to other research. The difficulty of making viable generalisations is partly because of the small sample sizes that participant observation tends to demand, which means that it is hard to apply the findings across a wider, perhaps more representative, group. This low level of representativeness is also the result of the individual researcher’s personal interaction with the group being studied – it would be almost impossible for another researcher to exactly repeat the study because each researcher has a particular set of personal and social skills, as well as individual characteristics which will impact on the findings.
This leads to another criticism of the participant observation method. Critics argue that it lacks validity because it lacks objectivity. This is because it is very difficult for the researcher to not develop a biased view of the group they are studying. This subjectivity can lead to the researcher to decide on what is worth recording and what is not worth recording and this, then, depends on the value judgements of the researcher, with the inherent bias that involves. Taken to the extremes, this can result in the researcher “going native”, meaning that they sympathise with the group of respondents they are studying, and therefore fail to record any negative findings, skewing the research to present an overwhelmingly positive – and unrepresentative – image of the group being studied.
Another issue regarding the validity of participant observation is what is known as the Hawthorne effect, where people act differently to how they would normally because they know they are being observed. People might present themselves as they think the researcher would like to observe them rather than as they actually are in real life.
Or similarly, the observers may not accept the researchers within their culture. This was a problem that Stoller encountered during his research in West Africa, Niger in which he had to ask for a permit of study to the President of Republic as well as feeling “categorised” “as a rich white tourist seeking adventure in Africa” this didn’t allow him to participate into the culture and discover an authentic results. This is a problem that Roland Barthes picks up on in a chapter within “Camera Lucida” in which we feel the subjectification we feel ourselves becoming ourselves and becoming a spectator. This may have been the case for the Nigerians who answered the questions falsely or with an attitude that they believed the researcher wanted.
However, This argument is partially countered by the argument that it is extremely difficult to keep up a pretence over a reasonably long period of time, and that people would tend to revert to their usual selves. However, this reversion to ‘usual’ cannot itself be quantified or measured, so it is subjective, as is so much of participant observation.
It is important to recognise that participant observation also does not take into account issues around social structures, such as class, gender and ethnicity. This research focuses on individual responses to questions, their interpretation of what has happened and how they subjectively feel, which ignores the impact of social structures in general and how they might impact on responses. This means that the research that emerges from participant observation is partial at best, although it is hard to distinguish one sole method of research that addresses each and every issue that research throws up.
Another issue with the participant observation method is the manner in which it might be conducted. This can either be in a covert way or in an overt way, both of which present their own issues. If the research is conducted overtly, there is the problem of the Hawthorne effect, already discussed. If conducted covertly, a series of ethical problems arise. The most important of these is perhaps the implicit deception demanded of the process of covert observation. Covert observation deceives the unknowing participants, who have neither agreed to take part in the research, nor know that their responses are being gathered. It might also demand of the researcher that they engage in immoral or illegal acts in order to continue the research, because not to do so might blow their cover and expose their real motivations. What is more, the researcher may not be able to ask the questions or conduct the observations they really want to because such questions and observations may reveal their true identity. Covert observation is not ethical because it does not have the full acknowledgement and agreement of the participants. It may also place the researcher in a risky situation or even the observed in a risky situation.
For example Paul Stoller writes in his ethnography that he had to adopt Robert Desjarlais method of observation due to the lack of acceptance from the participants. Issifi, a West African illegal immigrant in New York City would have been hesitant to partake within the research if a tape recorder would have been used as “many of the vendors have publicly sold ware that violate trademark and copyright statutes” as well as being “undocumented immigrants”. Thus, a limitation of this participant observation is the fact that the researcher had to use modest recordings to collect data.
The participant observation method can also be extremely time consuming, with some researchers taking months or even years over conducting their research. Critics may say that the information that is gathered at the end of this research is not worth the effort and time invested, as that information is inherently subjective. The sheer amount of information that would be gleaned over a protracted research period would also be extremely difficult to filter and fillet into decipherable and useable data. Furthermore, the researcher cannot always be present, because the incident or situation might not be able to be scheduled – it is not always known when something may occur (particularly in the covert observation). Also crucial in any critique of participant observation is the level of skill of the researcher. The researcher is not ever a neutral observer, merely noting down any and all information. The quality of material that will emerge from the participant observation relies on how well the researcher is able to conduct this research. Schensul and LeCompte argue that all observation is mediated through interpretative frames and that it is crucial that the researcher is skilled in interpreting and documenting information. Otherwise, the material that is gathered will be very partial and biased.
With so much emphasis being placed on the researcher, who is at the centre of the participant observation method, a very important question is that of what specifically to research, where to focus in order to extrapolate the most useful and authoritative data. Again, the skill of the researcher is crucial here.
In conclusion, participant observation is an often-used technique and research strategy that provides qualitative, rather than quantitative material for analysis. It has its limitations, as of course does every mode of data collection. What it lacks in quantitative validity, it makes up for in terms of ‘authentic’ data collection, allowing the researcher closer to the objects of study than other techniques.