Observations

## Overview

Observations are built on the assumption that seeing how people behave is more valid than asking how people would behave. An observation can be either

* non-participant or participant;
* covert or overt

Please note that the observation method in general share the following problems (which will not be repeated again, though relevant throughout this page)

* not replicable, thus might not be reliable
* involves selection, interpretation and reconstruction of ideas and events, which might affect the validity
* the **Hawthorne/observer effect** (people behave less naturally when they know they're being observed) is present in overt observations, however, if a participant from a covert observation becomes suspicious about the researcher's identity, the Hawthorne effect will emerge.

## Non-participant observation

The researcher observes the research subject without participating in the behaviour being studied. Usually the subject is unaware of being observed. Parke&Griffiths (2002) "Non-participant observation usually relies on the researcher being unknown to the group under study...[they] can study a situation in its natural setting without altering that setting"

Strengths

* Studies behaviour in a natural setting, so likely to be valid
* Access to people who are unwilling to be studied, e.g. those who engage in illegal, secret or personally embarrassing behaviours

Limitations

* Might fail to capture depth, richness and intimate details of behaviour
* Unethical to observe/study people without their consent (if covert)

## Participant observation

The researcher takes part in the behaviour being studied. Downes&Rock (2003) "the claim social behaviour cannot be understood unless it is personally experienced". It aims to achieve **verstehen** (the researcher's ability to see things from the subject's viewpoint/empathy)

Strengths

* A '360-degree' view: the researcher can witness and experience what people actually do
* (It is believed to be) able to achieve verstehen
* Close access to groups which are difficult/impossible to be studied using other methods, e.g. most gang members would not care to respond to questionnaires/interviews.

Limitations

* Lots of time, effort and money are required
* Might be hard to get sponsorship to gain access to certain groups
* Risk of 'going native' if the researcher becomes too involved
* It's impossible to study 'everyone at all times and locations', thus it becomes 'a matter of personal choice as to what data are recorded, collected and observed' (Parke&Griffiths)
* Difficult to balance the roles as a researcher and as a participant
* The characteristics of the researcher must match those being observed, e.g. a man cannot participant-observe a group of nuns

An example of studies using covert observation is Venkatesh's 2009 study *Gang Leader for a Day.*

## Overt observation

The research subjects are aware of being observed.

Critiques:

* More ethical than covert observations since permission is asked
* The subjects might hold back certain aspects of their normal behaviour which they don't want the researcher to see. Validity might be affected in this way

## Covert observation

The research subjects are unaware of being observed.

Critiques:

* Difficult to get in/out if the group is exclusive to the public
* Risk of exposure, which might be dangerous to the researcher
* Cannot take notes, ask too many questions or openly record conversations
* Ethical concerns

An example of studies using covert observation is Laud Humphrey's 1970 study *Tea Room Trade*.

## Examples of research

### Overt participant:

Learning to Labour - Paul Willis

The Making of a Moonie - Eileen Barker