Observation, Participant

views updated May 29 2018

Observation, Participant


Participant observation was introduced into anthropology at the beginning of the twentieth century when Bronislaw Malinowski (18841942) challenged the traditional paradigm of researchers conducting their studies from the veranda of a missionary station, by taking accounts from individuals rather than observing situations firsthand (Wax and Cassell 1979). He exhorted his colleagues to conduct fieldwork in situ, using participant observation. This technique was used by Malinowski in his studies of the Trobriand Islands (Malinowski 1922, 1935, 1948) to grasp the natives point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world (Malinowski 1922, p. 25, emphasis in original). Participant observation involved a field trip of one or two years, working in the native language as a member of the community being studied. Yet Malinowskis diary illustrates the difficulties in living up to his own demands as he had identified the ideal conditions in which to conduct participant observation, while many problems needed to be resolved in the field (Malinowski 1967).

This observational approach was taken up by many anthropologists in classic studies including E. E. Evans-Pritchard (19021973) on the Nuer (1940) and Margaret Mead (19011978) in New Guinea (1977). Since the 1960s, anthropologists have come home to research their own societies using participant observation to examine urban settings. Harry Wolcott (1973, 1982) studying elementary schools perceived the principal as if he were the chief of a small tribe. Sociologists have taken a similar approach, studying schools (Ball 1981; Burgess 1983), factories (Pollert 1981; Beynon 1973), hospitals (Roth 1963), and new religious movements (Barker 1984, 1987; Zablocki 2001). In sociology, the work of Robert E. Park (18641944) and the Chicago school (Park 1952) used observational methods to study homeless men, street-corner gangs, and delinquents. Like the social anthropologists, the Chicago sociologists were strangers in their own society; they were involved but also detached. An observational approach was also used in community and locality studies in the United States and in Britain (Lynd and Lynd 1929, 1937; Warner and Lunt 1941, 1942; Warner 1959; Frankenberg 1957; Stacey 1960; Kluckhohn 1940).

The hallmarks of participant observation involve the researcher living in the community being studied, participating with individuals, observing and talking with them and interpreting the situations observed. The researcher is the main instrument of data collection, and shares in the lives and activities of those being studied by learning their language and interpreting their behavior (Becker 1958). Participant observation involves examining social behavior as it occurs rather than as it is reported through interviews and questionnaires.

Much has been written on the roles used by the participant observer (Adams and Preiss 1960; Bryman and Burgess 1999; Gans 1999). Participant observation can be formal or informal, concealed or revealed, and can involve complete participation and complete observation. These ideal types have been extended by R. Gold (1958) and Buford Junker (1960) into four major roles: (1) the complete participant, (2) the participant as observer, (3) the observer as participant, and (4) the complete observer.

The complete participant rarely reveals that research is being conducted because the researcher does not wish to influence the conduct of the activities being studied (Festinger et al. 1956; Humphreys 1970; Homan 1978). However, in these circumstances it is difficult for the participant observer to pose questions. This puts the researcher in the role of spy and makes it impossible to distinguish everyday roles from research roles. There is also a danger of going native by failing to question the activities observed (Murray 2003). Because this role infringes the principle of informed consent, it is rarely used. The participant as observer role involves researcher and researched being aware that their relationship stems from research activity (Roy 1970). The researcher is involved in the social situation but also detached (Cohen 2000). This role is most frequently used. The observer as participant consists of the observer making the research purpose clear from the start of the investigation, but there is no intense relationship with those researched (Schatzman and Strauss 1973; Hong and Duff 2002). Finally, the complete observer role entirely removes the researcher from any form of participation so that the purposes of the research are not revealed. All four roles are used interchangeably and can assist or impede data collection.

The role of the participant observer is influenced by his or her membership characteristics (Delaney 1988). Age and gender will influence access to groups (Whyte 1955; Patrick 1973). Gender, ethnicity, and social class will also influence the perspective from which data are collected and in some instances access will be granted to, or withheld from, certain individuals in a social setting (Golde 1970; Wax 1979; Roberts 1981; Easterday et al. 1977; Liebow 1967; Bell 1999). Participant observation also involves selection (Arcury and Quandt 1999). Many participant observers use informants in their studies to take them into social situations, explain the context in which observations occur, and provide a perspective on the social world (Casagrande 1960; Gallmeier 1988). Participant observers need to consider how informants are selected as they influence data collection (Cohen 2000).

Participant observers record data and keep detailed field notes (Lofland 1971, 1974; Schatzman and Strauss 1973; Burgess 1982, 1984). Substantive field notes provide a record of the observations, conversations, and interviews that take place (Humphreys 1970). Methodological field notes illustrate the research process and record the personal impressions of the researcher (Geer 1964; Murray 2003), the impact of roles upon data, the selection of informants and relationships with them, and an analysis of research experience. Analytic field notes record concept development throughout an investigation and contribute to data analysis and the written narrative that constitutes the article or monograph produced (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Glaser 1978; Atkinson 1990; Ashworth 1995).

Several problems have been identified when conducting participant observation. Researchers must always remember that they are located in a social setting for the purposes of social science. They are involved and yet detached. This will help them to overcome the risks of overidentifying with other participants and going native in the setting by no longer questioning the actions and activities that are observed. The researcher needs to collect data that are reliable and valid (Shaffir and Stebbins 1991). Ethical problems are also frequently raised for the researcher through being placed in a marginal role with the result that stress and anxiety have to be managed throughout a study. This is frequently the case in covert studies where the researcher is unable to take notes or to use a range of other methods of research and often violates principles of informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality (Burgess 1989; Lauder 2003). The participant observer therefore needs to manage the study by being aware of the problems encountered in the research process by engaging in critical self-reflection of the research experience (Bourdieu 2003) and by bringing the study to a successful close.

SEE ALSO Anthropology; Evans-Pritchard, E. E.; Malinowski, Bronislaw; Mead, Margaret


Adams, Richard N., and Jack J. Preiss, eds. 1960. Human Organization Research: Field Relations and Techniques. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Arcury, Thomas A., and Sara A. Quandt. 1999. Participant Recruitment for Qualitative Research: A Site-based Approach to Community Research in Complex Societies. Human Organization 58 (2): 128132.

Ashworth, Peter D. 1995. The Meaning of Participation in Participant Observation. Qualitative Health Research 5 (3): 366387.

Atkinson, Paul. 1990. The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality. London: Routledge.

Ball, Stephen. 1981. Beachside Comprehensive: A Case Study of Secondary Schooling. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Barker, Eileen. 1984. The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: Blackwell.

Barker, Eileen. 1987. Brahmins Dont Eat Mushrooms: Participant Observation and the New Religions. LSE Quarterly 1 (2): 127152.

Becker, Howard S. 1958. Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation. American Sociological Review 23 (6): 652660.

Bell, E. 1999. The Negotiation of a Working Role in Organisational Ethnography. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2 (1): 1737.

Beynon, Huw. 1973. Working for Ford. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2003. Participant Objectivation. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9: 281294.

Bryman, Alan, and Robert G. Burgess, eds. 1999. Qualitative Research. 4 vols. London: Sage.

Burgess, Robert G., ed. 1982. Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Allen and Unwin.

Burgess, Robert G. 1983. Experiencing Comprehensive Education: A Study of Bishop McGregor School. London: Methuen.

Burgess, Robert G. 1984. In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Allen and Unwin.

Burgess, Robert G., ed. 1989. The Ethics of Educational Research. London: Falmer.

Cohen, Jeffrey H. 2000. Problems in the Field: Participant Observation and the Assumption of Neutrality. Field Methods 12 (4): 316333.

Delaney, Carol. 1988. Participant Observation: The Razors Edge. Dialectical Anthropology 13: 291300.

Easterday, Lois, et al. 1977. The Making of a Female Researcher: Role Problems in Field Work. Urban Life 6 (3): 333348.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Festinger, Leon, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter. 1956. When Prophecy Fails. New York: Harper.

Frankenberg, Ronald. 1957. Village on the Border: Social Study of Religion, Politics, and Football in a North Wales Community. London: Cohen and West.

Gallmeier, Charles P. 1988. Methodological Issues in Qualitative Sport Research: Participant Observation among Hockey Players. Sociological Spectrum 8: 213235.

Gans, Herbert J. 1999. Participant Observation in the Era of Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540548.

Geer, Blanche. 1964. First Days in the Field. In Sociologists at Work: Essays on the Craft of Social Research, ed. Phillip Hammond, 322344. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gold, R. 1958. Roles in Sociological Field Observation. Social Forces 36 (3): 217223.

Golde, Peggy, ed. 1970. Women in the Field: Anthropological Experiences. Chicago: Aldine.

Homan, Roger. 1978. Interpersonal Communication in Pentecostal Meetings. Sociological Review 26 (3): 499518.

Hong, Lawrence K., and Robert W. Duff. 2002. Modulated Participant-Observation: Managing the Dilemma of Distance in Field Research. Field Methods 14 (2): 190196.

Humphreys, Laud. 1970. The Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. London: Duckworth.

Junker, Buford H. 1960. Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kluckhohn, Florence R. 1940. The Participant Observer Technique in Small Communities. American Journal of Sociology 46 (3): 331343.

Lauder, Matthew A. 2003. Covert Participant Observation of a Deviant Community: Justifying the Use of Deception. Journal of Contemporary Religion 18 (2): 185196.

Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tallys Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little, Brown.

Lofland, John. 1971. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. New York: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John. 1974. Analyzing Qualitative Data: First Person Accounts. American Sociologist 9 (3): 101111.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen M. Lynd. 1929. Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture. New York: Harcourt.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen M. Lynd. 1937. Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts. New York: Harcourt.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands. 2 vols. London: Allen and Unwin.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1948. Magic, Science, and Religion, and Other Essays, ed. Robert Redfield. Boston: Beacon.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1967. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. Trans. Norbert Guterman. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mead, Margaret. 1977. Letters from the Field, 19251975. New York: Harper.

Murray, Susan B. 2003. A Spy, a Shill, a Go-between, or a Sociologist: Unveiling the Observer in Participant Observer. Qualitative Research 3 (3): 377395.

Park, Robert E. 1952. The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behaviour in the Urban Environment. In Human Communities: The City and Human Ecology, 1351. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Patrick, James. 1973. A Glasgow Gang Observed. London: Eyre Methuen.

Pollert, Anna. 1981. Girls, Wives, Factory Lives. London: Macmillan.

Roberts, Helen, ed. 1981. Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Roth, Julius A. 1963. Timetables: Structuring the Passage of Time in Hospital Treatment and Other Careers. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Roy, Donald. 1970. The Study of Southern Labour Union Organising Campaigns. In Pathways to Data: Field Methods for Studying Ongoing Social Organizations, ed. Robert Habenstein, 216244. Chicago: Aldine.

Schatzman, Leonard, and Anselm L. Strauss. 1973. Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shaffir, William B., and Robert A. Stebbins, eds. 1991. Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stacey, Margaret. 1960. Tradition and Change: A Study of Banbury. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Warner, W. Lloyd. 1959. The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt. 1941. The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt. 1942. The Status System of a Modern Community. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wax, Rosalie H. 1979. Gender and Age in Fieldwork and Fieldwork Education: No Good Thing Is Done by Any Man Alone. Social Problems 26 (5): 509522.

Whyte, William F. 1955. Street Corner Society. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolcott, Harry. 1973. The Man in the Principals Office: An Ethnography. New York: Holt.

Wolcott, Harry. 1982. Mirrors, Models, and Monitors: Educator Adaptations of the Ethnographic Innovation. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action, ed. George Spindler, 6895. New York: Holt.

Zablocki, Benjamin. 2001. Vulnerability and Objectivity in the Participant Observation of the Sacred. Toward Reflexive Ethnography: Participating, Observing, Narrating 9: 223245.

Robert G. Burgess

participant observation

views updated May 29 2018

participant observation A major research strategy which aims to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given area of study (such as a religious, occupational, or deviant group) through an intensive involvement with people in their natural environment. The method originated in the fieldwork of social anthropologists and in the urban research of the Chicago School. John Lofland's study of the Moonies in Doomsday Cult (1966), Laud Humphreys's study of homosexuals in Tearoom Trade (1970), and William Foote Whyte 's study of the gang (Street Corner Society, 1955) are classic exemplars. Such research usually involves a range of methods (all of which are separately discussed elsewhere in this dictionary): informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of the personal documents produced within the group, self-analysis, and life-histories. Thus, although the method is usually characterized as qualitative research, it can (and often does) include quantitative dimensions.

The central methodological problem of such research is balancing adequate subjectivity with adequate objectivity. Since a major aim of participant observation is to enter the subjective worlds of those studied, and to see these worlds from their point of view (a method akin to the notion of understanding or Verstehen), the problem of adequate subjectivity is posed directly: how can researchers know that they are accurately representing the point of view of the other, rather than imposing their own views upon the research subject? On the other hand, simply to stay with the subject's own view may risk the problem of conversion and ‘going native’, thus being able to see the world only from the point of view of the research subject or subjects. Here the problem of maintaining adequate objectivity is posed: namely, that of maintaining enough distance to be able to locate the subject's view in a wider theoretical and social context. Participant observers are forever trapped in this dilemma: too much detachment weakens the insights that participant observation brings, but too much involvement will render the data of questionable value for social science. The most comprehensive discussion of these issues is T. S. Bruyn's The Human Perspective in Sociology (1966).

Participant observation may take several forms. In a classic article on ‘Roles in Sociological Field Observation’ (in the journal Social Forces, 1958)
, Raymond L. Gold distinguishes four roles that may be adopted within such research. They are ranged along a continuum of involvement, from complete participant through participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant, to complete observer. This taxonomy again captures the subjectivity versus objectivity dilemma: the first position approaches ‘going native’ whereas the last may well be too distant and uninvolved to generate insights into the subjective aspects of behaviour. See also COVERT OBSERVATION; OVERT PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION.