Mike Richardson

Assess the usefulness of participant observation to research society

There are a number of types of observation. A participant observation is when the researcher
actively involves themselves with the group being studied whereas a non-participant observation is
when the researcher observes a group without taking part. These observations can either be overt
where the researcher makes their true identity and purpose clear or on the other hand they can be
covert where the real purpose is kept secret. It must be noted that an observation can be semi overt
or semi covert.

There are pros and cons to both overt and covert observations. An overt observation avoids ethical
issues such as deceit and taking part in activities seen as immoral. It also allows the researcher to
openly take notes, in theory this would produce more valid research. However on the other hand
the research may not be as valid because the group may restrict the researcher from seeing
everything. The Hawthorne effect might also be created as because people know they are being
observed they may act different producing not true to the picture results. The advantages of covert
observations are that they reduce the risk of people behaving differently. This is likely to produce a
set of more valid data. Conversely it does have practical issues. The researcher has to keep up an act
and failure to do so could lead to physical violence when dealing with deviant groups. In this case it
is also harder to make notes as this will again lead you to be caught. This may affect the validity of
the work done.

Once decided whether to go covert or overt, the researcher must choose between a participant
observation and a non-participant observation. A Participant Observation is a method of data
collection that takes advantage of the human ability to empathise. It is favoured by interpretivists as
the data gathered is usually qualitative, and the research is regularly low in reliability. It is also higher
in validity as the information is shared on the basis of trust. To carry out a participant observation
you firstly must get into the group by making contact through your personal skills, having the right
connections or even by chance. Secondly you have to earn the trust and acceptance of the group.
Once this is done you must adopt a role that does not disrupt normal patterns and offers a good
vantage point in which you can make your observations. As a researcher you must stay in the group
for as long as it takes you to complete your study. This causes problems and it will cost more money
the longer you stay I for as well as the fact that you may start to become objective and not
subjective. Finally the researcher must get out of the group.
The strengths of Participant observations are that it offers very valid research. Instead of other
methods such as interviews where the study group could exaggerate and the information is not
always accurate, observations can obtain a rich source of qualitative data that provides a picture of
how they really live. A researcher also gets to experience the feelings and emotions of the group
rather than just words. Participant observations allow the researcher to gain empathy through
personal experiences as they are putting themselves in somebody elses shoes , you therefore
become more able to tell the story of the subculture that was previously foreign to you. Participant
observations are also more flexible as you do not have to go in with one set hypothesis. This is the
situation found in William Whyte's study of a street corner gang in Boston. He became a member of
their gang, and learnt that asking questions often resulted in the subjects not opening up to him.
Instead he listened, and found out more that way than if they had answered his questions. This
shows how useful participant observation is to sociologists, as information can be discovered that
would never have occurred to them in another form of research. You do not have to come up with a
set of pre-set questions like you would for a survey as the fact that you are actively involved in the
group means you can direction and follow them up there and then. There are also practical
Mike Richardson

advantages. Participant observations are the key method needed to study a group of criminal acts.
This is especially the case for covert as otherwise the group will not open up to strangers asking
questions. This is risky however as getting discovered would not only cause trouble, but would also
waste a lot of time and money spent on the observation.
Nevertheless there are disadvantages. One is the time required as participant observations are
usually carried out by just one person. Also the researcher may be getting themselves into illegal or
dangerous activities. For example Donal Macintyre put himself at risk when he studied a group of
football hooligans. He had to ensure he looked and acted like the others by smoking and getting a
tattoo. This process was time consuming but also led to the arrest of several of the men, and
exposed this behaviour. However, he put himself at great danger, as he could have been found out
at any time. There is also the potential of psychological change to who you are. Physiological
damage can also take place to the people you are researching if you use covert methods and deceit
them. This is especially the case amongst vulnerable groups such as children. Personal characteristics
may also restrict what kinds of groups can be studied. For example certain genders are welcomed
more than others into different societies. Women may find it hard to integrate and pass the
gatekeeper of a gang of male criminals as she might be seen as inferior. Also researchers could be
kept at bay because of their ethnicity, this will make it difficult to gain acceptance. This is not a
problem when carrying out non-participant observations. Participant observations are also only
focusing on one small sample, although it may be useful to get an insight into this sample, it is hard
to make generalisations about the wider population. They are therefore not very representative. It
would also be hard to get the same results if done again. This is because human beings naturally act
different each day depending on their environment. It can also be argued that the longer the
researcher stays with the group; it becomes increasingly harder to remain objective. This is called
going native and a one- sided set of results is produced. This is also a waste of money as the cost
continuously increases over time. Positivists believe that in the end the qualitative data produced is
subjective as it only comes from the point of view of the observer who manipulates the facts in
order to fit their personal prejudices. It can be argued that the data is not that valid due to the
Hawthorne effect. This is where subjects act differently due to the presence of an observer.
However this is only the case in an overt observation.

Overall participant observations are better for gaining valid results over non participant observations
but it is ethically questionable and faces practical problems in maintaining ones cover.