For example, with James Patrick’s study of a Glaswegian Gang, he was suspected of holding back in fights and being reluctant to participate in some of the activities of the Gang, and this was pointed out by a member of the gang, but thankfully, the leader of the Gang stood up for Patrick, because he was the only one who actually knew that the gang was being studied. Ethical Issues are also a problem, because if the researcher goes in really deep with the group, then they may have to illegal or immoral activities, which may go against the researcher’s own values. The actual proof of the study is also a problem because you have no way of replicating the exact study, and so have no way of knowing if the research is true or not. This kind of study is also on too small a scale, and so you cannot repeat it again. Also, due to the micro-ness of it, you cannot make generalisations for the whole population based on one group, or if you were studying gangs and their motives for committing crimes or something like that, you can’t assume that all other gangs will have the same motives.
And finally, most researchers like to study the less powerful groups in society, and there has been a debate over whether this is right or not because we can possibly miss the important issues that are going on.
However, there are some advantages to using this method, and so we cannot just assume that all sociologists see this as a bad method to use;
By joining a certain group, the sociologist would be able to gain knowledge of certain subjects from that group’s point of view, and they would be able to fully understand the sorts of things that were going on, and gaining different perspectives.
Also, you can generate new ideas from being in a new group, and this can lead you to new perspectives and ideas.
You also get more of the truth and honesty if you are doing overt participant observation, so you can quite easily prove or disprove any hypotheses you have come up with. You are also to dig deeper into the group so to speak, because if you are a part of the group, then you can uncover issues that may normally remain hidden or are secretive. Participant observation is also dynamic because if you are with a group over time, you understand how they work and how attitudes and behaviour change over time. Lastly, you can dig deeper into areas that you aren’t typically able to reach, for example, with young offenders or religious groups.
It is, however, simplistic to assume that participant observation will automatically produce valid results, as there are many threats to this validity;
Interpretivists place great importance on an observer not disturbing the normal social routine of a group, but the presence of an observer is more likely than not to affect peoples’ behaviour. This is particularly a problem with overt observation, because if the group knows that they are being observed, then they are quite likely to change their behaviour. Although covert observation may make this less likely, there is still the chance of a group changing their behaviour due to the fact that they have a new member. The observer may also be affected by the group and their activities, and whether or not they are influenced by the group is also a problem, because it could make it difficult when the researcher has to write their findings down, and so the data may be incorrect or even biased, and so is not valid.
Ultimately however, the observer’s information is limited by what they see and how they may interpret it, because how can they be certain that they have seen events in the same way that the group has, or if they understand it form the group’s point of view? If these meanings have indeed been misinterpreted, then the validity of the data will be reduced.
The Hawthorne effect has also cropped up in this debate, because it too can raise questions about the validity of the data; The Hawthorn Effect is where the participants or subjects in research projects, instead of acting naturally, try to please the researcher by giving her the results she is looking for. It is named after The GE Corporation in Hawthorn, Ohio. It is also known as subject or response bias. Single blind control - is where the researcher or the participant does not know the purpose of the experiment. When the researcher is 'blind' this controls for the Rosenthal Effect or researcher bias; i.e. seeing what you want to see rather than what is there.
There are also ethical and practical issues with Participant Observation because if the observer hides their real purpose for joining a group, then questions can be raised over whether or not it is ethical to study and observe a group without them knowing that you are doing it.
Aswell as being possibly unethical, it can also be dangerous, because if the group were to find out that they were being observed, then they may not be happy to give their consent about something like this, and the researcher could be placed in a dangerous situation because people may feel that they have been deliberately mislead and lied to, and so the data may not be valid because it isn’t being gotten with consent of the subjects being studied.
Finally, there are also practical problems with participant observation in general because the observer may often be tired or feel stressful at the end of a long day, and so they may not want to or even have time to write anything down, and even if they do, it may be wrong or changed, discerning it’s reliability and validity.
In conclusion to the points in this essay, I think that Participant Observation may lack sometimes in the reliability and validity of it, but if you have to study the more in depth issues like Crime and illegal activities, then Covert Observation may be the only way to get the data that you are looking for because you can’t really go in depth if they know that you are observing them, but if they don’t suspect that you are doling something like that, then you have a better chance of getting the data that you are looking to get.
SAMANTHA JONES
12.5.
SOCIOLOGY
SHELLY DAVIS
