Parkers participant observation describes The Boys everyday lives but what else does it do? Critically consider the impact of the study and its relevance to theory, methodology, and policy.
Parker's participant observation describes 'The Boys' everyday lives but what else does it do? Critically consider the impact of the study and it's relevance to theory, methodology, and policy.
In this essay I will be looking at the observational study carried out by Howard Parker, 'A View from the Boys' (1947). In this study Parker covertly participated to find out about the lives of a gang of adolescent boys from Liverpool.
The study was looking into the sub-culture aspect of crime and deviance with a strong hold of Functionalism. Both the Functionalist and the sub-culture theories stress the learning of norms and values are crucial to the relation to crime committed. The sub-culture in Parker's study focused on the behaviour and beliefs of the boys that he studied that differentiated them from the public generally. The sub-culture in a 'View from the Boys' came about due to the boys being in a gang and separating themselves from the rest of the public and engaging themselves in criminal behaviour.
It is possible to see that it would have been difficult for Parker to have gained access to the group. This is a difficult aspect of participant observation as the observer cannot go into a group without them being curious, which would affect their behaviour and would question the validity of the study. However, in Parkers case he was easily able to gain access as he had met some of the boys previously at a country holiday centre set up for Liverpool's deprived children.
In addition to this it was necessary that Parker would fit in with the boys. In saying this we would have to accept the fact that a female researcher wouldn't have been able to fit in with the 'boys'. According to Parker, 'If I had not been young, hairy, boozy, willing to keep long hours and accept permissive standards, the liaison would never have worked'.
The study carried out by Parker has always been given great weight as it looks closely at participation observation and the effects that it may have. Throughout the study Parker deliberately kept his identity hidden as he knew that if he allowed his identity to be known then the boys might not accept him as part of the group and wouldn't trust him. He couldn't allow this to happen as he wanted the boys to behave the way that would under normal circumstances and only then would he be able to get any real results.
However, as Parker became 'one' of the boys the validity of the study was in question as it is possible to see that in the many times throughout the study he did stop the boys from committing crimes and therefore affecting the study. Due to his involvement in the gang he did many a times change their behaviour, not due to his presence but because of his actions as part of the gang. For example, Parker occasionally stepped in when the gang members would try to steal cars and would stop them. At one point, he even provided legal advice to gang members charged with theft.
It has been criticised that covert participation studies were not actually ethical as many times the researcher would have to act in a way that would be illegal or unethical. However, when Parker did engage in criminal behaviour, for example receiving stolen goods, he claimed that this involvement was necessary for the gang to carry on trusting him and accepting him into their activities on more of a daily basis.
It is seen by many that participation observation is the method of anthropology that is 'concerned with all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity.'1 This has been used in a wide range of sociological studies already as when the researcher has 'become part of a daily round, learning languages and meanings, rules of impersonal...and in short, living the life of the people under study.' (Hughes, 1976).
Analysing Parkers study it is possible to see that it allowed sociologists to take a closer look at the way that covert participant observation was carried out ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
It is seen by many that participation observation is the method of anthropology that is 'concerned with all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity.'1 This has been used in a wide range of sociological studies already as when the researcher has 'become part of a daily round, learning languages and meanings, rules of impersonal...and in short, living the life of the people under study.' (Hughes, 1976).
Analysing Parkers study it is possible to see that it allowed sociologists to take a closer look at the way that covert participant observation was carried out and the results that came from it. It could be that at the time that Parker set out to look at the behaviour of the boys from Liverpool he also gave sociologists a chance to look at the advantages and disadvantages of participant observation.
Parker argues that it would be best to observe the gang in their natural surroundings where they would behave as they normally would, '...because by visiting the deviants in prison, borstal and other 'human zoos' or by cornering them in classrooms to answer questionnaires, the sociologist misses meeting them as people in their normal society'. This would be seen to be the major factor that sociologist would see when conducting a covert participant observation.
Parkers' statement has been supported by many other researchers and sociologists as it can be seen that in 'Understanding Deviance', the authors2 were in agreement with participant observation. They claimed that 'social behaviour cannot be understood unless it is personally experienced...Sociologists who lean on external accounts and objective evidence can have no appreciation of why people act.'
Parker, as he carried out his study was consistent that he was receiving the highest standard of information about the boy's everyday lives as he was part of it. He looked at the norms and values that the boys held for themselves and how this led them to behave in a certain way. This gave Parker an insight to the gang behaviour and allowed him to see the activities of a deviant sub-culture.
Parker saw how the boy's were seen as being working class delinquents and therefore accepted this and made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. While he was with the boys he observed how they would steal car radios and sell them on. This would profit them as they would make money in a way that they were happy with. This, Merton, would claim would be done when they are denied access to the goals that society has set out for them, (which would mainly be materialistic) and they would develop substitute means to satisfy their needs.
Walter Miller3 also uses working class boys who belong to a deviant sub-culture to argue that the social context that they are from is what leads them to adopt an exaggerated form of materialistic concerns. Miller believed that values are passed down from one generation to the next.
Miller argued that there were a certain set of concerns that set the behaviour that led the young to delinquency. Concerns such as wanting to appear tough, smart, and cause trouble were all seen to be true as Parker continued his study and found that the boys walked around town as though they did own the place.
Miller did try, similarly to Parker; explain male, working class and youthful deviance. They both agreed that deviance was the result of a collective response and therefore recognised the social origins of deviance, simply by focusing on the socio-cultural factors.
However, if looking at Parkers participant observation it is seen that these boys actually turned to crime due to high unemployment, and a lack of good education for them to believe that they may have a chance to have a good job. As it can be seen in Roundhouse that the community was made up of large families that were knit up together by blood and marriage, it is possible to see that there was a certain element of social solidarity where the boy's future was concerned. All the families in the Roundhouse accepted the fact that the boys were not going to get a good job and this normalised criminality.
This was giving a clear account of what actually took place in the Liverpool slums, rather then relying on the media or stereotypical views that were bought about the 'rough' area from where the boy's were from. Parker showed that there was an understanding in the neighbourhood and there was tolerance to some activities. For example, if the boy's stole something the neighbours wouldn't be offended as long as it wasn't from any members of the estate. This allowed there to be a very stable, solid community orientated approach to family life.
By focusing on the working class males of Liverpool, not only did Parker study their behaviour but it could also be seen that he saw that their norms and values were completely different from the upper and middle classes. This came as a disadvantage to the boy's as it was the upper and middle class that determined what was to be seen as criminal behaviour as they weren't used to the lifestyle of the boy's and they did, to some extent have control over the making and defining of new legislations that were to be passed on anti-social behaviours.
This can be seen in a more contemporary example of delinquent sub-cultural theory as it was believed4 could be seen through Parkers study on the boys. They looked at the boys and drew the conclusion that the boy's, '...work hard to maintain some freedom in their daily lives... they are fatalistic about their lives in general and especially the economic and political influences on them (fate), over which they believed they have no control.'
When Parker started his study he could have been criticised as he could have simply believed the labels that the boy's were given as criminals and trouble makers. However, Parker started afresh and chose to ignore the labels given to the boy's and judged them for what they were as individuals, ignoring any external thoughts on the boy's and their behaviour. This could be seen as an advantage because Parker didn't start the study biased and was purely looking at the boy's everyday lives rather then judging them for their actions.
This did raise some ethical issues as Parker was constantly criticised because he hid his real identity from the boy's and engaged in some criminal behaviour although it was recognised that Parker himself did try to avoid the criminal behaviour as best as he could without arousing any suspicions. He argued that, he had to keep his identity hidden to see the 'real' everyday lives of the boys. If the boy's knew that he was studying them they might not have accepted them as part of their group and certainly wouldn't have included Parker in their criminal activities as they wouldn't feel that they could trust him.
Parker participating in the boy's activities did bring about many sociological research problems as it was debated that he affected the boy's behaviour by stopping them from committing crimes and by helping them when they were caught. This raised an issue to see whether the study was genuine after all.
Howard Becker, (1963) supported Parker by claiming that the researcher will be blamed regardless of which side they decide to take. So if the Parker was to take side's he would be accused of one-sided or even a distorted view of the argument, whilst at the same time it is difficult to see the situation from both sides simultaneously.
The fact that Parker was involved in the boy's activities and couldn't make notes on what was happening the moment it happened was hugely criticised. This brought about a problem of reliability and whether he had actually put in the information as it was or if he was biased because he now knew the boy's and would feel empathy for them and probably even understand why they did what they did.
Alternatively, Parker debated that he was actually right in carrying out the study without allowing his true identity to be known as he received loyalty from the gang and managed to retrieve a rich source of high-quality information which wouldn't have been possible had the gang not trusted him or knew his identity as a researcher.
By participating in the activities that took place whilst he was studying the boy's he was at first hand experiencing all the social pressures that the boys felt and could see what they were influenced by and why. This gave Parker an insight to the gang and their individual behaviours and helped him to develop a formulate hypothesis that explained why the gang behaved as they did.
An article was written on the crimes committed by youth and looked at explaining the difference between a group of youths and a gang of youths. This also looked at an area which Parker had not looked into: ethnic minorities committing crimes. 'Visible minority youths face discrimination in many areas of their lives and as a result, experience blocked opportunities in the areas of schooling and employments. In the face of this, gangs have more appeal.5' Although Parker didn't look at the ethnic minorities and only focused on white working class boys, it is possible by looking at this article that despite the race of the youths, the reason why they turn to crime would be due to schooling.
Due to the flexible approach of a covert participation observation research it can be difficult for the researcher to foresee any problems that might occur once in the study. So the researcher of such a study would have to react to events and follow leads that they might not have though of beforehand. This did happen to Parker many times as he was put in awkward situations where the boy's wanted to engage in criminal behaviour and wanted him to participate.
On the other hand, the fact that the researcher has to participate in events that were unforeseen to them before the study could be a help to them as they could redefine potential personal pre-conceptions through experiencing things with the group under study. This way the researcher could produce a detailed of comprehensive information about the group that could be vital to understand their behaviour.
Due to Parker being committed to the study and his willingness to put in the long hours that were required he was able to look at the details of the group in great length. Nevertheless, this point could be used to criticise Parker as he spent a large amount of time with only one particular deviant group so it would be impossible to replicate his study. Also, it would be hard to generalise the information to one study from the nest as not all areas were similar to the Roundhouse where working class communities accepted that the younger generation had turned to crime.
Overall, looking at Parkers study it is possible to see that he was successful in the sense that observed in great detail the lives of boy's from a deviant sub-culture. The study looked at the lifestyle of the gang and the study was very influential as it focused on what led the boy's to turn to criminal activities and therefore helped the government to introduce new policies that helped juvenile delinquency and council housing.
The study helped to look at the social benefits that could be achieved in areas such as the Roundhouse, and also changes were made to try and decrease crime by enforcing anti-social behaviour laws on areas. The criminal justice system looked at and understood the reasons that the boy's behaved the way that they did and tried to resolve these problems.
Parker, although criticised for the study did manage to defend his position as a covert participant observer by fitting in with the gang that he would have not been able to do had he told them his real identity. The study helped to look at working class males in a new light as their actions and behaviours were explained by Parker.
Additionally the study looked at participation observation and it was debatable whether it should have been used as it was against ethics. The study allowed a closer and more analytic look at the reasons for and against participation observation. However, as Parker argued, it would have been impossible to carry out the study in any other circumstance.
Word Count: 2642
Bibliography:
Hendrey and Moore, (1982). 'Teach Yourself Sociology.' Work of Howard Parker, quote used.
Parker, H. (1974). View From The Boys: a sociology of down-town adolescents. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.
Websites used:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/perceptions_of_crime/myth_youth.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Articles used:
Article 'Lower Class Cultures as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency,' 1962.
Article: 'Dispelling Myths about Youth Violence,' by Mark Totten, The Ottawa Citizen, 02/10/99, Media Awareness Network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
2 David Downes and Paul Rock
3 Article 'Lower Class Cultures as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency,' 1962.
4 By Moore and Hendrey
5 By Mark Totten