Low reliability is perhaps the main limitation of Patrick’s research. Because the research was an observation it was not carried out in controlled conditions and thus can not be repeated. This is a problem as the research cannot be compared with other results and trends are not easily identified.
At one point during the observation, James Patrick intervened and attempted to stop a gang member from stealing an elderly woman’s purse. When a researcher becomes involved in changing the outcome of a situation during their research it is known as observer effect. This can be seen as a weakness as actively altering a situation reduced the validity of the outcome. Gang members also criticised Patrick’s interpretation of gang life in the book he published about his findings. They claimed that he did not fully understand the workings of the gang and misrepresented their thoughts and intentions.
William Whyte conducted a piece of research called ‘Street Corner society’ which studied a group of young men in an inner-city Italian gang in Boston, USA. Unlike James Patrick, Whyte was not covert to the group. He told them he was writing a book and while this was not necessarily true, the participants knew they were being observed and thus the observation is classed as overt. When Whyte began his research, he simply observed the gang. However, as time went by he became more involved and even moved away from his home into the area in which the gang lived. This is when his research became a participant observation.
Because Whyte’s observation was overt, he was able to record data easily. This is a strength of overt observations as by recording data straight away important information is less likely to be forgotten or recorded inaccurately. An overt observation is also useful on a practical level. Whyte did not have to drastically alter his appearance etc, and so he saved time and money on this. However, overt observations can lead to subjectivity on the part of the subjects. Their behaviour may be liable to change if they are aware that they are being observed which would not therefore produce a fair representation of life in the gang.
In addition to saving money, Whyte put himself in less danger by carrying out a covert observation. He stayed doing his research for 3 ½ years, which was time consuming but did allow Whyte to get a very detailed insight into the life of his participants and therefore produce a valid piece of research.
The main problem with Whyte’s observation was to do with cultural differences between him and the group. He did not know much about some of their key interests, horse racing for example, and therefore could not participate properly. This is an issue; if a researcher cannot fully understand his subjects then he cannot gain full verstehen (understanding).
Another weakness of Whyte’s research was that he began to go native. After he moved into the area they lived in, he participated in their activities more frequently and realised he was losing his research purpose by being there. He has admitted since his research that he had begun thinking as the gang members thought and for this reason he moved away. In this case, going native had a detrimental effect on the research as it stopped it from being completed correctly.
In 1959, John Howard Griffin altered his appearance to look like a black man and travelled through the South of the USA documenting his experiences. He was warned against doing the research by the FBI and experienced extreme racism as a black man, later writing a book on his experiences. His observation was covert and participant.
Griffin’s research was ambitious, and by undertaking such a radical set of changes to both his appearance and lifestyle, he was able to obtain a unique insight into racism in the USA. The fact that he was experiencing the racism personally meant that a full understanding could be gained by Griffin. The covert nature of the research also meant that the behaviour people displayed was likely to be naturalistic and not altered in any way as might have been the case if the observation was overt.
‘Black like me’ has been criticised by some for being carried out by a journalist and not a sociologist. If claims that the story had become sensationalised were true, it would have meant that the research lost validity. In addition to this, Griffin did not record the information until after he had completed the whole observation and reflected on it. This presents a possibility that the accuracy of Griffin’s memory was compromised and some of the information would therefore not have been valid.
Griffin compromised his own safety by undertaking the research, often faced dangerous situations. His research was also expensive (changing his appearance) and time consuming which are both important practical issues.
Eileen Barker studied the unification church or ‘Moonies’ for close to seven years. She used a range of sociological methods including overt, participant observations. Barker got to know the members as individuals, spent time in centres, went on courses and tried to live with them as much as possible.
Barker developed a rapport with many of the Moonies, building quite a personal relationship with some of them. On the one hand, this can be seen as good for her research- the Moonies were more likely to trust her and welcome her into the community which would make conducting her research easier. Conversely, getting too close to the participants could result in Barker ‘going native’ and stop her from noticing and recording abnormalities or noteworthy events, which is a major concern when carrying out any research.
The length of time which Barker spent undertaking this study was almost seven years. By spending such a long time observing the Unification Church, Barker would have been able to develop a good understanding of its inner workings, which bears well for a good piece of research.
To conclude, it can be said that observations are useful for researching closed groups of society, providing detailed, qualitative research and capturing unexpected data about a topic. They do not, however, provide data that can be easily quantified which means they are not the ideal research method in all situations.
