Observational Research

(Naturalistic Methods) Observational Research

Observational research involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. The observational approach is the oldest method of conducting research and is used routinely in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and many other fields. 

        Let’s consider an observational study. To observe the behavior of individuals at work, industrial psychologist Roy (1959–1960) took a job in a factory where raincoats were made. The job entailed boring, repetitive movements (punching holes in plastic sheets using large stamping machines) and went on eight hours a day, five days a week. There was nothing at all interesting about the job, and Roy was uncertain how the employees, some of whom had been there for many years, could stand the monotony. 

           In his first few days on the job Roy did not notice anything particularly unusual. However, as he carefully observed the activities of the other employees over time, he began to discover that they had a series of “pranks” that they played on and with each other. For instance, every time “Sammy” went to the drinking fountain, “Ike” turned off the power on “Sammy’s” machine. And whenever “Sammy” returned, he tried to stamp a piece before “discovering” that the power had been turned off. He then acted angrily toward “Ike,” who in turn responded with a shrug and a smirk. 

              In addition to this event, which occurred several times a day, Roy also noted many other games that the workers effectively used to break up the day. At 11:00 “Sammy” would yell, “Banana time!” and steal the banana out of “Ike’s” lunch pail, which was sitting on a shelf. Later in the morning “Ike” would open the window in front of “Sammy’s” machine, letting in freezing cold air. “Sammy” would protest and close the window. At the end of the day, “Sammy” would quit two minutes early, drawing fire from the employees’ boss, who nevertheless let the activity occur day after day. 

               Although Roy entered the factory expecting to fi nd only a limited set of mundane observations, he actually discovered a whole world of regular, complicated, and, to the employees, satisfying activities that broke up the monotony of their everyday work existence. This represents one of the major advantages of naturalistic research methods. Because the data are rich, they can be an important source of ideas. 

             In this example, because the researcher was working at a stamping machine and interacting with the other employees, he was himself a participant in the setting being observed. When a scientist takes a job in a factory, joins a religious cult (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956), or checks into a mental institution (Rosenhan, 1973), he or she becomes part of the setting itself. Other times, the scientist may choose to remain strictly an observer of the setting, such as when he or she views children in a classroom from a corner without playing with them, watches employees in a factory from behind a one-way mirror, or observes behavior in a public restroom (Humphreys, 1975). 

             In addition to deciding whether to be a participant, the researcher must also decide whether to let the people being observed know that the observation is occurring—that is, to be acknowledged or unacknowledged to the population being studied. Because the decision about whether to be participant or nonparticipant can be independent of the decision to be acknowledged or unacknowledged, there are, as shown in Table 7.1, altogether four possible types of observational research designs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, and the choice of which to use will be based on the goals of the research, the ability to obtain access to the population, and ethical principles. 

The Unacknowledged Participant

          One approach is that of the unacknowledged participant. When an observer takes a job in a factory, as Roy did, or infi ltrates the life of the homeless in a city, without letting the people being observed know about it, the observer has the advantage of concealment. As a result, she or he may be able to get close to the people being observed and may get them to reveal personal or intimate information about themselves and their social situation, such as their true feelings about their employers or their reactions to being on the street. The unacknowledged participant, then, has the best chance of really “getting to know” the people being observed.

           Of course, becoming too close to the people being studied may have negative effects as well. For one thing, the researcher may have diffi culty remaining objective. The observer who learns people’s names, hears intimate accounts of their lives, and becomes a friend may fi nd his or her perception shaped more by their point of view than by a more objective, scientific one. Alternatively, the observer may dislike the people whom he or she is observing, which may create a negative bias in subsequent analysis and reporting of the data. 

          The use of an unacknowledged participant strategy also poses ethical dilemmas for the researcher. For one thing, the people being observed may never be told that they were part of a research project or may fi nd it out only later. This may not be a great problem when the observation is conducted in a public arena, such as a bar or a city park, but the problem may be greater when the observation is in a setting where people might later be identifi ed, with potential negative consequences to them. For instance, if a researcher takes a job in a factory and then writes a research report concerning the true feelings of the employees about their employers, management may be able to identify the individual workers from these descriptions.

   Another disadvantage of the unacknowledged participant approach is that the activities of the observer may infl uence the process being observed. This may happen, for instance, when an unacknowledged participant is asked by the group to contribute to a group decision. Saying nothing would “blow one’s cover,” but making substantive comments would change the nature of the group itself. Often the participant researcher will want to query the people being observed in order to gain more information about why certain behaviors are occurring. Although these questions can reveal the underlying nature of the social setting, they may also alter the situation itself. 

The Acknowledged Participant 

        In cases where the researcher feels that it is unethical or impossible to hide his or her identity as a scientist, the acknowledged participant approach can be used. Sociologist W. F. Whyte (1993) used this approach in his classic sociological study of “street corner society.” Over a period of a year, Whyte got to know the people in, and made extensive observations of, a neighborhood in a New England town. He did not attempt to hide his identity. Rather, he announced freely that he was a scientist and that he would be recording the behavior of the individuals he observed. Sometimes this approach is necessary, for instance, when the behavior the researcher wants to observe is difficult to gain access to. To observe behavior in a corporate boardroom or school classroom, the researcher may have to gain offi cial permission, which may require acknowledging the research to those being observed. 

          The largest problem of being acknowledged is reactivity. Knowing that the observer is recording information may cause people to change their speech and behavior, limit what they are willing to discuss, or avoid the researcher altogether. Often, however, once the observer has spent some time with the population of interest, people tend to treat him or her as a real member of the group. This happened to Whyte. In such situations, the scientist may let this habituation occur over a period of time before beginning to record observations. 

Acknowledged and Unacknowledged Observers

The researcher may use a nonparticipant approach when he or she does not want to or cannot be a participant of the group being studied. In these cases, the researcher observes the behavior of interest without actively participating in the ongoing action. This occurs, for instance, when children are observed in a classroom from behind a one-way mirror or when clinical psychologists videotape group therapy sessions for later analysis. One advantage of not being part of the group is that the researcher may be more objective because he or she does not develop close relationships with the people being observed. Being out of the action also leaves the observer more time to do the job he or she came for—watching other people and recording relevant data. 

        The nonparticipant observer is relieved of the burdensome role of acting like a participant and maintaining a “cover,” activities that may take substantial effort. The nonparticipant observer may be either acknowledged or unacknowledged. Again, there are pros and cons to each, and these generally parallel the issues involved with the participant observer. Being acknowledged can create reactivity, whereas being unacknowledged may be unethical if it violates the confidentiality of the data. These issues must be considered carefully, with the researcher reviewing the pros and cons of each approach before beginning the project.