Participant ObservationParticipant observation is a key social science research approach. It involves observing and interacting with thesubject of interest while actively participating in the setting as well as getting very close to research participantsand gaining an intimate knowledge of their practices through intensive immersion in the field of study.

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Participant observation's roots as a methodological approach lie in social anthropology, where researchers studycultures by closely observing actors, behaviors, and norms. Also used widely in the field of sociology,participant observation was developed further by the Chicago School in the 1920s and 1930s. Theseresearchers became identified with the practice of ethnographic methods, including participant observation.

Participant observation is a key tool in ethnographic investigation, which seeks to describe human interactionand behavior through firsthand accounts and field work. Participant observation is in effect a combination of awide variety of methods, including observation; informal interviews and/or conversations; analysis of othermaterials and evidence encountered while in the field; biographies, life histories, and personal accounts andstories of participants; and researcher documentation and diaries. It is associated primarily with the qualitativeresearch approach because it is (a) often exploratory in nature and (b) used when there is a lack of existingempirical evidence about a group of individuals. It can also incorporate quantitative features either in terms ofthe data collected or analyzed. Because the approach involves the observation of people on a firsthand basisand coming to understand their collective and individual behaviors, norms, and customs, it is necessary for theresearcher to carry out extended periods of field work to permit in-depth immersion. Longitudinal and repeatedperiods of study allow for the collection of greater and more varied data, provide increased opportunities forcomparative observations, and enhance the accuracy of data and resultant findings.

There are two main forms of participant observation: (1) covert participant observation and (2) overtparticipant observation. The former involves posing incognito as a genuine member of the social group ormaking observations about a group in which the researcher is already a member. The latter involves clearlyindicating the true identity of the researcher, and usually the purpose of the research, to those who are beingobserved. Covert participant observation is increasingly rare because of the ethical questions surrounding covertmethods and the inherent deception involved. However, proponents of the method argue that under certaincircumstances it may be justified, for example, when there is no other way to secure access; when there areconcerns about the effect of the researcher's presence; when researchers are interested in contexts where theremay be illegal activity, taboo behavior, and suspicion of those in authority; and when investigatingmisdemeanors as they occur (e.g., bribery, drug taking, sexual harassment in the workplace).

Application

Participant observation has been applied to a variety of contexts and settings. By actually being with the peopleof interest, novel and firsthand insights are often obtained. This closeness allows the researcher to live andbreathe the everyday realities of the social worlds in which they are interested. Early social anthropologists andexplorers used participant observation to study remote communities in Africa and Asia. Although originallydeployed by social anthropologists interested in non-Western indigenous cultures and communities, participant

1

observation has come to be used in Western society also.

Differences between the researcher and participants are not always so marked, however; some researcherschoose to partake in participant observation of settings within which they are already partially members. Suchbicultural observers provide access, trust, absorption, and interpretation that, some scholars argue, maymore closely mirror those within the social setting than data collected by someone who is more of an outsider.For instance, a shared religious heritage may help a participant observer become part of a religious group orsect.

Participant observation studies have looked at a whole host of cultural structures and interactions, such asthose involving sexual behavior, gang violence, and drug taking. For instance, Howard S. Becker, a famoussociologist, carried out participant observation of professional jazz musicians. Himself a professional jazz pianist,Becker presented his research in his seminal text Outsiders, published in 1963.

A very controversial study that employed covert participant observation was Tearoom Trade, written byAmerican sociologist Laud Humphreys and published in 1970. This was based upon an ethnographic study ofanonymous homosexual encounters in public toilets (known as tea rooming). Humphreys employed covertparticipant observation to observe those involved. He later traced participants through records of their vehiclelicense plates to their home addresses. He then interviewed them using an alias in order to secure additionalinformation about them, such as their domestic circumstances and sexual profiles. He found that a significantproportion of participants presented themselves as heterosexual men in their day-to-day lives. His study,although much criticized from an ethical standpoint, did a great deal to enhance our understanding of thesociology of sexuality.

There have also been significant applications of the method of participant observation outside of academia. Inthe arena of investigative journalism it has evolved into a key technique for acquiring information, infiltratinggroups, and reporting on sensitive or politically charged situations. The method has also been used by writersand novelists to recount autobiographical experiences of living with certain groups or enduring specific socialconditions. A well-known example is George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), whichdocumented his experiences of poverty when he worked at the bottom rung of workplaces, such as hotelkitchens, and of those he encountered in two cities. More recent examples by investigative undercoverjournalists who wanted to expose the issues of low pay and poverty include Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel andDimed: On (Not) Getting By in America and Polly Toynbee's Hard Work: Life in Low-Pay Britain.

Critical Summary

Participant observation is not a straightforward approach, because it combines multiple methods and becauseresearchers are placed outside their own natural environment and within essentially foreign ones. There arealso various ethical challenges that need to be addressed and reflected upon prior to entering the field. Theseinclude consent and the honesty of the research endeavor whereby those under observation are aware of thatfact and are willing participants. In addition, the issues of researcher effects, lens (or standpoint), perception,and access necessitate some discussion.

In terms of researcher effects, researchers are, in essence, invited participants, but their presence in the fieldmay change the group they are observing. This may cause a certain degree of distortion. They may introduceforeign norms, material goods, values, language, or other elements that can disrupt those that existed beforethey joined the group. This is important not least from a methodological perspective because their presence inand hence influence on the setting disrupts the very thing they wanted to observe, especially when participantsbecome aware they are being observed. Indeed, it is for this very reason that some people have continued toargue in support of more covert methods that do not alter the research setting to the same degree.

In terms of lens, one needs to acknowledge that it is the researcher who in the end chooses whom, what, and2

when to observe, document, and analyze and the aspects on which to focus. This engenders specific power-knowledge discourses and renders the participants as more passive inasmuch as they have limited control overhow they are eventually represented by the researcher. Attempts to rectify this issue have included researchersobserving settings in which they are already a part and with which they are already familiar, thus giving themprior authority and access in terms of the interpretations made (in other words, more autoethnographicresearch). Some researchers have attempted to give participants greater say in the findings andrepresentations by sharing these with them and inviting them to take part in their interpretation. However, thislatter approach may cause disruptive effects, as discussed earlier.

In terms of perception, researchers also carry with them to the ethnographic setting certain preconceptions andemotional baggage. These may influence or cloud their observations and interpretations. It is for this reasonthat extended immersion in the field is preferable because this allows the researcher more time to acclimate tothe environment and learn behaviors and customs. The settling-in period is thus very important. Someethnographers also employ the method of grounded theory to help tackle this issue. In simple terms, groundedtheory is both an epistemological standpoint and a set of practical tools that seek to avoid exposing theresearcher to excessive information about subjects prior to data collection. These include secondary sourcesand other readings that may cause certain expectations and preconceptions and may influence the directionand nature of analysis.

In terms of access, researchers not only need to secure access to the subculture, group, site, or organizationthat they are interested in observing and effectively become part of, but they also have to build up trustrelationships with actors and make attempts to negotiate access to genuine interactions and behind-the-scenesevents. Differences between the researcher and the researched may make this challenging or may requireextended periods of immersion in order to build the necessary rapport and relationships. These may be, forexample, cultural, racial, religious, or ethnic differences. There may even be some differences and demographicfeatures that make it impossible for the researcher to access certain settings or elements within those settings.Also, power or status structures might make access difficult. Some subgroups may reserve certain rituals oractivities for particular people, such as elders or men, and an attempted intrusion could be disrespectful or evendangerous. Consider, for instance, the difficulties facing a female researcher interested in carrying outparticipant observation of the interactions of members of an all-male Masonic lodge. It is unlikely that she wouldbe permitted research access because of her gender and the high level of secrecy of this type of society.

Overall, therefore, participant observation especially that derived from an ethnographic frame of referenceinvolves the researcher trying to observe and acquire the perspectives of the people involved in certain groupsor social processes. This poses epistemological issues of representation, however, because these perspectivesare always partial understandings of what is going on and are subsequently sifted through the lens of theresearcher. This may not be a problem, depending on the stance of the researcher. It becomes a problem if oneclaims that a partial account is the whole truth. A more multidimensional picture of and feel for the context canbe developed by combining accounts, observations, material culture, data sources, and reflections from theself. As discussed earlier, researchers must have strategies to deal with the following issues: (a) multiplesources of evidence that they are likely to encounter while in the field, (b) the partial or limited perspectivesof actors located at certain points in a social structure, (c) the reluctance of participants to divulge secrets orcommunicate openly, (d) participants' distrust or suspicion, (e) the possibility of people being toldmisinformation, and (f) attempts to please the researcher with stories/performances of what it is thought he orshe wants to hear/observe. The toolkit of the participant observer should include the desire and ability todevote sufficient time to field inquiry, collating multiple sources of data and evidence, accessing people atdifferent points in the social structure, and comparing/ corroborating evidence wherever possible. Covertmethods or disguising the true purpose of the investigation are both ethically questionable practices, but theyhave been employed to overcome some of these challenges and have yielded often fascinating results.

It is also important not to view social groups as static. Human behavior, cultures, and interactions are fluid and3

Brought to you by: SAGE

changing. They are naturally subject to processes of flux regardless of whether the researcher is present. It istherefore important to recognize that participant-observation studies, while yielding often vast amounts of vividdescriptive information, are usually fixed in time and place, although they record valuable historical events. It isimportant to avoid deterministic interpretations and to recognize the dynamic nature of different environments,institutions, and cultural groups.

MariaLaura Di Domenico

Nelson Phillips

Further Readings

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance .New York: Free Press.

Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America .London: Granta.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places .London: Duckworth.

Orwell, G. (1933). Down and out in Paris and London .London: Victor Gollancz.

Toynbee, P. (2003). Hard work: Life in low-pay Britain .London: Bloomsbury.

Entry Citation:Di Domenico, MariaLaura, and Nelson Phillips. "Participant Observation." Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Ed. Albert J. Mills,Gabrielle Durepos, and Elden Wiebe. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009. 653-56. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.

SAGE Publications, Inc.

4