OBSERVATION - ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

INTRODUCTION – OBSERVATION

Observation involves recording the behavioral patterns of people, objects and events in a systematic manner.

 

Observational Methods in psychological research entail the observation and description of a subject’s behavior. Researchers utilizing the observational method can exert varying amounts of control over the environment in which the observation takes place. This makes observational research a sort of middle ground between the highly controlled method of experimental designand the less structured approach of conducting interviews.

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

Participant observation:A major research strategy which aims to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given area of study (such as a religious, occupational, or deviant group) through an intensive involvement with people in their natural environment. The method originated in the fieldwork of social anthropologists and in the urban research of the Chicago School. John Lofland’s study of the Moonies in Doomsday Cult (1966), Laud Humphreys’s study of homosexuals in Tearoom Trade(1970), and William Foote Whyte ‘s study of the gang (Street Corner Society, 1955) are classic exemplars. Such research usually involves a range of methods (all of which are separately discussed elsewhere in this dictionary): informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of the personal documents produced within the group, self-analysis, and life-histories. Thus, although the method is usually characterized as qualitative research, it can (and often does) include quantitative dimensions.

Non-participant observation: A research technique whereby the researcher watches the subjects of his or her study, with their knowledge, but without taking an active part in the situation under scrutiny. This approach is sometimes criticized on the grounds that the very fact of their being observed may lead people to behave differently, thus invalidating the data obtained, as for example in the famous case of the so-called Hawthorne effect. To overcome this, researchers normally observe a number of similar situations, over a period of time. Although video-recorders can now be used in non-participant observation, this too may alter (indeed almost certainly will alter) the behaviour of the research subjects.

 

Advantages/Disadvantages – Participant observation

1.   Participants behave as they normally do, so evidence is valid

2.   It takes the viewpoint of the participants rather than the researcher

3.   It can dig deep into social interaction

4.  The researcher is open to new insights (the questions are not fixed in advance)

Disadvantages:

1.   It studies small groups so may not be representative

2.   It cannot be checked or repeated for reliability

3.   It is time-consuming in relation to the amount of data collected
The researcher’s presence may change the behaviour of the grouo

4.   The researcher may be biased

5.   If the research is covert there are more potential disadvantages:

6.   It can raise serious ethical issues as there is no consent

7.   The researcher may be at risk

8.   The researcher may not be able to ask the questions they would like to ask, as they may risk uncovering who they actually are

ADVANTAGES OF NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVATIONS INCLUDE:

• It is a simple and cheap method to use.

• If people are unaware they are being observed they will act as they normally do.

• It can be used to analyse social interaction in a wide variety of contexts.

• It can be a very valid research method given the correct circumstances. 

The Disadvantages of Non-Participant Observations:

• It relies heavily on the researchers interpretation of what is going on. 

• The researcher selects the actions they deem significant.

• The researcher may interpret things from their own ethnic/gender/class standpoint which can affect the validity of the research. 

• If people know they are being observed they will act differently than usual. 

Structured and unstructured observation

Instructured observation, the researcher specifies in detail what is to be observed and how the measurements are to be recorded. It is appropriate when the problem is clearly defined and the information needed is specified.

Structured observations are focused, look selectively at the social phenomena, and can be used to test hypothesis.

 

When conducting a structured observation, the focus of the observations has been determined beforehand. This type of observation follows the principles and assumptions of quantitative research: the focus of the observation is fragmented into predetermined, smaller, more manageable pieces of information (behaviours, events etc.) that can be aggregated into variables.

Of course, there are different levels of “structure” that structured observations take. For example, in a highly structured observation the researcher has decided in a rather precise and mutually exclusive way the observation categories in advance. In a semi- structured observation, the researcher starts with an agenda of what will be observed and how, but collecting the data with observations is done in a less systematic or predetermined way. 

 

Collection of data by observations can be conducted on facts (e.g., the number of students in a classroom), events (e.g., the amount of collaborative work taking place between students in the classroom) or behaviours (e.g., the number of incidents of antisocial behaviour in a classroom). Observations can look at verbal or non-verbal behaviour.

In unstructured observation, the researcher monitors all aspects of the phenomenon that seem relevant. It is appropriate when the problem has yet to be formulated precisely and flexibility is needed in observation to identify key components of the problem and to develop hypotheses. The potential for bias is high. Observation findings should be treated as hypotheses to be tested rather than as conclusive findings.

Merit of structured observation

1.   One benefit to structured observation is that it allows researchers to record behaviors that may be difficult to observe using naturalistic observation,

2.   but

 

Demerit Of Structured Observation

1.   Problems in interpreting structured observations can occur when the same observation procedures are not followed across observations or observers, or when important variables are not controlled across observations

2.   Structured observation is inappropriate if the observer is ‘desk-bound’ and have little supervisory responsibility involving informal oral contact;

3.   If the status of the observers imposes a threat to the subjects, either because there is some implicit judgement of their performance involved or if they are seen as likely to profit from the information obtained, to the disadvantage of the subjects.

Unstructured Observation

In unstructured observation, the researcher enters the field with some general ideas of what might be salient, but not of what specifically will be observed. Therefore, observation is holistic, unstructured, and unfocused, with the investigator attempting to document as much as possible about the setting and its participants in order to discover themes of interest. Unstructured observation is not constrained by checklists and coding schemes; rather, the researcher reports in narrative style about observations that are relevant to the research questions. Unstructured observation is most frequently associated with an interpretivist, constructivist paradigm that emphasizes the importance of context.

Controlled and Non Controlled observation:

Controlled Observation: Controlled  observation  is carried out  either in the laboratory or in the field. It is typified by clear and explicit decisions on what, how, and when to observe. It is primarily used for inferring causality, and testing casual hypothesis.

Uncontrolled Observation: This does not involve over extrinsic and intrinsic variables. It is primarily used for descriptive research. Participant observation is a typical uncontrolled one.

Controlled observations are the observations made under the influence of some of the external forces and such observations rarely lead to improvement in the precision of the research results. But these observations can be very effective in the working if these are made to work in the coordination with mechanical synchronizing devices, film recording etc.

Non controlled observations are made in the natural environment and reverse to the controlled observation these observations involve no influence or guidance of any type of external force.

Merit of controlled observation

1. Explicitly formulated rules for observation and recording of behavior.
2. It ensure that each participant’s behavior is systematically recorded so it is possible to aggregate the behavior of all those in sample.
3. Standardized plan and systematic approach to objectively observe and record behaviour
4. Good for observing specific subjects.
5. Ecologically valid recordings of natural behavior.
6. Spontaneous behavior likely to happen.
7.  Threat to confidentiality

Demerit of controlled observation

1.   Method relatively underused in social research.

2.   Systematically and planned observing behavior in a controlled environment.

3.   It is usually expensive

4.   can affect the behaviour of participants

REFERENCES

• Hartup, W. W. (1974). Aggression in childhood: Development perspectives. American Psychologist, 29, 336-341.

• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250 – 258.
• Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58(3), 154-165.

• Friedman, M. P., & Wilson, R. W. (1975). Application of unobtrusive measures to the study of textbook usage by college students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 659 – 662.

• Piaget, J. (1965). The child’s conception of number. New York: Norton.
• Dishion, T.J., Spracklen, K.M., Andrews, D.W., Patterson, G.R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373-390.
• Simons, D., Levin, D. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5 (4), 644-649.

• Milgram, S., Liberty, H., Toledo, R., Wackenhut, J. (1986). Response to intrusion into waiting lines. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51(4), 683-689.