Ostensibly, participant observation is a straightforward technique: by immersing him- or herself in the subject being studied, usually over a long period of time, the researcher is presumed to gain understanding, perhaps more deeply than could be obtained, for examply, by questionnaire items. Arguments in favor of this method include reliance on first-hand information, high face validity of data, and reliance on relatively simple and inexpensive methods. The downside of participant observation as a data-gathering technique is increased threat to the objectivity of the researcher, unsystematic gathering of data, reliance on subjective measurement, and possible observer effects (observation may distort the observed behavior). Participant observation is particularly appropriate to studies of interpersonal group processes.

Action research is a subset of participant observation, where the participants (typically practitioners, such as teachers in a school setting) in some focused change effort (ex., to improve some organizational function) self-reflect on their experiences in order to improve practice for themselves or the organization. Action can be undertaken by one individual, by a group of individuals, or as part of a collegial team approach. If the latter, it may be termed "collaborative inquiry."

Key Concepts and Terms

• The objectivity issue. Participation is a form of investment of time, energy, and self, and as such it raises obvious questions of possible bias. However, defenders of participant observation find greater bias in allegedly neutral instruments such as survey questionnaires. These, they say, involve the imposition of an externally conceived "scientific" measuring device (the questionnaire) on individuals who do not perceive reality according to that external conception (Bruyn, 1966).

• The phenomenological approach to participant observation emphasizes intersubjective understanding and empathy. Bruyn (1966) outlined four elements in this approach:
  1. Awareness of time: Record the temporal phases of research according to the sequence of experience of the observer in relation to the milieu (ex., newcomer, provisional member, categorical member, personalized rapport, and imminent migrant -- that is, as the researcher is about to leave the community).

  2. Awareness of the physical environment: Record the relations of people to their physical environment as they perceive it, not as the researcher conceptualizes or even experiences it.

  3. Awareness of contrasting experiences: Record the experiences of people under contrasting social circumstances; meanings cannot be assessed under one set of circumstances because they are relative to the setting.

  4. Awareness of social openings and barriers: Record the changes in meaning as the participant observer is admitted into narrower social regions, transitioning from stranger to member to insider. Determining vocabulary concepts is a major focus of participant observation, seeking to illuminate the intersubjective meanings of critical terms.

  In general, in the phenomenological approach, the participant observer seeks out the meaning of the experiences of the group being studied from each of the many different perspectives within it.

• The empirical approach to participant observation emphasizes participation as an opportunity for in-depth systematic study of a particular group or activity. Zelditch (1962) outlined three elements of this approach:
  1. Enumeration of frequencies of various categories of observed behavior, as in interaction analysis. Often there is an explicit schedule of observation geared to hypotheses framed in advance of participation. As Reiss (1971) observers, participation may lead to alteration of hypotheses and observation schedules, the attempt to observe systematically is ongoing.

  2. Informant interviewing to establish social rules and statuses. There may be systematic sampline of informants to be interviewed, content analysis of documents encountered, and even recording of observations in structured question-and-answer format.

  3. Participation to observe and detail illustrative incidents.

  Where the phenomenological approach emphasizes the participant observer experiencing meanings through empathy, the empirical approach emphasizes systematic observation and recording of the milieu. This distinction is, of course, more a matter of emphasis than a dichotomy.

• Conceptual mapping , sometimes called definitional mapping, is a related technique which may be used by either approach to participant observation. The labels that people use for the types of individuals (or organizations, objects, or concepts) which affect them are often illuminating indicators of the nature of the group being studied. For instance, in a study of a prison the observer may encounter such terms as rats, peddlars, toughs, fags, square Johns, suckers, and so on. Definitional mapping is the systematic tracing of such terms as seen from each of several viewpoints, associated with different roles in the milieu. For instance, a participant observer study of the deep South in the 1940's mapped social class structure in this way. The objective upper-upper class divided the community into old aristocracy, other aristocracy, respectable people, good people but nobody, 'po whites. The objective lower-middle class divided the community into old aristocracy, people who think they are somebody, we poor folk, people poorer than us, and no 'counts. The objective lower-lower class divided the community into society, way high-ups, snobs trying to push up, and people just as good as anybody. In general, in definitional mapping, for each objective category (ex., upper-upper socieconomic status) the researcher determines the subjective classifications used to cover the range of the objective categories (ex., from upper-upper to lower-lower SES)..

Assumptions

• Subjectivity is inherent to participant observation, with the attendant threat of researcher bias. That is, the researcher may be biased in what data are gathered and how data are assigned meaning.

• The participant observer may affect the pheonomenon being studied. The researcher must make clear his or her initial expectations at the outset and guard against imposing expectations on observations.

• Participation, ideally, is real (ex., the participant observer may be required to learn a language or jargon, live in the setting, defer to local culture, etc.). Clearance to enter the setting must be secured beforehand, such that entry seems legitimate to group members. Typically, the researcher relies on honesty, presenting him- or herself as a researcher interested in recording the history and nature of the organizations and groups in the area.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What journals cover participant observation and field studies?
  A leading journal is Qualitative Inquiry, from Sage Publications. A related journal is Action Research, also from Sage.

Bibliography

• Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler (1994). Observational techniques," In Handbook of qualitative research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincon. Newbury Park: Sage, 1994, 377-392.
• Becker, Howard S. (1993). Problem of inference and proof in participant observation : Problem of inference and proof in participant observation, Reprint edition. Irvington Pub; ISBN: 0829034935.
• Bogdan, Robert (1972). Participant Observation in Organizational Settings. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. ISBN: 0815680805.
• Bruyn, Severyn (1966). The human perspective in sociology: The methodology of participant observation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. A classic defense of participant observation.
• Bulmer, M. (1982). When is disguise justified? Alternatives to covert participant observation. Qualitative Sociology 5(4), 251-264.
• Harper, Douglas (1994). On the authority of the image, visual methods at the crossroads. In Norman Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincon, Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage, 1994, 403-412.
• Jorgensen, Danny L. (1993). Participant Observation : A Methododology for Human Studies (Applied Social Research Methods, Vol. 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pubns; ISBN: 0803928777.
• McKay, J.A. (1992). Professional development through action research. Journal of Staff Development 13(1), 18-21.
• Reardon, K.; J. Welsh; B. Kreiswirth; & J. Forester (1993). Participatory action research from the inside: Community develoipment practice in East St. Louis. American Sociologist 24(1), 69-91.
• Reiss, Albert (1971). Systematic observation of natural phenomena. Pp. 3-33 in Herbert Costner, ed., Sociological Methodology 1971. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Spradley, James P. (1997). Participant observation . Holt Rinehart & Winston; ISBN: 0030445019.
• Winstein, Raymond M. (1982). "The Mental Hospital from the Patient's Point of View". In Walter R. Gove, ed., Deviance and Mental Illness, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. This famous article shows the pitfalls of participant observation research (ex., Goffman's and Rosenhan's classic studies) and demonstrates how systematic survey research captures the true experience of mental hospitalization.
• Zelditch, Morris (1962). Some methodological problems of field studies. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67, No. 5: 566-576.