Participant Observation as a Data Retrieval Technique in Qualitative Research

Participant observation is a standard method of collecting data and information on culture, carried out by researchers who are well immersed in the culture under observation. The method was pioneered by Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski (Clifford, Marcus, & Mitchell, 1986, pg. 2-3), and today it is the common method among qualitative sociologists globally. The first thing for the researcher to do is to get known in the community, know the people and their culture. Understanding the culture of the population in a detailed and intimate way is key to carrying out participant observation. It is done by observing and taking part in community’s way of life. Nearly everyone who has been to a foreign land, joined another family or spouse, been a visitor to an unfamiliar environment or a casual guest understand better the importance of participant observation. The method is so effective since the researcher approaches the people directly in a natural context as opposed to taking the people out of their natural environment, and its ability to provide an explanation, causation, context, and confirmation means that the method can be a useful element in a mixed method research.

The aim of participant observation is to have a deep insight of the people’s way of life from their perspective, with the goal of collecting in-depth information about their opinions, habits, issues, and relationships (McCurdy, P. and Uldam 2014, pg. 40-55), to mention but a few. Often, the group under study is a subculture or part of the greater society, like an occupational, a religious or a particular community group. For instance, participant observation can be used to study the culture of the Black community living in the United Kingdom. To conduct it, the researcher has to live in the midst of this community, become part of them, and live as a Black. This way, the researcher can access crucial information regarding their culture and way of life.

Arguably, it is the most challenging and natural method for collecting qualitative data. But the good thing with this method is that it connects the researchers to the most basic human experiences, and it places the researchers in a prime position to understand the “how” and “why” of human behaviors. The researcher has to be a player in that culture but most importantly, fulfill his or her roles as the researcher. The researcher can fulfill such roles by taking notes, recording sounds and images, or ask questions with the intent to find out the meaning of certain behaviors or aspects of the culture under study. In other words, the researcher tries to discover and analyze certain social scenes that use norms and rules, which the participants experience automatically or at subconscious levels. The result is that the researchers are not only made into acceptable participants but also they can generate information which can meaningfully help anthropologists or sociologists understand human experience better.

Two groups have emerged, one group is pro objective participation while the other group leans towards subjective participation. With each group claiming that its school of thought is right. Logically, participant observation needs the researcher to be subjective in that the researcher uses the knowledge and information gained through personal experience to interact and possibly gain more information on the people’s way of life. Also, it is important at one point for the researcher to be an objective participant and this is done by taking records of everything seen. Importantly, emotions and feelings should not influence what the researcher observes. However, true objectivity is more of an ideal than an actuality. In reality how people see the world is influenced mostly by their positionality in the social structure and past experiences. As such, Young (1991) in the article Participant Observation, notes that the participant observer is required have a critical self-reflexivity (pg. 9) for he or she to recognize the ways by which he or she can influence the research and data collected. Both objective and subjective participation is important in participant observation, and a good research should use both. A good researcher has to be part of the society and live as a member of the society (Subjective participation), but this is not all. The person has to record the observation- both images and sounds, and ask questions where necessary (objective participation).

Indeed, one of the reasons for carrying out participant observation is that most of the social or cultural aspects of the people are only visible to the insiders, and only particular people can get inside. It is argued that the oil skin of the house is not for rubbing on the skin of strangers. As a result, it becomes challenging for people who are not part of a given group to obtain information about that particular group. For instance, Liza Dalby’s study on the Geisha culture could only have been done by a female researcher fluent in Japanese and ready to go through rigorous training for one to be a Geisha. There is no way a male researcher could have been apprenticed as a Geisha (Dalby, 2008). Being an outsider (not someone of Japanese origin) ensured her experience was different from what a native Japanese could have experienced. Thus, Dalby’s study was a compelling blend of an insider knowledge and an outsider objectivity. As such, both the subjective and objective personal aspects of participant observation are critical-either it captured a viewpoint that could not have been captured in other ways, or it skewed the viewpoint to such an extent that the findings are questionable.

Participant observation has been the source of most fascinating and useful studies in anthropology and sociology since it is centered on perspectives, knowledge, and experiences of the people studied. Participant observation opens up the field of inquiry for the researcher to collect a broad range of information. Only a researcher with the privileges same as those of the participants can observe certain behaviors. Essentially, outsiders are not allowed to see or experience certain things in most of the social groups. Also, using participant observation is critical to reducing the impact of reactivity. Generally, individuals change their behaviors when they know they are being studied or they are in the company of an outsider (Collins 1984, pg. 57). But a participant observer fits in the people perfectly to such a point that the people forget the fact that the person is an outsider and starts treating him or her as an insider. Even if the person does unexpected things such as taking notes, recording audio or video, taking photos or interviewing them, the people are less likely to mind- this is not possible when the person is seen as an outsider. VanDienderen notes that the method inspires confidence in the people (VanDienderen 2007, pg. 252).

Participant observations enable the researcher to understand the right questions to ask. When the research is deeply embedded in the social context of the people, it is easy for the researcher to know the most relevant questions and be able to ask the questions in a manner that makes sense to them. One of the most common mistakes in the survey is asking irrelevant questions or questions that are not sensible to the people. The right information can only be obtained when the right questions are asked. Besides, the researcher can have a deep insight on the meaning of the collected information. The asking and interpretation of information should be subjective. This way, the researcher can respond effectively to those questioning the validity of the collected information. As a person who has experienced the phenomenon directly, the researcher can take positions about the deep meaning of the data with confidence that he or she is getting it right (Jorgensen 1989, pg. 29).

Moreover, one strength of participant observation is that it can address problems faced by other collection methods- certain things can only be learned through learning by doing. Behavior study is always about watching a certain behavior as it happens. There is no reason why a person should settle for a mere hearing from someone else. Seeing is believing as well as a perfect method to take data. Whether objective or subjective participation, it puts the observer in a direct contact with the behavior in a way that is completely unrivaled by other techniques. This notwithstanding, the observer can integrate the observed behavior into the right physical context; especially when the setting and locations are critical.

However, the researcher has to spend months or even years with the people under study (Iacono, Brown, and Holtham 2009, pg. 39), and this can be very inconvenient sometimes. Also, the method often yields vast amount of data and information, which often overwhelm the researcher to comb through and critically analyze. Because of this, quite often researchers are called upon to be very careful and try as much as possible to remain detached as researchers. Especially, the moment they are accepted as members of the group. They must make sure that the study is not affected by the adopted habits, perspective, and way of life. This is difficult given that experience largely influences human perception of the world and thus, there is the risk of the researcher being more subjective than required.

In conclusion, observation without participation may be lengthier than participant observation but information collected by participatory observation is better interpreted than direct observation. The researcher has to get involved in a variety of activities over a specified period to observe the members in their natural lives and take part in activities for better understanding of their behaviors. As such, the researcher often gains access to the group and participate in as many activities as possible as allowed by the members of the group. The researcher is required to be both subjective and objective at the same time, having in mind that being too subjective or objective can affect the outcome of the study. Participant observation is the best way to study the culture of a particular group if carried out effectively. As opposed to direct observation, it is evidently clear that it gives the researcher has a deep understanding of the people’s way of life. However, as Berreman (2003) observes, some it needs some ethical considerations (pg. 51-83).