Compare the advantages and disadvantages of each participant observer role.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The term participant observer actually represents a continuum of roles (see Exhibit 8.1), ranging from being a complete observer who does not participate in group activities and is publicly defined as a researcher to being a covert participant who acts just like other group members and does not disclose his or her research role. Many field researchers develop a role between these extremes, publicly acknowledging being a researcher but nonetheless participating in group activities. In some settings, it also is possible to observe covertly without acknowledging being a researcher or participating.
Participant observation is a qualitative method for gathering data that involves developing a sustained relationship with people while they go about their normal activities
Choosing a Role
The first concern of all participant observers is to decide what balance to strike between observing and participating and whether to reveal their role as researchers. These decisions must take into account the specifics of the social situation being studied, the researcher’s own background and personality, the larger sociopolitical context, and ethical concerns. The balance of participating and observing that is most appropriate also changes many times during the majority of projects. Ultimately, the researcher’s ability to maintain either a covert or an overt role can be challenged many times throughout the research effort.
Complete Observation
In her study of community policing, Susan Miller (1999) adopted the role of a complete observer. Community policing is an approach to policing that emphasizes building closer ties between police and members of the community. Miller was particularly interested in how gender affected the attitudes and behavior of community–police liaisons or neighborhood police officers (NPOs).
Complete observation A role in participant observation in which the researcher does not participate in group activities and is publicly defined as a researcher.
In complete observation, researchers try to see things as they happen, without disrupting the participants. Along with intensive interviews with police officers, Susan Miller also observed police officers on their daily shifts:
Both neighborhood and patrol officers’ shifts were observed, either on foot with neighborhood officers, or in squad cars with patrol officers. This component of the project also permitted gathering some observational information about citizens’ reactions to police delivery of services.
Of course, the researcher’s presence as an observer alters the social situation being observed. It is not natural in most social situations to have an observer present who at some point will record his or her observations for research and publication purposes. The observer thus sees what individuals do when they are being observed, which is not necessarily what they would do without an observer. This is called a reactive effect, and the extent to which it can be a problem varies with the situation. In Susan Miller’s (1999) study, the extended measure of time she spent as an observer made her presence commonplace, thereby serving to decrease the problem of reactive effects. She states,
Since I had spent so many hours over eighteen months with the Jackson City Police Department [fictional name], I had grown to be a familiar face; this, I believe, decreased respondents’ tendencies toward social desirability. Officers took my presence for granted in the briefing room, the hallways, the interview rooms, and in the field, including me in jokes and informal conversation in the coffee shop.
Generally, in social settings involving many people, an observer may not attract attention. On the other hand, when the social setting involves few people and observing is apparent rather than camouflaged or when the observer differs in obvious respects from the participants, the complete observer is more likely to have an impact.
Participation and Observation
Most field researchers adopt a role that involves some active participation in the setting. Usually, they inform at least some group members of their research interests, but then they participate in enough group activities to develop trust and rapport with members and to gain a direct sense of what group members experience. This is not an easy balancing act. Observational studies are generally conducted over a long period of time.
During the three years that Rios spent in Oakland conducting his research, it was inevitable that he became a participant as well as an observer. For example, one day while walking home after school with a boy Rios called Slick, they were approached by a patrol car who followed them. Slick recognized the officer as the one who had recently beaten up another boy named Marquil in a McDonald’s parking lot during lunch hour. Rios writes,
I turned to Slick and told him, “Let’s just keep walking. We’ll be fine.” The officer continued to follow us, driving slowly behind us. Slick became paranoid, turned around, and gave the officer a dirty look. I turned to look. The officer, a White man with a shaved head in his thirties, looked at us, grinned, and drove off. Police officers played crafty cat-and-mouse games in which the boys remained in constant fear of being humiliated, brutalized, or arrested.
On one occasion, Rios was even arrested. Sitting in a park with several of the youth, a police car approached. Rios and the other boys except one pulled their hands out of the pockets and “stood in a position of submission, with our hands open to show that we didn’t have a weapon,” while a boy Rios called Spider kept his hands in his pockets. The officers, one White and lone Latino, got out and said, “Face the wall” (Rios, 2011). The officers searched everyone and because Spider had a pocket knife in his pocket, he was arrested. When Rios asked the officers why they were stopped in the first place, he was handcuffed and arrested, too.
Embedded into the community as Rios was, he witnessed life as it happened, which included youth-on-youth violence as well as harassment and abuse by the police. During his observational time, he witnessed over 40 citations imposed by the police on the boys in his study. These were usually for minor things such as loitering, not wearing a properly fitted bicycle helmet, or disturbing the peace. Rios never participated in violence, but sometimes intervened to stop it.
Disclosing your research to participants as Rios did has two clear ethical advantages. Because group members know the researcher’s real role in the group, they can choose to keep some information or attitudes hidden. By the same token, the researcher can decline to participate in unethical or dangerous activities without fear of exposing his or her identity.
Even when researchers maintain a public identity as researchers, the ethical dilemmas arising from participation in group activities do not go away. In fact, researchers may have to prove themselves to group members by joining in some of their questionable activities.
Covert Participation
To lessen the potential for reactive effects and to gain entry to otherwise inaccessible settings, some field researchers have adopted the role of covert participant. By doing so, they keep their research secret and do their best to act like other participants in a social setting or group. Covert participation is also known as complete participation. Laud Humphreys (1970) served as a “watch queen” so that he could learn about men engaging in homosexual acts in a public restroom. Randall Alfred (1976) joined a group of Satanists to investigate group members and their interaction. Erving Goffman (1961) worked as a state hospital assistant while studying the treatment of psychiatric patients.
Covert (complete) participation A role in field research in which the researcher does not reveal his or her identity as a researcher to those who are observed. The covert participant has adopted the role of a “complete participant.”
Although the role of covert participant lessens some of the reactive effects encountered by the complete observer, covert participants confront other problems. The following are a few examples:
• Covert participants cannot openly take notes or use any obvious recording devices. They must write up notes based solely on memory and must do so at times when it is natural for them to be away from group members.
• Covert participants cannot ask questions that will arouse suspicion. Thus they often have trouble clarifying the meaning of other participants’ attitudes or actions.
• The role of covert participation is difficult to play successfully. Covert participants will not know how regular participants act in every situation in which the researchers find themselves. Suspicion that researchers are not “one of us” may then have reactive effects, obviating the value of complete participation (Erikson, 1967).
• Covert participants must keep up the act at all times while in the setting under study. Researchers may experience enormous psychological strain, particularly in situations where they are expected to choose sides in intragroup conflict or to participate in criminal or other acts. Of course, some covert observers may become so wrapped up in their role that they adopt not just the mannerisms but also the perspectives and goals of the regular participants—they “go native.” At this point, they abandon research goals and cease to critically evaluate their observations.
Ethical issues have been at the forefront of debate over the strategy of covert participation. Erikson (1967) argues that covert participation is by its very nature unethical and should not be allowed except in public settings. Covert researchers cannot anticipate the unintended consequences (e.g., gang violence) of their actions for research subjects, Erikson points out. In addition, other social research is harmed when covert research is disclosed, either during the research or upon its publication, because distrust of social scientists increases and future access to research opportunities may decrease.
But a total ban on covert participation would “kill many a project stone dead” (Punch, 1994, p. 90). Studies of unusual religious or sexual practices and institutional malpractice would rarely be possible. According to Punch, “The crux of the matter is that some deception, passive or active, enables you to get at data not obtainable by other means”. Therefore, some field researchers argue that covert participation is legitimate in certain circumstances. If the researcher maintains the confidentiality of others, keeps his or her commitments to them, and does not directly lie to the participants, some degree of deception may be justified in exchange for the knowledge gained.