reading 10 - participant observation Flashcards
what is participant observation?
= strategic method that puts you were the action is and lets you collect any kind of data (field notes, photographs, audio recordings, videos, questionnaires, direct observation)
= “Participant observation is a strategic method that lets you learn what you
want to learn and apply all the data collection methods that you may want to apply.”
- useable for positivists and interpretivists
- involves going and staying out, experiencing the lives of the people you are studying as much as you can
stalking culture in the wild, establishing rapport + learning to act so that people go about their business as usual when you show up
involves immersing yourself in a culture and learning to remove yourself everyday from that immersion so you can intellectualize what you’ve seen and heard, put it into perspective and write about it convincingly
!not all fieldwork is participant observation
some background and history
Malinowski = didn’t invent participant observation (PO), credited with developing it as serious method of social research
- just before WW1 went to research people of the Trobriand Islands, were German, so when war broke out Malinowski was interned -> spent time studying the culture, learning the language, hanging out, doing everyday things
method has deep roots in sociology (ethnography tradition in sociology)
PO - 3 types of fieldwork roles
- complete participant = becoming a member of a group without letting on that you’re doing research
- requires deception - complete observer = following people around and record their behavior without much/any interaction
- if done unobtrusively, may require deception - participant observer = deception not necessary (wasn’t said explcitly, but all examples were open about being participant observer)
- most ethnographic research is based on this
participant observer = two subtypes:
- observing participant = researcher is insider who observes and records some aspects of life around them
*e.g. Bourgois thought he did a 48h visit to El Salvador, but got trapped as the Salvadoran army bombed the area in search of rebels -> became observing participant
*e.g. doing research into police academy whilst being full participant in training - participating observers = researcher is outsider who participates in some aspects of life around them and record what they can
how much time does PO take?
anthropological field research traditionally takes a year or more
(takes that long to get a feel for the full round of people’s lives + to settle in, learn a language, gain rapport, be in position to ask good questions)
lot of them r done in weeks or months
extreme = PO in a few days
- possible when you speak the native language + have picked up nuances of etiquette from previous experience
in general it is not for the impatient
- at least a year of field work -> more likely to report on sensitive issues
- long-term PO -> data about social change
rapid assessment procedures
*bc applied researchers often don’t have the luxury of doing long-term participant observation fieldwork
rapid assessment procedures = RAP
set of RAP used varies across applied fields:
- RRA = rapid rural assessment = agricultural dev. progress
- REAP = rapid ethnographic assessment procedures = studies to help plan parks and neighborhoods
- FES = focused ethnographic studies = studies to address health problems = have clear questions and few clearly defined variables
(e.g. WHO research with questionnaires for mothers of children with acute respiratory illness, asking what symptoms had what causes and cures)
methods = methods frequently used by social science + specific methods for rapid research:
*now used by anthropologists in long-term fieldwork
- participatory mapping = people draw maps of their villages and locate key places on the maps (is much faster than if a researcher has to find everything out)
- participatory transects = walk through an area systematically, with key informants, observing and asking for explanations of everything you see
validity - 5 reasons for insisting on participant observation in the conduct of scientific research about cultural groups
- PO opens things up + makes it possible to collect all kinds of data: enables observation of things that outsiders normally don’t / aren’t allowed to see/record
- PO reduces reactivity problem: bc researcher becomes less and less a curiosity, people care less about you (not) being there: presence builds trust, trust lowers reactivity -> higher validity
- reactivity problem = people changing their behavior when they know they’re being studied - PO helps ask sensible questions in the native language
- PO gives intuitive understanding of what’s going on in a culture -> allows you to speak with confidence about the meaning of data
- many research problems can’t be addressed adequately by anything except PO
five rules when entering the field
- when you have a choice, take the field site that promises to provide easiest access to data
- have documentation about yourself and your project: formal letter of introduction, affiliation, funding, how long you’ll be at the field site
- don’t try to wing it unless you have to: use personal contacts to help you make entry (find gatekeepers and contact them)
- tip = work from the top down, except when there are factions + prevent being recruited as spy - think through in advance what you will say when ordinary people (not just gatekeepers) ask you questions : be honest, brief and absolutely consistent
- spend time getting to know the physical and social layout of your fieldsite
e.g. useful to run a census
the skills of a participant observer
researcher becomes the instrument for data collection and analysis through their own experience
you have to experience PO to get good at it
some skills that you can develop before going into the field:
- learning the language - it makes you less of a freak/outsider
- still: lot of PO through interpreters or contact languages
- sucker bias: some cultures se it acceptable to deceive and to ‘put on’ outsiders -> giving ridiculous answers for sport
- also: new jargon in your own language
- focus on learning how to pronounce, how to gesture and articulate, then people will adjust their language level to help/teach you + learn vocab (grammer not as important) + metaphors - building explicit awareness (about little details)
- building memory = to be reliable
- maintain naivete: suspend judgement, be curious, be a novice
- when not to be naive: in some situations you need to learn quick to build confidence or need to have knowledge beforehand to get confidence from research “objects” - building writing skills: write clearly and stylistic
- hanging out, gaining rapport (trust): don’t ask things to quickly
- ethical dilemma of rapport: it is manipulative, e.g. Evans-Pritchard had two diff witchcraft teachers teach his assistant -> played them against each other so that he would get full knowledge - objectivity
objectivity
= a skill
researcher is prone to measurement error bc opinions and memories
no human can be completely objective, we can be aware of our experiences, opinions and values
- knowledge by transcending our biases
Jorgenson: advocates becoming the phenomenon you study = objective approach insofar as it results in the accurate, detailed description of the insiders’ experience of life
- with full immersion need to be able to switch between insiders’ view and that of an analyst -> to do so: find a collegue to discuss with
objectivity and neutrality
objectivity does NOT mean value neutrality
with participant observation, you can’t remain neutral and uninvolved: you become part of the community
-> tests ability to remain dispassionate observer
suspend active judgment of behavior to be able to record it: keep your bias to yourself
??? what is the difference between objectivity and neutrality???
objectivity = basing conclusions/analyses on observable phenomena and factual evidence, not personal feelings, interpretations, or biases
neutrality = absence of bias
objectivity focuses on the factual basis of information, neutrality emphasizes a balanced and impartial stance regarding differing perspectives
ecosAI
gender, parenting and other personal characteristics
there is no way to eliminate the personal equation in participant observation fieldwork: personal characteristics make a difference
gender -> limits access to certain info + influences how you see others
- e.g. Quandt, Morris and DeWalt spent months interviewing informants about nutritional strategies of the elderly, not one mention of alcohol, when they brought a male researcher, immediately conversation about alcohol
being a parent helps you talk to people about certain areas of life + get more info than if you were not a parent
- (bringing) children are a guarantee of good intentions
*bringing kids also places them at (health) risk
being divorced has costs + even height might make a difference
sex and fieldwork
unreasonable to assume that single, adult fieldworkers are all celibate
proscriptions against sex in fieldwork are silly bc they don’t work
rule: do nothing that you can’t live with, both professionally and personally
*also think about what happens when you go back home: what happens with your partners’ status
surviving fieldwork
book by Howell about fieldwork in dangerous environments
- developing nation : disease and accidents are the prevalent dangers
- war zones and urban gang territory
many researchers get illnesses as malaria, hepatitis, typhoid fever
+ accidents have killed/injured many fieldworkers
what can you do about the risks?
- get every inoculation you need, not just those required by the country you are entering
- don’t accept everything, even if it insults some: don’t drink beer made from corn or cactus sap or palm wine
- carry supply of medical stuff (e.g. blood-substitute technology)
- don’t go anywhere without (evacuation) insurance
- in dangerous situations: have your shirt untucked so it seems you are armed
- have a sealed itinerary of interviews (with names, adresses etc.) with someone instructed to open it if you don’ return
the stages of participant observation
- initial contact = euphoria, but also desire to bult and run
- culture shock + anxiety + depression
-> tip do highly task-oriented work: make maps, take census etc.
-> culture shock -> annoyance with little things, feeling people don’t want you around, want to use own language, social claustrophobia (bc no privacy) - discovering the obvious: collect data on a systematic basis -> get acces to the “good stuff” + worry if your notes don’t give away identities + begin to identify with the community + days off become unthinkable, sense of discovery become more intense -> time to take a break
- the (mid-fieldwork) break: get physical and emotional distance from the field site, put things into perspective, discuss findings, take some actual vacation + informants also need a break from you (bc you’re intruding)
- focusing: after break you have sense of what you miss, what you still need, it’s okay to make changes to your original design
- exhaustion, the second break and frantic activity: feeling you have exhausted your informants (feel embarrassed to keep asking or feel there is no more info), this is a mistake -> take another break
- leaving the field: leave in a culturally appropriate way + often expectation that relationship is permanent (often also is the case)
