Types of observational research
Participant Observation
Participant observation involves the researcher immersing themselves fully in the setting being studied for an extended period, developing relationships with individuals while maintaining a professional distance. It is a job that is typically carried out by a single individual, whose role can range from outsider to active participant. The researcher is transparent about their motivations and is known to the population being studied. The researcher must be mindful of how their presence can influence data collection since individuals or the group as a whole may modify their behavior when a new person enters the environment. Furthermore, the researcher's values, experiences, and knowledge can influence what they observe in the group. This process of considering the researcher's role in the process and their impact on the observed group is referred to as reflexivity. Researchers should reflect on how their values and beliefs influence their interpretation of what is observed and how they are impacting participants' behaviors.
Participant observation requires significant effort from a single researcher who must be alert and observant, utilizing all their senses to capture a multitude of activities, make notes on them, and be reflexive about their impact on the group and how their values may affect the interpretation of the data. Despite the challenges, being present and attentive in the field can yield valuable and comprehensive data for qualitative research. However, if a researcher becomes too involved in the group and loses their objective perspective, it can lead to biased data that threatens the reliability of the research. This phenomenon is known as "going native." (Allen, 2017). Gaining access to a group and negotiating terms for participation can be a challenging aspect of participant observation. In such situations, identifying the gatekeeper of the group who can grant permission to observe the group can be helpful. Gatekeepers facilitate initial access to the field and provide access to information, situations, and individuals within it. Their support throughout the research period remains crucial. Gatekeepers are typically politicians, archivists, senior managers in organizations, community leaders, and core members of informal networks. If the fieldworker lacks proficiency in the local language, key informants and gatekeepers become even more important (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). To establish relationships with other members of the group, it is recommended that the researcher ask them basic questions, use language that is easy to understand and avoid academic terminology, and actively participate in group activities. This approach can assist the researcher in forming connections with individuals in the group (Allen, 2017). Insider status, whether full or partial, can provide valuable access and insight for social research, particularly in evaluative work. However, there are several issues that require attention in such situations, including maintaining objectivity, managing the demands of other members with their personal or corporate interests, balancing ethical responsibilities, and managing the transition back into the situation as a non-researcher (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004).
Nonparticipant Observation
In this research method, the researcher does not have regular interactions with the individuals being observed in the research setting and does not participate in any of the activities that the population being studied is engaged in (Allen, 2017; Mills et al., 2010; Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). Observational research where the researcher doesn't directly interact with individuals in the research setting and doesn't participate in their activities is referred to as nonparticipant observation. In this approach, the researcher can still observe communicative aspects such as nonverbal behavior without being intrusive as in participant observation. Nonparticipant observation is sometimes also referred to as limited or quasi-participation, as it can be difficult to completely observe a setting from a distance while still effectively answering research questions that require observational data (Allen, 2017).Nonparticipant observation differs from participant observation in the level and type of involvement of the observer in the research setting, as the former assumes a more distant and separate role. The nonparticipant observer may have no contact with the research subjects and instead watches and documents events through one-way mirrors or cameras, which is the most extreme form of nonparticipant observation (Mills et al., 2010). Nonparticipant observation is valuable in situations where participants may not be open when directly questioned about certain behaviors, such as covert actions or activities that the researcher is unable to engage in ethically or legally, such as drug use. This method has been utilized in ethnographic studies to investigate nonverbal communication, including body language and spatial arrangements, and to gain insight into consumer behavior, but not necessarily the motivations behind their choices. Nonparticipant observation is distinguished from participant observation by the observer's level of involvement and distance from the research setting (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004).
Nonparticipant observation can be done in an overt or covert manner. Overt observation involves the observer being present during organizational activities and having a distinct role separate from the organizational members, and participants are aware of the observer's presence for research purposes. Covert observation, on the other hand, involves the observer using hidden cameras or pretending not to be studying the setting, and participants are unaware that they are being observed (Mills et al., 2010). The term "covert observation" refers to a research method in which the researcher does not directly interact with or reveal their presence to the individuals being observed. This method raises ethical concerns regarding informed consent. The argument for covert observation is that it produces more valid data since participants are unaware of being observed. However, it is important to debrief participants afterward and justify the use of covert observation as the best method to answer a specific research question. Covert observation may be more justifiable in public research settings where obtaining informed consent from all participants is not possible (Allen, 2017). All ethical guidelines related to social research emphasize the importance of informed consent and advise against using covert methods. The principle of autonomy is a primary concern since subjects have the right to be informed and to control their own behavior while being observed. They should also be able to make decisions about the risks and benefits of participating in the study. The information provided by subjects is valuable, and they should be able to put a price on it. Researchers who do not inform subjects that they are yielding this information may be perceived as taking advantage of or stealing it (Bulmer, 1982; Homan, 1992; Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). Covert methods are, in some circumstances, more likely to be nonreactive. This is true in two senses. First, because subjects will not know that they are on the record, they will not have reason to adjust behavior or data for the sake of a favorable report. Second, the act of research will not inhibit or devalue their discourse (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004).
Online Observation
Participant and nonparticipant observation methods are applicable in virtual communities such as online forums, chat rooms, and gaming communities to understand how they function. However, observing individuals online poses various challenges. Researchers encounter issues with how to observe individuals in the absence of physical presence. Netnography refers to the monitoring and analysis of online discussions where researchers can observe communicative patterns and create field notes. Informed consent remains crucial, and anonymization of collected data is recommended. To understand the practices of a given online community, researchers sometimes embed themselves within the community. Thus, online observation methods can range from participant observation, nonparticipant observation, to covert observation (Allen, 2017).
Mills, Durepos, and Wiebe (2010) state that there are various challenges associated with observational research. The first challenge is the observer effect, which can lead to changes in the behavior of the people being observed. While this effect may decrease over time, it still poses a risk. The second challenge is the potential lack of objectivity of the observer, which can result in biased interpretations of the observed setting. However, researchers can mitigate this risk by using systematic and rigorous methods for sampling, field notes, and data analysis. The third challenge is selectivity, as no observation can cover all events, activities, people, or interactions in a setting. To address this issue, researchers should observe the phenomenon in diverse circumstances and spend a long time in the field. The fourth challenge relates to ethical concerns about the researcher's authority in describing and explaining what is happening in the setting, which can overshadow the voices of the participants. Researchers can overcome this issue by using both insider and outsider accounts to develop a collaborative portrait of the phenomenon being studied. According to Vogt (2005), it is important to consider cultural relativism when studying human behavior, as actions and beliefs can only be understood within the context of the culture in which they exist. Researchers need to be aware of the cultural context when making judgments about human behavior. This principle includes recognizing and respecting the different ideas and interpretations of rational behavior in different societies, as emphasized by Schwandt (2007).
Observation should cease when theoretical saturation is achieved, which is the point at which additional observations no longer provide valuable insight into the research topic. The duration of this process can vary from several days to several years, depending on the phenomenon being studied (Mills et al., 2010).
Observational research is mostly qualitative in nature where the researcher takes field notes and analyzes the data. However, there are some cases where structured observation, also called systematic observation, can be useful. This technique involves two defining characteristics. Firstly, the information is gathered directly by the researcher(s) without any intervention of respondents or interviewees. Secondly, it is a systematic technique where data is collected according to predefined procedures and rules. Structured observation involves a significant amount of pre-coding, and the researcher records when, how often, and for how long the pre-coded behaviors occur (Jupp, 2006). To ensure consistency in data collection, the variables and categories used in structured observation must be clearly defined. This helps different observers use them in the same way and reduces variation caused by individual interests or perceptions. For example, young children may have limited verbal skills that make it necessary to use well-defined categories in their observation (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). Structured observation is a commonly utilized technique in social sciences, and its applications range from studying the behavior of children and animals, specifically their play behaviors, to investigating group decision-making in adults, and analyzing the non-verbal behavior of politicians (Jupp, 2006).
Structured observation involves the inclusion of a time element in the data collected, as the observations are coded in real-time and can be analyzed based on various temporal characteristics. There are four types of temporal information that researchers should take into account when analyzing structured observational data:
- Duration: the total amount of time taken up by a category of behavior;
- Frequency: the number of individual occurrences of a category of behavior;
- Location: the position of an occurrence within the day or week or observation session; and
- Sequence: the way behaviors follow on from other behaviors (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004).
Structured observation has some limitations, including its time-consuming nature and the possibility that important behaviors may be excluded if they are not included in the coding frame. This means that the findings may not reveal anything new because all relevant behaviors must be coded before the observation begins. The use of a theoretical framework can also potentially distort the findings. Additionally, those being observed may not have a say in the interpretation or coding of their behaviors, and there may be issues with inter-rater reliability if different observers cannot agree on the definition or examples of specific behaviors (Jupp, 2006).