Participant Observation

Participant observation is a research technique in which an investigator collects information through direct participation in and observation of a group, tribe, or community under study. This method allows sociologists to examine cer-

PART ONE ♦ THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

tain behaviors and communities that could not be investigated through other research techniques. In some cases, the sociologist actually "joins" a group for a period of time to get an accurate sense of how it operates.

During the late 1930s, in a classic example of participant observation, William F. Whyte moved into a low-income Italian neighborhood in Bos­ton. For nearly four years, he was a member of the social circle of "corner boys" that he describes in Street Corner Society. Whyte revealed his identity to these men and joined in their conversations, bowling, and other leisure-time activities. His goal was to gain greater insight into the commu­nity that these men had established. As Whyte (1981:303) listened to Doc, the leader of the group, he "learned the answers to questions I would not even have had the sense to ask if I had been getting my information solely on an inter­viewing basis." Whyte's work was especially valua­ble, since, at the time, the academic world had little direct knowledge of the poor and tended to rely for information on the records of social serv­ice agencies, hospitals, and courts.

The initial challenge that Whyte faced—and that each participant observer must encounter— was to gain acceptance into an unfamiliar group. It is no simple matter for a college-trained sociol­ogist to win the trust of a religious cult, a youth gang, a poor Appalachian community, or a circle of skid row residents. It requires a great deal of patience and an accepting, nonthreatening type of person. Interestingly, the gender of the par­ticipant observer can be a factor in the success of a research project. Sociologist Terry Mizrahi (1986:185) notes that female sociologists studying predominantly male environments can find it dif­ficult to develop the cooperation and trust neces­sary for effective observation. In her view, more attention must be given to the impact of gender on the data-gathering process itself.

Participant observers immediately face another question which has both practical and ethical implications: to whom (if anyone) should they reveal the ultimate purpose of their observations? In our society, many people resent the feeling of being "studied." Thus, if a group sees the re­searcher as an "outsider" and an observer— rather than as a member of the group—its mem­bers may feel uneasy and hide many thoughts and emotions. On the other hand, if the re-

searcher disguises his or her identity or purpose, then the group has added a participant (and ob­server) who is being somewhat dishonest. This may well distort the group process. Moreover, it is not easy to maintain this type of masquerade for weeks or months while attempting to get to know strangers.

Participant observation is, in addition, a most time-consuming method of research. Systematic and thorough observations are essential; the soci­ologist cannot simply "drop by" the bowling alley or street corner every few weeks. Instead, the re­searcher may have to wait patiently for a particu­larly noteworthy or dramatic event. And in some instances, the deeper meanings of a seemingly trivial interaction may become clear to the ob­server only after months of study. Finally, for this method to be effective, the sociologist must keep detailed records of events and behaviors, even when "nothing" seems to be happening.

Observation research poses other complex challenges for the investigator. Sociologists must be able to fully understand what they are observ­ing. In a sense, then, researchers such as William F. Whyte or David Sudnow (see Box 2-1) must learn to see the world as the group sees it in order to fully comprehend the events taking place around them. This raises a delicate question re­garding the effect of the group on the observer—and the observer on the group. The sociologist must retain a certain level of detachment from the group under study, even as he or she tries to understand how members feel. If the research is to be successful, the observer cannot allow the close associations or even friendships that inevita­bly develop to influence the conclusions of the study. Anson Shupe and David Bromley (1980a), two sociologists who have used participant obser­vation, have likened this challenge to that of "walking a tightrope." Despite working so hard to gain acceptance from the group being studied, the participant-observer must maintain some de­gree of detachment.

In using participant-observation studies, sociol­ogists are well-aware that the presence of such an observer may affect the behavior of the people being studied. The recognition of this phenome­non grew out of research conducted during the 1920s and 1930s at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company. A group of research­ers headed by Elton Mayo set out to determine

CHAPTER TWO ♦ METHODS OF SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

BOX ♦ 2-1

EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR

HOSPITAL TREATMENT OF "DYING" PATIENTS

David Sudnow spent nine months in participant-observation research at County Hospital, a large urban facility. In the following selections, Sudnow (1967:101, 104) recalls how patients with the same medi­cal condition received different treatment:

Two persons in "similar" physi­cal condition may be differen­tially designated dead or not. For example, a young child was brought into the ER [emergency room] with no registering heart beat, respirations, or pulse—the standard "signs of death"—and was, through a rather dramatic stimulation procedure involving the coordinated work of a large team of doctors and nurses, re­vived for a period of eleven hours. On the same evening, shortly after the child's arrival, an elderly person who presented the same physical signs . . . "ar-

rived" in the ER and was almost immediately pronounced dead, with no attempts at stimulation instituted.

A nurse remarked, later in the evening: "They (the doctors) would never have done that to the old lady (i.e., attempt heart stimulation) even though I've seen it work on them too." Dur­ing the period when emergency resuscitation equipment was being readied for the child, an intern instituted mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. This same intern was shortly relieved by oxygen machinery, and when the woman "arrived," he was the one that pronounced her dead. He re­ported shortly afterwards that he could never bring himself to put his mouth to "an old lady's like that."

A few important conclusions can be drawn from Sudnow's research:

1. We must remember that this is an example of an institution in op­eration. It is not so much a matter of one intern's behaving irrespon­sibly as it is the functioning of a group process which may encour­age others to act similarly.

2. Even if we find the intern's be­havior distressing, we cannot for­get that such behavior is part of our society and therefore deserves se­rious study. Sudnow observed hos­pital practices; this does not mean that he condoned these practices.

3. Sudnow's findings underscore the value of effective participant-observation research. If he had vis­ited the hospital once or twice to conduct interviews, he might never have learned about the double standard concerning resuscitation. Since he was at the hospital for nine months, the nurse and intern became more comfortable with him and ultimately disclosed some revealing information.

how the productivity of workers at this plant could be improved. Investigators examined the impact of variations in the intensity of light and variations in working hours on productivity. To their surprise, they found that all steps they took seemed to increase productivity. Even measures that seemed likely to have the opposite effect, such as reducing the amount of lighting in the plant, led to higher productivity.

Why did the plant's employees continue to work harder? Their behavior apparently was influenced by the greater attention being paid to workers in the course of the research. Since that time, sociologists have used the term Hawthorne effect when subjects of research perform in a manner different from their typi­cal behavior because they realize that they are under observation.

Participant-observation research may also in-

fluence the policies and structure of the organiza­tions being analyzed. As an example, sociologists Michael Katovich and William Reese (1987) found that they were eventually responsible for a significant change in policy in a neighborhood bar near a college campus. After completing a participant-observation study of the bar and not­ing that it subtly discouraged college student at­tendance, they gave a copy of their paper to the bars owner. The owner's response was to begin advertising in the college newspaper and accept­ing Visa and MasterCard credit cards. Within a month after the study, the bar had become a pop­ular "hangout" for college students.