Observation Describing What You See Observation Differs from

Observation Describing What You See

Observation: Differs from Interviews in that in qualitative research it: 1) Most often takes place in a natural setting. 2) The researcher is actually present to conduct the study. Formal process of conducting qualitative, observational research in natural settings can include interviews and document analysis. It is often referred to as fieldwork.

Merriman (1998) identifies four characteristics of research-related observations. The observation is for a research purpose. It’s planned in advanced. There is a system/method for recording the observation. There are methods for establishing reliability/validity/trustworthiness.

Observation includes all of the 5 senses: Sight Hearing Taste Touch Smell Researcher’s feelings and/or descriptions of feelings of others are also important.

Using observation or interviews, in addition to what we saw, we should collect information on: What the participant did. The context of the behavior or action His or her appearance. Body language and affect ( how participants appeared to be feeling). The surrounding environment Interaction among two or more research subjects. Any conversations that took place. The researchers own conversations/interactions with the participants, especially those used to solicit more information. The researcher’s own reactions to the interview or observation

Other factors that might be important include: Unplanned activities or events Symbolic meaning of words or actions Nonverbal communication (dress, use of space) Physical cues – what does the setting tell you about what might happen or what has happened? What doesn’t happen in that situation How does what happens differ from the researcher’s own experiences? Role of gender, ethnicity, social class etc. in interaction among participants or between research and participants

According to Neuman (2003), field researchers: Observe every day activities and unusual occurrences. Become directly involved with the people studied. Learn to understand an insider’s point of view while remaining an outsider. Use a variety of techniques and social skills as the situation requires. Produces data in the form of written notes, diagrams, maps, photos, audio-tape, or video. Sees events holistically and individually in their social contexts Develops empathy for participants Document both explicit and tacit (implicit, unspoken) aspects of the culture. Observes culture without imposing an outsider’s point of view.

Problems that could occur in field: Researcher may be frozen out or excluded. Setting may be unsafe. There may be conflicts among groups and individuals studied. Social breakdowns about what social rules should be applied in specific situations.

According to Neuman (2003), the observer (especially) in ethnography benefits from: The attitude of “strangeness. ” Researcher confronts very different behaviors/assumptions about how things are done. This makes it easier to see cultural factors. It helps the researcher question and notice details. It also helps the researcher see things of which participants are not aware.

Richardson (2000 as cited in Montcalm & Royse, 2002) identifies four types of notes you should keep on your research. Observational notes – description of what you saw, heard, and felt. Methodological notes – what decisions did you make about doing the interview or observation and analyzing your data. Theoretical notes – your initial impressions or hypotheses. Personal notes – statements reflecting what you are thinking or feeling about your work.

Reliability/Validity (trustworthiness) Reliability – are observations internally and externally consistent. Internally – is the data plausible given what is known about an event. (Do pieces fit together) Externally – can data be cross-checked with other sources. Validity – Confidence placed in the researcher’s analysis and data – do they accurately reflect what the researcher observed. Types include: 1) Degree to which what is observed corresponds with experiences of participants. 2) Does the researcher’s account of his or her methodological approach persuade others that research was conducted in an appropriate manner that allows for accuracy of findings. 3) Member validation/feedback loop. Do participants confirm the researcher’s account of what happened when the researcher tells them the results. 4) Ability of a nonmember to act effectively as a member or pass as one.