Editing Participant observation (section)

==Method and practice==
Such research involves a range of well-defined, though variable methods: informal interviews, direct [[observation]], [[Participation (decision making)|participation]] in the life of the group, [[Focus group|collective discussions]], analyses of [[Primary source|personal documents]] produced within the group, [[Reflexivity (social theory)|self-analysis]], results from activities undertaken off or online, and [[Life history (sociology)|life-histories]]. Although the method is generally characterized as [[qualitative research]], it can (and often does) include [[Quantitative research|quantitative dimensions]]. Traditional participant observation is usually undertaken over an extended period of time, ranging from several months to many years, and even generations. An extended research time period means that the researcher is able to obtain more detailed and accurate information about the individuals, community, and/or population under study. Observable details (like daily time allotment) and more hidden details (like [[taboo]] behavior) are more easily observed and interpreted over a longer period of time. A strength of observation and interaction over extended periods of time is that researchers can discover discrepancies between what participants say—and often believe—should happen (the [[formal system]]) and what actually does happen, or between different aspects of the formal system; in contrast, a one-time survey of people's answers to a set of questions might be quite consistent, but is less likely to show conflicts between different aspects of the social system or between conscious representations and behavior.<ref name="DeWalt">DeWalt, K. M., B. R. DeWalt, and C. B. Wayland. 1998. "Participant Observation." Pp. 259–99 in ''Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology,'' edited by H. R. Bernard''.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: [[AltaMira Press]].</ref>

=== Howell's phases of participant observation ===
In participant observation, a researcher's discipline based interests and commitments shape which events he or she considers are important and relevant to the research inquiry.<ref name="Emerson">Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2001). "Participant Observation and Fieldnotes." In Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, & Lyn Lofland (Eds.), ''Handbook of Ethnography.'' pp: 356-357. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</ref> According to Howell (1972), the four stages that most participant observation research studies are establishing rapport or getting to know the people, immersing oneself in the field, recording data and observations, and consolidating the information gathered.<ref name="Howell">{{cite book|last=Howell|first=Joseph T.|title=Hard Living on Clay Street: Portraits of Blue Collar Families|publisher=Waveland Press, Inc.|year=1972|isbn=0881335266|location=Prospect Heights, IL}}</ref>

The phases are as follows:<ref name="Howell" />{{rp|392–403}}

* '''Establishing Rapport''': Get to know the members, visit the scene before study. Howell<ref name="Howell" /> states that it is important to become friends, or at least be accepted in the community, in order to obtain quality data.
* '''In the Field''' (do as the locals do): It is important for the researcher to connect or show a connection with the population in order to be accepted as a member of the community. DeWalt & DeWalt (2011)<ref name="DeWalt2">{{cite book|last=DeWalt, DeWalt|first=K.M, B.R.|title=Participant Observation|publisher=AltaMira Press|year=2011|location=Walnut Creek, CA|pages=47–61}}</ref><ref name="Howell" />{{rp|392–396}} call this form of rapport establishment as "talking the talk" and "walking the walk".  Also mentioned by Howell, DeWalt & DeWalt state that the researcher must strive to fit in with the population of study through moderation of language and participation.<ref name="DeWalt" /> This sets the stage for how well the researcher blends in with the field and the quality of observable events he or she experiences.
* '''Recording Observations and Data''': Along with [[field research|field notes]] and [[Interview (research)|interviews]], researchers are encouraged to record their personal thoughts and feelings about the subject of study through [[Reflexivity (social theory)|reflexivity journals]]. The researchers are prompted to think about how their experiences, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and other factors might influence their research, in this case what the researcher decides to record and observe.<ref name="Ambert">{{cite journal|last1=Ambert|first1=A.|last2=Adler|first2=P. A.|last3=Adler|first3=P.|last4=Detzner|first4=D. F.|year=1995|title=Understanding and evaluating qualitative research|journal=[[Journal of Marriage and the Family]]|volume=57 |issue=57|pages=879–93|doi=10.2307/353409 |jstor=353409 }}</ref> Researchers must be aware of these biases and enter the study with no misconceptions about not bringing in any subjectivities into the data collection process.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Ambert" /><ref>Richardson, L. 2000. ''"Writing: A Method of Inquiry." Handbook of Qualitative Research'' (2nd ed.), edited by N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: [[SAGE Publishing|Sage Publications]].</ref>
* '''Analyzing Data''':
** '''[[Thematic Analysis]]''': organizing data according to recurrent themes found in interviews or other types of qualitative data collection and
** [[narrative analysis|'''Narrative Analysis''']]: categorizing information gathered through interviews, finding common themes, and constructing a coherent story from data.

===Types of participant observation===
Participant observation is not simply showing up at a site and writing things down. On the contrary, participant observation is a complex method that has many components. One of the first things that a researcher or individual must do after deciding to conduct participant observations to gather data is decide what kind of participant observer he or she will be. [[James Spradley|Spradley]] (1980)<ref name="Spradley">{{cite book|last=Spradley|first=James P.|title=Participant Observation|publisher=Harcourt College Publishers|year=1980|isbn=0-03-044501-9|location=Orlando, Florida|pages=58–62|author-link=James Spradley}}</ref> provides five different types of participant observations summarised below.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Participant Observation Types
|-
! Type !! Level of Involvement!! Limitations
|-
| Non-Participatory || No contact with population or field of study|| Unable to build rapport or ask questions as new information comes up.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Schwarts">{{cite journal|last1=Schwartz|first1=M. S.|last2=Green|first2=C. Schwartz|year=1955|title=Problems in participant observation|journal=[[American Journal of Sociology]]|volume=60|issue=4|pages=343–353 |doi=10.1086/221566 |s2cid=144834854 }}</ref>
|-
| Passive Participation || Researcher is only in the bystander role|| Limits ability to establish rapport and immersing oneself in the field.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Spradley" /><ref name="Schwarts" />
|-
| Moderate Participation || Researcher maintains a balance between "insider" and "outsider" roles|| This allows a good combination of involvement and necessary detachment to remain objective.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Schwarts" />
|-
| Active Participation || Researcher becomes a member of the group by fully embracing skills and customs for the sake of complete comprehension|| This method permits the researcher to become more involved in the population. There is a risk of "going native" as the researcher strives for an in-depth understanding of the population studied.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Spradley" /><ref name="Schwarts" />
|-
| Complete Participation || Researcher is completely integrated in population of study beforehand (i.e. they are already a member of particular population studied).|| There is the risk of losing all levels of objectivity, thus risking what is analyzed and presented to the public.<ref name="DeWalt" /><ref name="Spradley" /><ref name="Schwarts" />
|}
'''Limitations To Any Participant Observation'''
*The recorded observations about a group of people or event is never going to be the full description.<ref name="Schwarts"/><ref name="Peshkin">{{cite journal|last=Peshkin|first=A.|year=1993|title=The goodness of qualitative research|journal=[[Educational Researcher]]|volume=22|issue=2|pages=23–9|doi=10.3102/0013189x022002023|s2cid=145739522 }}</ref><ref name="Atkinson 1994 248-161">{{cite journal|last1=Atkinson|first1=Paul|last2=Hammersley|first2=Martyn|year=1994|title=Ethnography and participant observation|journal=Handbook of Qualitative Research|pages=248–61}}</ref>
* As mentioned before this is due to the selective nature of any type of recordable data process: it is inevitably influenced by researchers' personal beliefs of what is relevant and important.<ref name="Schwarts"/><ref name="Peshkin"/><ref name="Atkinson 1994 248-161"/> 
*This also plays out in the analysis of collected data; the researcher's worldview invariably influences how he or she interprets and evaluates the data.<ref name="DeWalt"/><ref name="Spradley"/><ref name="Peshkin"/><ref name="Atkinson 1994 248-161"/>
*The researcher may not capture accurately what the participant or may misunderstand the meaning of the participant's words, thus drawing inaccurate generalizations about the participant's perceptions.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Fenno|first=Richard F.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RUckAQAAIAAJ|title=Home Style: House Members in Their Districts|publisher=[[Little, Brown & Co.]]|year=1978|pages=274–5, 277, 286|isbn=9780673394408 }}</ref>

====Impact of researcher involvement====
The presence of the researcher in the field may influence the participants' behavior, causing the participants to behave differently than they would without the presence of the observer (see:[[observer-expectancy effect]]).<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2">Douglas, Jack D., and John M. Johnson, (eds.). 1977. ''Existential Sociology''. New York: [[Cambridge University Press]]. {{ISBN|9780521215152}}. Retrieved via [https://books.google.com/books?id=pRY2nQEACAAJ Google Books].</ref> Researchers engaging in this type of qualitative research method must be aware that participants may act differently or put up a facade that is in accordance to what they believe the researcher is studying.<ref name=":2" /> This is why it is important to employ rigor in any qualitative research study. A useful method of rigor to employ is [[Member check|member-checking]] or [[Triangulation (social science)|triangulation]].<ref name="Douglas">{{cite book|last=Douglas|first=Jack D.|url=https://archive.org/details/investigativesoc29doug|title=Investigative Social Research|publisher=[[SAGE publications]]|year=1976|location=Beverly Hills, Calif.|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref name=":3">Lincoln, Yvonne S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. ''Naturalistic Inquiry.'' Beverly Hills, Calif.: [[SAGE Publications]]. {{OCLC|1036737672}}. {{Internet Archive|id=naturalisticinqu00linc|name=Naturalistic inquiry}}.</ref>

According to [[Richard Fenno]], one problem in participant observation is the risk of "going native", by which he means that the researcher becomes so immersed in the world of the participant that the researcher loses scholarly objectivity.<ref name=":0" /> Fenno also warns that the researcher may lose the ability and willingness to criticize the participant in order to maintain ties with the participant.<ref name=":0" /> 
 
While gathering data through participant observation, investigator triangulation would be a way to ensure that one researcher is not letting his or her biases or personal preferences in the way of observing and recording meaningful experiences.<ref name=":3" /> As the name suggests, investigator triangulation involves multiple research team members gathering data about the same event, but this method ensures a variety of recorded observations due to the varying theoretical perspectives of each research team member.<ref name=":3" /> In other words, [[Triangulation (social science)|triangulation]], be it data, investigator, theory or methodological triangulation, is a form of cross-checking information.<ref name="Douglas" /><ref name=":3" />

[[Member check]]ing is when the researcher asks for participant feedback on his or her recorded observations to ensure that the researcher is accurately depicting the participants' experiences and the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the data.<ref name=":3" /> This method can be used in participant observation studies or when conducting interviews.<ref name=":3" /> [[Member check|Member-checking]] and [[Triangulation (social science)|triangulation]] are good methods to use when conducting participant observations, or any other form of qualitative research, because they increase data and research conclusion credibility and transferability. In quantitative research, credibility is liken to internal validity,<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4">Banister, Peter, Geoff Bunn, and [[Erica Burman]]. 2011. ''Qualitative Methods In Psychology: A Research Guide''. Philadelphia: [[Open University Press]]. Pp. 1–16.</ref> or the knowledge that our findings are representative of reality, and transferability is similar to external validity or the extent to which the findings can be generalized across different populations, methods, and settings.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />

A variant of participant observation is '''observing participation''', described by [[Marek M. Kaminski]], who explored prison subculture as a political prisoner in communist Poland in 1985.<ref>Kaminski, Marek M. 2004. ''Games Prisoners Play''. Princeton, NJ: [[Princeton University Press]]. {{ISBN|0-691-11721-7}}.</ref> "Observing" or "observant" participation has also been used to describe fieldwork in sexual minority subcultures by anthropologists and sociologists who are themselves lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender,<ref>Bolton, Ralph. 1995. "Tricks, Friends and Lovers: Erotic Encounters in the Field." Pp. 140–67 in ''Taboo'', edited by D. Kulick and M. Wilson. London: [[Routledge]].</ref> as well as amongst political activists and in protest events.<ref>Sullivan, S. (2004). 2004. "[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/abstracts/13304/ We are heartbroken and furious! (#2) Violence and the (anti-)globalisation movement(s)]." ''Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation'' [CSGR working paper no. 133/04]. [[University of Warwick]].</ref> The different phrasing is meant to highlight the way in which their partial or full membership in the community/subculture that they are researching both allows a different sort of access to the community and also shapes their perceptions in ways different from a full outsider. This is similar to considerations by anthropologists such as Lila Abu-Lughod on "halfie anthropology", or fieldwork by [[bicultural]] anthropologists on a culture to which they partially belong.<ref>[[Lila Abu-Lughod|Abu‐Lughod, Lila]]. 1988. "Fieldwork of a Dutiful Daughter." ''Arab Women in the Field: Studying Your Own Society, edited by'' S. Altorki and C. Fawzi El-Solh. Syracuse, NY: [[Syracuse University Press]].</ref>