In observations, the researcher enters a situation where some behaviour of interest is likely to take place and then makes notes about it. Observation is one of the most basic tools of the psychologist - but it is not as easy as it looks.  In order for an observation to really help us to understand human behaviour, there are several things that must be considered.

Observation is an important method of gathering data. The aim is to gather first-hand information in a naturally occurring situation. There are two basic methods of observation: participant observation - where the researcher is part of the situation being studied and may interact with the participants; and non-participant observation, where the researcher is not part of the situation being studied and does not interact with the participants.

Participant observation

In participant observation, the researcher becomes part of the group that he or she observes. The aim of this research strategy is to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given area of interest - for example, a religious group or a street gang - through personal involvement with people in their natural environment. The purpose is to develop a scientific understanding of the group.

In participant observational research, the researcher produces field notes which serve as an account of what has been observed.  It is a very demanding task. Researchers must spend a great deal of time in surroundings that may not be familiar (e.g. prisons or hospitals); they must initiate and maintain relationships with people they may or may not like (e.g. criminals); they must take a lot of notes on whatever happens (e.g. what people do, their body language, and their speech patterns); and they may run certain risks during the course of their work (e.g. injury at work if they are working in a factory). After the fieldwork is complete, the researchers analyze their field notes and diaries before they write their research report.

Participant observation has been used in psychological research for some time; for example, in studies of urban communities, abused women in shelters, and drug addicts.  One example of participant observation is Festinger et al. (1956) on a cult. Festinger used participant observation to test an existing theory - cognitive dissonance.

 Teacher only box

Was the use of covert participant observation justified in Festinger’s study? Why or why not?

Yes, the method was justified.  It would not have been possible to observe the cult from the outside as they were a very private, closed group of people. By joining the cult, Festinger was able to talk to them about their beliefs and observe their daily behaviours.  It also had to be covert in order to make sure that the reactions of the participants were authentic. Most likely, they would have refused to be observed by a psychologist.  And even if they had consented, they would most likely not be completely honest about their thoughts and feelings.

That being said, although it was justified there is a significant ethical concern about observing a group of people without consent -  who have chosen to have a private religious belief.

Would it be possible for the public to recognize the participants in this study?

Theoretically, Festinger could use coding and a specific individual's behaviour would not be identifiable in the study. However, if people know people who are in the cult, it is possible that some details may lead to their identification. This is a serious ethical concern. The cult was also a relatively small group of people which means that is potentially more likely that a single individual's beliefs or behaviour could be identified.

Some researchers question whether traditional participant observations truly provide insight into people’s minds. However, most qualitative researchers suggest that this can be done by active participation in a group’s life over a period of time, without having any preconceived ideas. Some researchers believe that you can only truly understand people’s world views if you base your work on the way people understand the world themselves. People’s “theories of the world” are grounded in their daily interactions and communications. In order to discover these theories of the world, the researcher should look for regularities and patterns in the data to eventually discover the “rules” and “beliefs” that influence people.

It is important that researchers are aware of how their interactions with participants may affect their behaviour.  Critical thinking like this is always important, but particularly when the researcher chooses to study a group in which he or she has a personal or political interest. When writing up the analysis of the study, it is important that the researcher includes this information and any other relevant biographical data because this may have influenced the interpretation of the data. This is an example of reflexivity.

Non-participant observation

Non-participant observation means that the researcher is not part of the group being studied. It is a research technique by which the researcher observes participants, with or without their knowledge. The researcher does not take an active part in the situation. One example of non-participant observation could be a researcher studying gender differences in teacher feedback in a school class. The researcher could sit in the back of the classroom and observe the teacher. Critics of this method argue that people who are observed do not behave naturally. This is called reactivity, and it is assumed that reactivity will invalidate the data. Some observational research takes place in psychological laboratories - for example, through one-way mirrors. It is believed that this kind of observation does not really reflect what people do in real life, but it may be useful to conduct research in this way because it is easier and faster to gather data by this method.

Deception is sometimes used in non-participant observation, because the behaviour being observed may be changed if participants know they are being studied. However, it is essential that the researcher always respects the individual’s privacy and the rule of confidentiality.

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation simply means that the observation takes place in the participants’ natural environment. The most important thing in naturalistic observations is that the researcher should not interfere with the naturally occurring behaviour. In order to reduce reactivity, the researcher could spend some time with the participants before the observation begins, so that the participants get used to his or her presence. The researcher could also use cameras to film behaviour and then use this for analysis. If cameras are present for a long period, they will most likely not interfere with natural behaviour.

Overt and covert observation

Participant and non-participant observations can be overt or covert. The researcher decides in advance which technique is most appropriate for the research. There are strengths and limitations of both approaches.

In an overt observation, the participants know they are being observed. This is the main strength in terms of ethical considerations.  The researcher lets the participants know that he or she is a researcher, but the purpose of the study may not always be clear.  A researcher studying a group of women in a women’s shelter might simply say that she is writing a book on domestic violence and how women cope with it. This may be enough to gain acceptance for the project.  In overt participant observations where the psychologist actively participates in the group being studied, the participants are informed about the research and give informed consent.

In a covert observation, the participants are not aware they are being studied, so they have not agreed to it. The participant has to “make up a story” to justify his or her presence in the setting in order to mask his or her real purpose in being there. This method has been used over the years in settings where it would otherwise be difficult to gain access, or when it is important that the presence of the researcher does not affect the behaviour of the people in the study.

Considerations involved in setting up and carrying out an observation

An observation is not just about “hanging around”. A researcher who decides to carry out an observation must prepare it carefully. The researcher needs to decide exactly what to focus on in the field while leaving space for flexibility. It may be a good idea that the researcher becomes familiar with the setting and the participants before starting the observations. This could reduce some of the problems of having a stranger in the setting.

The researcher must take some initial decisions as to the purpose of the research and what kind of notes to make during observations.  When collecting data, researchers refer to point, time, and event sampling.

The researchers also have to decide whether they will identify the behaviours that will be observed before the observation or whether they will take an unstructured approach and analyze behaviour after the observation. In a  structured observation, the researcher records specific predetermined features of behaviour, using a checklist that has been developed before the observation. This is a deductive approach that is based on existing theory.  Data collection is easier and the research team can be trained in how to carry out the observation so that the process is standardized.  However, making a checklist limits the observation to preset categories which may not always reflect what happens in a naturalistic environment.

Researchers may prefer to use a more inductive approach with an unstructured observation. In an unstructured observation, the researcher records all behaviour relevant to a research question. There is no checklist. After the observations, the researchers look through their field notes to see what patterns emerge from their data.

Deciding how the data will actually be recorded is also important - both from a methodological and an ethical point of view.  One way of collecting data is to take notes or fill in checklists while observing the participants.  In an overt observation, this could lead to reactivity.  As noted above, one way to reduce reactivity is for the researcher to conduct pre-observation interviews with the participants. The participants should also be briefed about the purpose of the research and what is going to occur during the observations. Creating a rapport with the participants may reduce concern about the observation and result in more naturalistic behaviour.

Another possibility is to record the participants' behaviour on camera.  In an overt observation, this would need consent and the recordings may only be used for analysis; the identities of the participants must be protected. In covert observations, the use of cameras or recordings without the consent of the participants raises serious ethical concerns.

In the case of covert participant observations, taking notes is not really practical, but it is often the only way to record data.  In Festinger's classic study, he and his team would excuse themselves to go to the bathroom, where they would write down what they could remember from their observations and conversations. This method has clear limitations as it assumes that the researcher is able to accurately recall information when he finally has time to write everything down.

In observations, the goal is to preserve researcher objectivity, so that the data collection is not influenced by selective perception. With this in mind, it is helpful to have several researchers observing the sample at the same time. An advantage is that one observer might notice what another has missed. It also allows the researchers to establish inter-observer reliability if their observations are similar. In the case where behaviour is filmed, this makes it easier for several researchers to carry out the observation with the hope of confirming the original researcher's findings.

After the observations, the researcher can conduct post-observational interviews, and the participants must be debriefed, unless the observations were covert.

 Teacher only box

Scenario 1

Some students have been identified in your school as being incredibly low stress. The school is sponsoring research to find out how these students handle stressful situations with the goal of then helping other students with their stress management.

For this study, it would be a question as to how the sample would be chosen. Would this be self-identified?  Teacher identified? Stress is manifested differently by students, so it would be hard to identify "low stress students."

The observation would also be problematic in that it is not clear what situation would be observed. Students during mock exam week? During a test?  And if so, which subject?  We have to be careful not to assume that the same stressor has the same effect on all students.

For ethical considerations, consent is problematic as it may influence their behaviour. In addition, if done within a school community, it is important that the anonymity of the participants is maintained.

Scenario 2

Your city appears to be having a problem with pickpockets at the tourist sights. The city has asked that you carry out a study of how tourist behaviours may increase the likelihood of being robbed.

Students may discuss several different points here.  Where in the city would they carry out the research?  Do they just watch tourists get robbed?  Or do they intervene, which then puts the researchers in jeopardy.  If they don't actually get robbed but do something that may lead to them being victims of theft, is this just an example of researcher bias? There is also a very strange ethical concern with this study - the city is assuming that theft is partially due to "tourist behaviour."  One wonders what the intended application of the findings of this study would be.

Scenario 3

You have been asked to carry out a study at the local zoo on the social habits of gorillas.

Again, students may discuss issues like the sample size - e.g. if there are only four gorillas, to what extent can we generalize the findings? In addition, to what extent are the researchers aware of the normal behaviours of gorillas before carrying out their observation.  It is also problematic that this is like a "lab observation" in that the gorillas are not in their natural environment - thus, potentially affecting their behaviour.

Analysing and interpreting observations

After completing the observation, the field notes (and perhaps video recordings) must be analyzed and synthesized. The researcher should include information from the interviews conducted prior to and after the observations. He or she will probably also include information that can place the observations in context -  that is, describing in detail the environment and social context in which the observations took place. A “thick” description provides rich data.

One way to analyze the data is by carrying out an inductive content analysis.  The classification process consists of reading and rereading the field notes in an interactive way. The researcher must be able to identify bits of data and create categories. The researcher should write a summary of the analysis so that independent readers can follow how and why the connections are reached. These notes about notes are called memos.

When the data have been classified into themes, the researcher can look for higher-order themes and subthemes. The interpretation of the data is based on the collected data. It is important to think critically and not only look for data that support the interpretation. The researcher should also search for evidence that could contradict the interpretation. Critical thinking means looking for alternative explanations.

In the end, the researcher produces a coherent explanation and an overall theoretical framework for understanding the phenomenon under investigation. The theoretical framework is “grounded” - that is, it is based on the categories identified during the observation.  In order for researchers to establish the credibility of the interpretations of the observations, there are a few steps that can be taken. They may share the findings of the observations with the participants, to ask them whether they feel that they agree with the interpretation of their behaviour. Additionally, they can ask other researchers to take a critical look at the data to see whether they can support the interpretation and conclusions that were generated. It is important for the researcher to make it possible for the reader to track and verify how the conclusion is reached.

Checking for understanding

HL: Understanding interviews