youth link - Jamaica - for the world latest fashion, school news, movies, sports and much more...

It is often assumed that observation methods are uniquely associated with the interactionist perspectives; however, one must avoid believing that users of participant observation are automatically interactionists. A general distinction is often made between positivists sociologists who rely upon the taken for granted assumption, that an objective, scientific collection of data is possible using quantitative collection methods or large social surveys such as questionnaires, while the interactionists school reject the validity of attempts to scientifically study society and use, instead qualitative methods of investigations.

The degree to which the participant observer becomes involved with the groups he or she is studying, can vary significantly. Firstly, the researcher can participate fully, this is complete participation. Here, the researcher becomes fully integrated into the group. Secondly, there is the 'participant as observer'. This is when the sociologist's activities are not wholly concealed but subordinated. The final classification is when no participation occurs. Here, the sociologist is merely an observer and this is known as 'non-participant' observation. A good example of non-participant observation was the observation made by Elton Mayo at the Hawthorn works at the Western Electricity Company in Chicago between 1927 and 1932. Although useful evidence was collected on the role of the group interaction in human relations theory, any changes that Mayo made in lighting conditions in the factory, tended to improve productivity to the same degree. Mayo accounted for this improvement by pointing to the influence that the research team was having on the workers. The change in human behaviour caused by sociological investigation became known as the 'Hawthorn Effect'.

One of the classic observational studies involving actual participation was 'William Foote Whyte's Street Corner Society' (1955), a three-and-a-half year study of an Italian-American slum in the late 1930s. This study is often used to illustrate some of the main problems involved in using participant observation as a method of investigation.

GroupOne.Clipart Entry and acceptance into the group is often a major problem, especially as many participant studies have involved youth sub-cultures. Whyte was helped by 'Doc' (the gang's leader) for, although the other gang members knew that Whyte was writing a book, he was introduced primarily as Doc's friend and was hence accepted with relative ease. In 1974, a study entitled 'View from the Boys', by Howard J. Parker studied a neighbourhood of Liverpool known as the Roundhouse. Acceptance into the group was relatively easy, as Parker had already met some of the boys at a country holiday centre for Liverpool's deprived children. Entry was also aided by Parker's personal appearance amongst other things "boozy, suitably dressed and ungroomed and knowing the 'score' about theft behaviour and sexual exploits".

Changing the group's behaviour by the actual presence of the observer, can also prove a major headache. In Whyte's study, for example, the gang members started to observe themselves. Thus, the leader Doc remarked to Whyte "you've slowed me up plenty, now when I do something I have to think, 'what would Bill Whyte want to know about it'? Before I use to do things by instinct".

In 'View from the Boys', Parker would often stop the group from breaking into a car and was, therefore, changing the group's behaviour. If group members were charged, Parker gave legal advice that may have altered the course of events. Probably the most controversial issue surrounding the use of participant observation is the degree to which the sociologist researcher should not become involved in the group's behaviour that it affects the quality of the research. According to Whyte, he changed during the course of his investigation from a non-participating observer to a non-observing participant; while Parker, although doing his best to avoid criminal activity, as with most adults in the neighbourhood, he would receive "knock off" and say nothing.

Another problem that participant observation encounters is the recording of data. In 'Street Corner Society', Whyte had difficulty in knowing what to ask and when to ask it. Doc advised Whyte to lay off asking questions and to "hang around and you will learn the answers in the long run without having to ask the questions". Parker, too, had difficulty knowing what to record, how to record it and how it interpret it.

Sociologists are often left with the question of ethics. Firstly, validity of pretending to be a full-fledged member of group without the members knowing their real identity. Secondly, Parker points to the fieldwork data that he definitely would not publish, that which could be published and that he was unsure about. The final uncertain material Parker resolved by consulting the 'lads' and his colleagues. His main concern when writing 'View from the Boys' was that in publishing it, he did no harm. Parker stated that his reason for using participant observation was "because by visiting the deviants in prison, borstal and other 'human zoos' or by cornering them in classrooms to answer questionnaires, the sociologist misses meeting them as people in their normal society".

The interactionist perspective is closely linked with participant observation. A.V. Cicourel's (1976) work on juvenile delinquency, for instance, involved a four-year observation of the proceedings in juvenile courts. For Cicourel, juvenile justice is based on the interpretative procedures that officials use in their routine interaction.

However, interaction is a two-way affair. Whyte described the danger of moving from being a non-participating observer to becoming a non-observing participator. Through membership of the gang, the sociologist becomes subject to its social influences and this can lead to an ability to remain detached when giving accounts of gang activities. Though empathy with those one studies is crucial to participant observation, if the sociologist becomes too sympathetic to the point of view of gang members, there is a danger of accepting their rationalisations of their actions too uncritically.

For these reasons, participant observation accounts are always likely to be biased. The reports of Whyte, Parker and others who have studied corner gangs are inevitably selective and there is no obvious way of checking on their accuracy. Since the research is not carried out in a systematic manner and does not provide a sound basis for generalisation, positivists tend to dismiss this kind of research as unscientific.

Your Views on YL
If you've got an opinion, share it with the world on our Message Boards