RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

12.01.2015 Views

INTRODUCTION 397 the physical setting (e.g. the physical environment and its organization) the human setting (e.g. the organization of people, the characteristics and make up of the groups or individuals being observed, for instance, gender, class) the interactional setting (e.g. the interactions that are taking place, formal, informal, planned, unplanned, verbal, non-verbal etc.) the programme setting (e.g. the resources and their organization, pedagogic styles, curricula and their organization). Additionally, observational data may be useful for recording non-verbal behaviour, behaviour in natural or contrived settings, and longitudinal analysis (Bailey 1994: 244). On the other hand, the lack of control in observing in natural settings may render observation less useful, coupled with difficulties in measurement, problems of small samples, difficulties of gaining access and negotiating entry, and difficulties in maintaining anonymity (Bailey 1994: 245–6). Observation can be a powerful research tool, but it is not without its difficulties, and this chapter exposes and addresses these. Patton (1990: 202) suggests that observational data should enable the researcher to enter and understand the situation that is being described. The kind of observations available to the researcher lie on a continuum from unstructured to structured, responsive to pre-ordinate. A highly structured observation will know in advance what it is looking for (i.e. pre-ordinate observation) and will have its observation categories worked out in advance. A semi-structured observation will have an agenda of issues but will gather data to illuminate these issues in a far less predetermined or systematic manner. An unstructured observation will be far less clear on what it is looking for and will therefore have to go into a situation and observe what is taking place before deciding on its significance for the research. In a nutshell, a structured observation will already have its hypotheses decided and will use the observational data to conform or refute these hypotheses. On the other hand, a semi-structured and, more particularly, an unstructured observation, will be hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesistesting. The semi-structured and unstructured observations will review observational data before suggesting an explanation for the phenomena being observed. Though it is possible to argue that all research is some form of participant observation since we cannot study the world without being part of it (Adler and Adler 1994), nevertheless Gold (1958) offers a well-known classification of researcher roles in observation, that lie on a continuum. At one end is the complete participant, moving to the participant-as-observer,thencetothe observer-as-participant, andfinallytothecomplete observer (see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/ 9780415368780 – Chapter 18, file 18.1.ppt). The move is from complete participation to complete detachment. The mid-points of this continuum strive to balance involvement with detachment, closeness with distance, familiarity with strangeness. The role of the complete observer is typified in the one-way mirror, the video-cassette, the audio-cassette and the photograph, while complete participation involves researchers taking on membership roles (overt or covert) (see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/ 9780415368780 – Chapter 18, file 18.2.ppt). Traditionally observation has been characterized as non-interventionist (Adler and Adler 1994: 378), where researchers do not seek to manipulate the situation or subjects, they do not pose questions for the subjects, nor do they deliberately create ‘new provocations’ (Adler and Adler 1994: 378). Quantitative research tends to have a small field of focus, fragmenting the observed into minute chunks that can subsequently be aggregated into a variable. Qualitative research, on the other hand, draws the researcher into the phenomenological complexity of participants’ worlds; here situations unfold, and connections, causes and correlations can be observed as they occur over time. The qualitative researcher aims to catch the dynamic nature of events, to see intentionality, to seek trends and patterns over time. If we know in advance what we wish to observe, i.e. if the observation is concerned to Chapter 18

398 OBSERVATION chart the incidence, presence and frequency of elements and maybe wishes to compare one situation with another, then it may be more efficient in terms of time to go into a situation with a prepared observation schedule. If, on the other hand, we want to go into a situation and let the elements of the situation speak for themselves, perhaps with no concern with how one situation compares with another, then it may be more appropriate to opt for a less structured observation. The former, structured observation, takes much time to prepare but the data analysis is fairly rapid, the categories having already been established, while the latter, less structured approach, is quicker to prepare but the data take much longer to analyse. The former approach operates within the agenda of the researcher and hence might neglect aspects of the four settings above if they do not appear on the observation schedule, i.e. it looks selectively at situations. On the other hand, the latter operates within the agenda of the participants, i.e. it is responsive to what it finds and therefore, by definition, is honest to the situation as it unfolds. Here selectivity derives from the situation rather than from the researcher in the sense that key issues emerge from the observation rather than the researcher knowing in advance what those key issues will be. Structured observation is useful for testing hypotheses, while unstructured observation provides a rich description of a situation which, in turn, can lead to the subsequent generation of hypotheses. Flick (1998: 137) suggests that observation has to be considered along five dimensions: structured, systematic and quantitative observation versus unstructured and unsystematic and qualitative observation participant observation versus non-participant observation overt versus covert observation observation in natural settings versus observation in unnatural, artificial settings (e.g. a ‘laboratory’ or contrived situation) self-observation versus observation of others. Cooper and Schindler (2001: 375) suggest that observation can be considered along three dimensions: whether the observation is direct or indirect: the former requiring the presence of the observer, the latter requiring recording devices (e.g. video cameras) whether the presence of the observer is known or unknown (overt or covert research), whether the researcher is concealed (e.g. through a one-way mirror or hidden camera) or partially concealed, i.e. the researcher is seen but not known to be a researcher (e.g. the researcher takes up a visible role in the school) the role taken by the observer (participant to non-participant observation, discussed below). We address these throughout the chapter. Structured observation A structured observation is very systematic and enables the researcher to generate numerical data from the observations. Numerical data, in turn, facilitate the making of comparisons between settings and situations, and frequencies, patterns and trends to be noted or calculated. The observer adopts a passive, non-intrusive role, merely noting down the incidence of the factors being studied. Observations are entered on an observational schedule. An example of this is shown in Box 18.1 (see http:// www.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415368780 – Chapter 18, file 18.3.ppt). This is an example of a schedule used to monitor student and teacher conversations over a ten-minute period. The upper seven categories indicate who is speaking to whom, while the lower four categories indicate the nature of the talk. Looking at the example of the observation schedule, several points can be noted: The categories for the observation are discrete, i.e. there is no overlap between them. For this to be the case requires a pilot to have been developed and tested in order to iron out any problems of overlap of categories.

INTRODUCTION 397<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

the physical setting (e.g. the physical environment<br />

and its organization)<br />

the human setting (e.g. the organization of<br />

people, the characteristics and make up of<br />

the groups or individuals being observed, for<br />

instance, gender, class)<br />

the interactional setting (e.g. the interactions<br />

that are taking place, formal, informal,<br />

planned, unplanned, verbal, non-verbal etc.)<br />

the programme setting (e.g. the resources and<br />

their organization, pedagogic styles, curricula<br />

and their organization).<br />

Additionally, observational data may be useful<br />

for recording non-verbal behaviour, behaviour in<br />

natural or contrived settings, and longitudinal<br />

analysis (Bailey 1994: 244). On the other hand,<br />

the lack of control in observing in natural<br />

settings may render observation less useful, coupled<br />

with difficulties in measurement, problems of<br />

small samples, difficulties of gaining access and<br />

negotiating entry, and difficulties in maintaining<br />

anonymity (Bailey 1994: 245–6). Observation can<br />

be a powerful research tool, but it is not without its<br />

difficulties, and this chapter exposes and addresses<br />

these.<br />

Patton (1990: 202) suggests that observational<br />

data should enable the researcher to enter and<br />

understand the situation that is being described.<br />

The kind of observations available to the<br />

researcher lie on a continuum from unstructured<br />

to structured, responsive to pre-ordinate. A highly<br />

structured observation will know in advance what<br />

it is lo<strong>ok</strong>ing for (i.e. pre-ordinate observation)<br />

and will have its observation categories worked<br />

out in advance. A semi-structured observation will<br />

have an agenda of issues but will gather data to<br />

illuminate these issues in a far less predetermined<br />

or systematic manner. An unstructured observation<br />

will be far less clear on what it is lo<strong>ok</strong>ing for<br />

and will therefore have to go into a situation and<br />

observe what is taking place before deciding on<br />

its significance for the research. In a nutshell,<br />

a structured observation will already have its<br />

hypotheses decided and will use the observational<br />

data to conform or refute these hypotheses. On<br />

the other hand, a semi-structured and, more<br />

particularly, an unstructured observation, will<br />

be hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesistesting.<br />

The semi-structured and unstructured<br />

observations will review observational data before<br />

suggesting an explanation for the phenomena<br />

being observed.<br />

Though it is possible to argue that all research<br />

is some form of participant observation since<br />

we cannot study the world without being part<br />

of it (Adler and Adler 1994), nevertheless Gold<br />

(1958) offers a well-known classification of<br />

researcher roles in observation, that lie on a<br />

continuum. At one end is the complete participant,<br />

moving to the participant-as-observer,thencetothe<br />

observer-as-participant, andfinallytothecomplete<br />

observer (see http://www.routledge.com/textbo<strong>ok</strong>s/<br />

9780415368780 – Chapter 18, file 18.1.ppt).<br />

The move is from complete participation to<br />

complete detachment. The mid-points of this<br />

continuum strive to balance involvement with<br />

detachment, closeness with distance, familiarity<br />

with strangeness. The role of the complete<br />

observer is typified in the one-way mirror,<br />

the video-cassette, the audio-cassette and the<br />

photograph, while complete participation involves<br />

researchers taking on membership roles (overt or<br />

covert) (see http://www.routledge.com/textbo<strong>ok</strong>s/<br />

9780415368780 – Chapter 18, file 18.2.ppt).<br />

Traditionally observation has been characterized<br />

as non-interventionist (Adler and Adler 1994:<br />

378), where researchers do not seek to manipulate<br />

the situation or subjects, they do not pose questions<br />

for the subjects, nor do they deliberately create<br />

‘new provocations’ (Adler and Adler 1994: 378).<br />

Quantitative research tends to have a small field<br />

of focus, fragmenting the observed into minute<br />

chunks that can subsequently be aggregated into a<br />

variable. Qualitative research, on the other hand,<br />

draws the researcher into the phenomenological<br />

complexity of participants’ worlds; here situations<br />

unfold, and connections, causes and correlations<br />

can be observed as they occur over time. The<br />

qualitative researcher aims to catch the dynamic<br />

nature of events, to see intentionality, to seek<br />

trends and patterns over time.<br />

If we know in advance what we wish to<br />

observe, i.e. if the observation is concerned to<br />

Chapter 18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!