After reviewing the required readings, review and respond to the questions on pages 125-126 in Cozby (2012).
This section discusses observational methods, which are often involved in qualitative research.
Please answer questions in detail and support your answers with scholarly research citations where appropriate.
Length: 5-7 pages (app. 350 words per page)
Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating
directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
Review Questions
1. What is naturalistic observation? How does a researcher collect data when conducting naturalistic observation research?
2. Why are the data in naturalistic observation research primarily qualitative?
3. Distinguish between participant and nonparticipant observation; between concealed and nonconcealed observation.
4. What is systematic observation? Why are the data from systematic observation primarily quantitative?
5. What is a coding system? What are some important considerations when developing a coding system?
6. What is a case study? When are case studies used? What is a psychobiography?
7. What is archival research? What are the major sources of archival data?
8. What is content analysis?
ll scienti?c research requires careful observation. In this chapter, we will explore a variety of observational methods including observing behavior in natural
settings, asking people to describe their behavior (self-report), and examining existing records of behavior, such as census data or hospital records. Because so
much research involves surveys using questionnaires or interviews, we cover the topic of survey research separately in Chapter 7. Before we describe these methods
in detail, it will be helpful to understand the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods of describing behavior.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES Observational methods can be broadly classi?ed as primarily quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative research focuses on
people behaving in natural settings and describing their world in their own words; quantitative research tends to focus on speci?c behaviors that can be easily
quanti?ed (i.e., counted). Qualitative researchers emphasize collecting in-depth information on a relatively few individuals or within a very limited setting;
quantitative investigations generally include larger samples. The conclusions of qualitative research are based on interpretations drawn by the investigator;
conclusions in quantitative research are based upon statistical analysis of data. To more concretely understand the distinction, imagine that you are interested
in describing the ways in which the lives of teenagers are affected by working. You might take a quantitative approach by developing a questionnaire that you
would ask a sample of teenagers to complete. You could ask about the number of hours they work, the type of work they do, their levels of stress, their school
grades, and their use of drugs. After assigning numerical values to the responses, you could subject the data to a quantitative, statistical analysis. A quantitative
description of the results would focus on such things as the percentage of teenagers who work and the way this percentage varies by age. Some of the results of
this type of survey are described in Chapter 7. Suppose, instead, that you take a qualitative approach to describing behavior. You might conduct a series of focus
groups in which you gather together groups of 8 to 10 teenagers and engage them in a discussion about their perceptions and experiences with the world of work. You
would ask them to tell you about the topic using their own words and their own ways of thinking about the world. To record the focus group discussions, you might
use a video- or audiotape recorder and have a transcript prepared later, or you might have observers take detailed notes during the discussions. A qualitative
description of the ?ndings would focus on the themes that emerge from the discussions and the manner in which the teenagers conceptualized the issues. Such
description is qualitative because it is expressed in non-numerical terms using language and images. Other methods, both qualitative and quantitative, could
also be used to study teenage employment. For example, a quantitative study
data collected from the state Department of Economic Development; a qualitative researcher might work in a fast-food restaurant as a management trainee. Keep in
mind the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches to describing behavior as you read about other speci?c observational methods discussed in
this chapter. Both approaches are valuable and provide us with different ways of understanding behavior.
NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION
Naturalistic observation is sometimes called ?eld work or simply ?eld observation (see Lo?and, Snow, Anderson, &Lo?and, 2006). In a naturalistic observation study,
the researcher makes observations of individuals in their natural environments (the ?eld). This research approach has roots in anthropology and the study of animal
behavior and is currently widely used in the social sciences to study many phenomena in all types of social and organizational settings. Thus, you may encounter
naturalistic observation studies that focus on employees in a business organization, members of a sports team, patrons of a bar, students and teachers in a
school, or prairie dogs in a colony in Arizona. Sylvia Scribner’s (1997) research on “practical thinking” is a good example of naturalistic observation research
in psychology. Scribner studied ways that people in a variety of occupations make decisions and solve problems. She de- scribes the process of this research: “. .
. my colleagues and I have driven around on a 3 a.m. milk route, helped cashiers total their receipts and watched machine operators logging in their production
for the day . . . we made detailed records of how people were going about performing their jobs. We collected copies of all written materials they read or
produced—everything from notes scribbled on brown paper bags to computer print-outs. We photographed devices in their working environment that required them to
process other types of symbolic information—thermometers, gauges, scales, measurement instruments of all kinds” (Scribner, 1997, p. 223). One aspect of thinking
that Scribner studied was the way that workers make mathematical calculations. She found that milk truck drivers and other workers make complex calculations that
depend on their acquired knowledge. For example, a delivery invoice might require the driver to multiply 32 quarts of milk by $.68 per quart. To arrive at the
answer, drivers use knowledge acquired on the job about how many quarts are in a case and the cost of a case; thus, they multiply 2 cases of milk by $10.88 per
case. In general, the workers that Scribner observed employed complex but very ef?cient strategies to solve problems at work. More important, the strategies used
could often not be predicted from formal models of problem solving. The Scribner research had a particular emphasis on people making decisions in their everyday
environment. Scribner has since expanded her research to several different occupations and many types of decisions. Other naturalistic research may examine a
narrower range of behaviors. For example, Graham and her colleagues observed instances of aggression that occurred in bars in a large city late on weekend nights
(Graham, Tremblay, Wells, Pernanen, Purcell, &Jelley, 2006). Both the Scribner and the Graham studies are instances of naturalistic research because the
observations were made in natural settings and the researchers did not attempt to in?uence what occurred in the settings.
Description and Interpretation of Data
The goal of naturalistic observation is to provide a complete and accurate picture of what occurred in the setting, rather than to test hypotheses formed prior to
the study. To achieve this goal, the researcher must keep detailed ?eld notes— that is, write or dictate on a regular basis (at least once each day) everything that
has happened. Field researchers rely on a variety of techniques to gather information, depending on the particular setting. In the Graham et al. (2006) study in
bars, the observers were alert to any behaviors that might lead to an incident of aggression. They carefully watched and listened to what happened. They immediately
made notes on what they observed; these were later given to a research coordinator. In other studies, the observers might interview key “informants” to provide
inside information about the setting, talk to people about their lives, and examine documents produced in the setting, such as newspapers, newsletters, or memos. In
addition to taking detailed ?eld notes, researchers conducting naturalistic observation usually use audio or video recordings. The researcher’s ?rst goal is to
describe the setting, events, and persons observed. The second, equally important goal is to analyze what was observed. The researcher must interpret what occurred,
essentially generating hypotheses that help explain the data and make them understandable. Such an analysis is done by building a coherent structure to describe
the observations. The ?nal report, although sensitive to the chronological order of events, is usually organized around the structure developed by the researcher.
Speci?c examples of events that occurred during observation are used to support the researcher’s interpretations. A good naturalistic observation report will support
the analysis by using multiple con?rmations. For example, similar events may occur several times, similar information may be reported by two or more people, and
several different events may occur that all support the same conclusion. The data in naturalistic observation studies areprimarily qualitative in nature; that is,
they are the descriptions of the observations themselves rather than quantitative statistical summaries. Such qualitative descriptions are often richer and
closer to the phenomenon being studied than are statistical representations. However, it is often useful to also gather quantitative data. Depending on the
setting, data might be gathered on income, family size, education levels, age, or gender of individuals in the setting. Such data can be reported and interpreted
along with qualitative data gathered from interviews and direct observations.
Issues in Naturalistic Observation
Participation and concealment
Two related issues facing the researcher are whether to be a participant or nonparticipant in the social setting the qualified fair use) in violation of the law
or Terms of Service is prohibited. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)
and whether to conceal his or her purposes from the other people in the setting. Do you become an active participant in the group or do you observe from the
outside? Do you conceal your purposes or even your presence, or do you openly let people know what you are doing? A nonparticipant observer is an outsider who
does not become an active part of the setting. In contrast, a participant observer assumes an active, insider role. Because participant observation allows the
researcher to observe the setting from the inside, he or she may be able to experience events in the same way as natural participants. Friendships and other
experiences of the participant ob- server may yield valuable data. A potential problem with participant observa- tion, however, is that the observer may lose the
objectivity necessary to conduct scienti?c observation. Remaining objective may be especially dif?cult when the researcher already belongs to the group being
studied or is a dissatis?ed former member of the group. Remember that naturalistic observation requires accurate description and objective interpretation with no
prior hypotheses. If a researcher has some prior reason to either criticize people in the setting or give a glowing report of a particular group, the
observations will likely be biased and the con- clusions will lack objectivity. Should the researcher remain concealed or be open about the research pur- poses?
Concealed observation may be preferable because the presence of the ob- server may in?uence and alter the behavior of those being observed. Imagine how a
nonconcealed observer might alter the behavior of high school students in many situations at a school. Thus, concealed observation is less reactive than
nonconcealed observation because people are not aware that their behaviors are being observed and recorded. Still, nonconcealed observation may be preferable
from an ethical viewpoint: Consider the invasion of privacy when researchers hid under beds in dormitory rooms to discover what college students talk about
(Henle& Hubbell, 1938)! Also, people often quickly become used to the observer and behave naturally in the observer’s presence. This fact allows documentary ?
lmmakers to record very private aspects of people’s lives, as was done in the 2009 British documentary Love, Life, and Death in a Day. The ?lmmaker, Sue Bourne,
contacted funeral homes to ?nd families willing to be ?lmed through- out their grieving over the death of a loved one. The decision of whether to conceal one’s
purpose or presence depends on both ethical concerns and the nature of the particular group and setting being studied. Sometimes a participant observer is
nonconcealed to certain members of the group, who give the researcher permission to be part of the group as a concealed observer. Often a concealed observer
decides to say nothing directly about his or her purposes but will completely disclose the goals of the research if asked by anyone. Nonparticipant observers are
also not concealed when they gain permission to “hang out” in a setting or use interview techniques to gather information. In actuality, then, there are degrees
of participation and conceal- ment: A nonparticipant observer may not become a member of the group, for example, but may over time become accepted as a friend or
simply part of the ongoing activities of the group. In sum, researchers who use naturalistic
observation to study behavior must carefully determine what their role in the setting will be. You may be wondering about informed consent in naturalistic
observation. Recall from Chapter 3 that observation in public places when anonymity is not threatened is considered exempt research. In these cases, informed
consent may not be necessary. Moreover, in nonconcealed observation, informed consent may be given verbally or in written form. Nevertheless, researchers must be
sensitive to ethical issues when conducting naturalistic observation. Of particular interest is whether the observations are made in a public place with no clear
expectations that behaviors are private. For example, should a neighborhood bar be consid- ered public or private?
Limits of naturalistic observation
Naturalistic observation obvi- ously cannot be used to study all issues or phenomena. The approach is most useful when investigating complex social settings both
to understand the set- tings and to develop theories based on the observations. It is less useful for stud- ying well-de?ned hypotheses under precisely speci?ed
conditions. Field research is also very dif?cult to do. Unlike a typical laboratory experi- ment, ?eld research data collection cannot always be scheduled at a
convenient time and place. In fact, ?eld research can be extremely time-consuming, often placing the researcher in an unfamiliar setting for extended periods. In
the Graham et al. (2006) investigation of aggression in bars, observers spent over 1,300 nights in 118 different bars (74 male–female pairs of observers were
required to accomplish this feat). Also, in more carefully controlled settings such as laboratory research, the procedures are well de?ned and the same for each
participant, and the data anal- ysis is planned in advance. In naturalistic observation research, however, there is an ever-changing pattern of events, some
important and some unimportant; the researcher must record them all and remain ?exible in order to adjust to them as research progresses. Finally, the process of
analysis that follows the comple- tion of the research is not simple (imagine the task of sorting through the ?eld notes of every incident of aggression that
occurred on over 1,300 nights). The researcher must repeatedly sort through the data to develop hypotheses to ex- plain the data and then make sure all data are
consistent with the hypotheses. Although naturalistic observation research is a dif?cult and challenging scien- ti?c procedure, it yields invaluable knowledge when
done well.
