Participant Observation and Non-Participant Observation:
Participant Observation:
The participant observation means watching the events or situation or activities from inside by taking part in the group to be observed. He freely interacts with the other group members, participates in various activities of the group, acquires the way of life of the observed group or his own, and studies their behaviour or other activities not as an outsider but by becoming a member of that group.
Goode and Hatt define participant observation as “the procedure used when the investigator can go disguise himself as to be accepted as a member of the group”. So in this kind of observation the observer has to stay as a member in the group he wants to study.
According to P.V. Young, “the participant observer using non-controlled observation, generally lives or otherwise shares in the life of the group which he is studying”.
Some of the examples of studies using the method of participant observation are: W.F. White’s study of Cornville social and Athletic Club and P.V. Young’s study of Molokan people. The famous studies of Margaret Mead on primitive societies were also based on participant observation.
For the success of participant observation it is essential that the respondents being studied should not have any doubt about the intention of the research worker. A fruitful result of participant observation is very much dependent upon the resourcefulness, tactfulness, personality manners and wit of the research worker.
Advantages of Participant Observation:
(a) Observation of natural behaviour: The natural behaviour of the respondent can be studied by participant observation. When a group knows that they are going to be observed by a stranger, they feel conscious, uncomfortable and therefore neutrality in their behaviour and activity is lost. But in case of the participant observation, the respondents do not know that they are being observed. So their behaviour is not constrained by the conscious feeling of being observed by a stranger.
(b) Closeness with the group: In participant observation, the observer has a very good rapport with the respondents. He has a very close primary relationship with the group members. Because of this he can participate in all activities from a close angle and thus can better interpret the situation than a non-participant observer.
(c) Studying the real character: Often in order to study the actual behaviour, the group research requires close participation and contact with the group members. Through participant observation the observer can make an intensive and inclusive study of the group and can gain into the real character of such group.
(d) Better Understanding: In participant observation the observer can better understood the feeling of the respondents than an outsider. For example, a person who is actually living in a slum area can realise the feeling and hardship of the slum dwellers in a better way than an outsider.
(e) Participation provides opportunity to learn more about an event: The chief advantage of participant observation is that in it the observer gets an opportunity to interact with the group regarding various activities of them. He can thus learn the significance of these activities that are actually not open for observation. For example, if an observer participates in a religious ceremony of a tribe, viz. “Chaitra Parba” of Gadaba tribe, he can not only observe different aspects of the ceremony but also clear his doubt by asking various questions to the group members or learn more about that ceremony by discussing with the group in this regard. It is generally easier for the respondent to describe about the event on right occasion than before or after it.
Disadvantages of Participant Observation:
(a) Lack of objectivity: By becoming members of a group and participating very closely in it, the observer may lose his objectivity. His emotional and sentimental association with the group kills his impartiality and unbiased analysis. He may develop some soft corner for that group member and because of this; he may often justify their evil activities as just activity.
(b) Often close association brings biased interpretation: Because of his close association and emotional participation with the group members the researcher creates a special position for himself in that group. He may be influenced or pleased by this and begins to support them blindly. Due to this he observes the things from his own personal point of view rather than scientific point of view.
(c) Misses important issues due to familiarity: Due to much familiarity many crucial events appear to the participant observer as of little or no significance. Therefore, he misses many of the important issues. But a stranger pays much attention even to a small thing, as this appears new to him.
(d) Limited range of experience: In participant observation the observer is confines himself to a particular group. So his experience becomes very deep, but the range of his experience becomes very limited.
(e) Involvement in groupism: The active participation and proximity of the observer with the group may involve him in quarrels and group factionalism. He cannot avoid taking side of one faction. But if he does so, he loses his status as an impartial observer whom everybody is ready to co-operate. So it destroys the very purpose of the research and the researcher finds it very difficult to get proper information from the group.
(f) Limits of participant observation: There are certain situations in which the participant observation is not possible. For example, it is not possible to observe criminals or prisoners.
Non-Participant Observation:
When the observer observes the group passively from a distance without participating in the group activities, it is known as non-participant observation. Here he does not try to influence them or take part in the group activities.
However, purely non-participant observation is extremely difficult. One cannot penetrate into the heart of a matter without proper participation in it. One really cannot imagine a kind of relationship, when the researcher is always present but never participates. This situation is hardly conducive for both the observer and the group. A combination of both participant and non-participant method is sometimes selected.
The observer actively participates in some of the ordinary activities and observes passively from distance in others. Many sociologists therefore treat a non-participant observation in practice as only a quasi-participant observation. It is easier for the observer to perform both the roles than to disguise himself completely.
Advantages of Non-Participant Observation:
(a) Objectivity and neutrality: If an observer participates in the event actively and emotionally he may try to justify the evil things of the group as just things. In this frame of mind he cannot analyze the phenomena with neutrality. But in non-participant observation, the objectivity or neutrality can be maintained. The observer in this type of observation gives a detached and unbiased view about the group.
(b) Command respect and co-operation: In case of non-participant observation the researcher plays an impartial role. Therefore every member of the group gives him a special status and co-operate with his study.
(c) More willingness of the respondent:
Often people do not feel shy to disclose their secrets, weaknesses or informal things to a stranger. But they always become reluctant to disclose these things to a known person.
(d) Careful analysis: In participant observation because of the much familiarity with the events, sometimes the observer does not realize the significance of same events and neglects them. But in non- participant observation the researcher does not even miss a minute thing. He carefully judges the merits and demerits of each and every phenomenon under study.
(e) Freedom from groupism: In non-participant observation the researcher always maintains his impartial status. His aloofness from petty conflicts helps him to carry his research work more smoothly.
Disadvantages of Non-Participant Observation:
(a) Subjectivity: In non-participant observation the observer does not have clarity about certain events on activities. He cannot clear his doubts by asking various questions to the group members. Therefore he has to simply understand and interpret what he sees. This lack of understanding may make some of his findings biased and coloured by his personal prediction, belief and pre-conception.
(b) Inadequate observation: The observer can observe only those events which take place in front of him. But that is not enough and only a part of the phenomena as a vast range of information required for the research. He can know many things about the group when he participates in the group and interacts with the group members.
(c) Unnatural and formal information: The members of a group become suspicious of a person who observes them objectively. In front of an outsider or stranger they feel conscious and provide only some formal information’s in an unnatural way. It creates bias and what the observer collects is not actual or normal thing but only formal information’s.
(d) Inconvenience to the respondents: The members of a particular group always feel uncomfortable when they know that their behaviour is critically analyzed by an outsider. Therefore in some cases the tribals do not allow an outsider to watch their socio-cultural activities. It is always better for a researcher to become a member of the group in order to learn much about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment