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.
