We shall discuss the historical roots of participant observation, its practice, and its analysis. Finally, we shall discuss some criticisms made of this method.

Participant observation has a quite distinct history from that of the positivist approach to research. Positivist researchers employing questionnaires and surveys assume that they already know what is important. In contrast, participant observation makes no firm assumptions about what is important. This method encourages researchers to immerse themselves in the day-to-day activities of the people whom they are attempting to understand. In contrast to testing ideas (deductive), they may be developed from observations (inductive).

In the Chicago School of participant observation and research, there are two intellectual traditions.

Pragmatism: this emphasises that social life is not fixed, but dynamic and changing. Therefore, if people’s social lives are constantly changing, researchers must participate in it, and record their experiences of those transformations, their effects on people, as well as their interpretations. Here, knowledge comes from experience and undertaking detailed inquiries. It is important to participate in the social relations and seek to understand actions within the context of an observed setting, as people act and make sense of their world by taking meanings from their environment. As such, researchers must become part of that environment for only then can they understand the actions of people who occupy and produce cultures. This technique is least likely to lead researchers imposing their own reality on the social world they seek to understand.

Formalism: this argues that while social relationships may differ from each other, they take forms that display similarities. In this way, researchers explore the typicality of relations and events. Formalism is also concerned with the way in which particular social and cultural forms of life emerge. Researchers are encouraged to stroll in order to understand the flux of social life in which the individual self is also subject to change. For example, to stroll or walk through the city to observe people’s sense of fashion.

The above ideas are combined with another strand of thought:

Naturalism: this proposes that, as far as possible, the social world should be studied in its ‘natural state’ undistributed by the researcher. According to this view, people are busy interpreting and acting within a social world infused with meaning. The process of learning behaviour is argued to be absent from other forms of research such as questionnaires which captures only a static snapshot of people’s attitudes. In contrast, participant observation is defined as a process in which a researcher establishes a many-sided and long-term relationship with individuals and groups in their natural setting, for the purposes of developing a scientific understanding of those individuals and groups. Ethnography leads to an empathic understanding of social science – it leads to researchers abandoning their preconceptions as they are exposed to a new social milieu that demands their full engagement.

However, the Chicago tradition does not dictate the nature of participant observation, as other perspectives frequently use the same method, or combine it with other methods. To be sure, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative social research is not as clear-cut as many researchers would like to claim. For instance, qualitative researchers often resort to the language of quantification in their work, and quantitative surveys tap into questions of meaning and must understand people’s frames of reference, and so have a qualitative dimension to their design and interpretation. In other words, numbers may equally appear in the representation of ethnographic studies, while there is a central ethnographic component to successful survey work.

In addition, participation observation has been used in conjunction with Marxist perspectives on factory work and urban development, realist perspectives on organisations and racism, and feminist perspectives on employment practices and household relations.

To sum up, there are three positive aspects of participant observation:

• it is least likely to lead researchers to impose their own reality on the social world;
• it seeks to understand action: as to how and why practices and relations change;
• observers record their own experiences in order to understand the cultural universe which their researched subjects occupy (subjective experiences), and convey these observations to a wide audience (from field-notes) within the (theoretical) context of explaining their data.

On first glance, participant observation appears to be just looking, listening, generally experiencing, and writing it all down. However, it is the most personally demanding and analytically difficult method of social research to undertake. It requires researchers to spend a great deal of time in surrounding within which researchers may not be familiar (e.g., factory floor or bank office); to secure and maintain relationships with people with who, they have little personal affinity (e.g., criminals and market traders); to take a lot of notes on what appears to be everyday mundane happenings (e.g., people’s body language and speech patterns, and their arrival and departures); to possibly incurring some personal risk in their fieldwork (e.g., accidents at work); and to spend months of analysis after the fieldwork, analysing field-notes and diaries. Nevertheless, to those who are prepared and willing, it is also one of the most rewarding methods which yields fascinating insights into people’s social lives and relationships (e.g., the social world of factory workers or gang members).

We shall examine the role of the researcher, access to site and data, being flexible, writing field-notes, and adequacy of observations.

The ethnographer is the instrument of data collection. Ethnographers gather data by their active participation in the social world; they enter a social universe in which people are already busy interpreting and understanding their environments. One method involves getting close to the people, sometimes living among them (as anthropologists do). In adopting this form of study, it does not follow that researchers comprehend the situation as though it were uncontaminated by their social presence. For this reason, naturalism is regarded as dishonest by denying the effect of the researcher on the social scene. On the contrary, the aim of understanding is actually enhanced by considering how they are affected by the social scene, what goes on within it and how people, including themselves, act and interpret within their social situations.

In doing ethnography, engagement is used to an advantaged. In the process, ethnographers explicitly draw upon their own biographies in the research process; e.g., having been personally and politically engaged as part of an ecological group before deciding to analysing it. This is an example of reflexivity. It implies that the orientations of researchers will be shaped by their socio-historical locations (e.g., rural areas), including the values and interests (e.g., religious and cultural norms) that these locations confer upon them. What this represents is a rejection of the idea that social research is, or can be, carried out in some autonomous realm that is insulated from the wider society, and from the particular biography of the researcher.

There are four roles of field research that assist in the process of analysing field notes:

• Complete participant: the researcher employing this role attempts to engage fully in the activities of the group or organisation under investigation. Their role is also covert (hidden) for their intentions are not made explicit (e.g., a researcher investigating a racist or fascist organisation). Among its advantages, it is agreed to produce more accurate information and an understanding not available not available by other means.
• Participant as observer: the researcher adopts an overt (open) role, and makes their presence and intentions known to the group. Despite traditional concerns with ‘establishing rapport’ or ‘going native’, for many researchers, this view of scientific inquiry has been subjected to scrutiny and criticisms. The researcher often becomes a ‘fan’ or supporter, though this does not mean attempting to act as one of the group – for instance, in studying prostitution, it does not entail being a prostitute.
• Observer as participant: the researcher moves away from the idea of participation. This usually involves one-visit interviews, and calls for relatively more formal observation (e.g., ownership and structure of a firm, rather than its internal practices and norms) than either informal observation or participation. Here, there is a possibility of mis-understanding as it is more of an encounter between strangers that does not utilise the strengths of time in the field, so unable to understand the rules, roles and relationships.
• Complete observer: the researcher is uninvolved and detached, and merely, passively records behaviour at a distance (e.g., a researcher sitting in a classroom, making observations of pupils and their teacher).

Participant observation does not simply mean ‘hanging around’. To become part of a social scene and participate in it requires that the researcher be accepted to some degree. This period of ‘moving into’ a setting is both analytically and personally important. For the researcher, it is important to regard the normal as unfamiliar – i.e., to make familiar strange; e.g., people’s shopping habits and routines should be seen as strange and challenged. Further, in negotiating access into a social setting or organisation (say, village community or corporate firm), the researcher should be aware of power relations (say, gendered and clan relations or management-worker relations) within the setting.

Initial reactions to researcher’s presence can cause a sense of personal discomfort, but this tells the researcher a great deal about relations and concerns of people, and should be recorded and not regarded as personal problems or weaknesses. For instance, senior managers may challenge a researcher in order to protect or promote their vested interests, and ensuring their point of view in the final research report.

One of the main advantages of participant observation is its flexibility. Fieldwork is a continual process of reflection and alteration of the focus of observations in accordance with analytic developments. It permits researchers to witness people’s actions in different settings and routinely ask themselves in myriad of questions concerning motivations, beliefs and actions. For instance, initially, a researcher may explore relationship between market traders and customers, and then gradually change to examine the nature of state regulation of market places and bazaars.

In addition, participant observation often employs the unstructured interview as a routine part of its practice. These two methods are compatible: observation guides researchers to some of the important questions they want to ask the respondent, and interviewing helps to interpret the significance of what researchers are observing.

The decision as to when to withdraw from fieldwork may be taken when there is theoretical saturation – when observations no longer serve to question or modify the theories generated from earlier observations.

The data logging process is often regarded as boring (sometimes taking up three hours in a day in writing the fieldnotes in a daily journal), but if the researcher lacks any personal emotional attachment to the concerns of the research, the quality of the project and, even its completion, may be jeopardised. The quality of the project relies not only upon emotional commitment but also on the quality of the researcher’s observations, fieldnotes and analytical abilities.

In recording their observations, researcher use exercise books with wide margins on the left-hand side to enable to highlight particular observations of interest, to make analytic notes, and to remind themselves to investigate an event or relationship in more depth or to read other literature on a topic which relates to an observation.

There are three rules to note-taking:

• to take notes to familiarise oneself with the social setting and the people within it;
• one’s theoretical interests ought to guide one’s observations, and, in turn, modify and alter those interests – it is impossible and undesirable to record everything;
• minimise the time from observations to full notes to maintain good recall.

While the nature of relationships is noted, the order and setting in which events unfolded are important to record. Over time, a picture is constructed of the roles, rules and relationships between people. In addition, a particular short-hand, abbreviations, notions and filing system will emerge. Whatever the short-hand and filing system are used, it is important to ensure consistency, clarity and accessibility in recording and storing data.

In writing notes, it is felt that something is missing, or the observations are too selective or too general. There are six indices to subjective adequacy to enhance the understanding of the setting, and ensure validity of the research:

• time: the more time that the observer spends in a setting, the greater the adequacy (i.e., understanding, interpretation and meaning) achieved;
• place: concentration on a physical setting ensures greater consistency, relevance and understanding;
• social circumstances: the more varied the observers’ opportunities to relate to a social group and milieu in terms of status, role and activities, the greater the depth;
• language: the more familiar the researcher is with the language (includes culture) of a social setting, the more accurate will be the interpretation;
• intimacy: the greater the personal involvement with a social group and milieu, the greater the understanding of and feeling for meanings and actions;
• social consensus: the greater the mutual and shared understanding between the observer and the researched, the better the interpretation.

There are four stages of analysis whose overall aim is the categorisation of collected data within the context of a developed theoretical framework.

• To select and define problems, concepts and indices (e.g., inequalities, social classes, class mobility, wages and status). Once established, observed phenomena are then placed within a theoretical framework (say, theory of market inequality) for further investigation.
• A check on the frequency and distribution of phenomena (e.g., percentage of sample population in different social classes). This means to see what events and relations are typical and widespread. It is at this point that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative work breaks down (but not between good and bad research).
• The construction of a social system model; i.e., moving from substantive to formal theory, and the need to make broader links in observational studies (e.g., social class tensions and mobility in other parts of society). In analysing different contexts (say, various households, communities, and/or places), the researcher can then move to more formal theory composed of abstract categories (say, Marx’s theory of class). Assisting in this stage of analysis is the use of units. A unit is a tool to use in scrutinising the data. Types of unit include ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘practices’, ‘roles’, ‘relationships’, ‘organisations’, ‘settlements’, etc. Each of these different units may have different questions asked of them by the analyst. Here, the development of an analytic framework during fieldwork renders the data both manageable and intelligible.
• The withdrawal from the field to a final analysis and write-up. Both distance and time are needed for reflection and analyse of the data. No matter how well the data are analysed, the results must be presented and communicated in a way that is both persuasive, well argued and accessible to the audience, demonstrating the authenticity of the descriptions and their analyses.

There are several points to writing up the fieldwork:

• The researcher has to maintain a focus on the topic, and continually ask the question, ‘What is this really a study of?’ However, a mixed-up early draft is no cause for shame. Rather, it shows the researcher what its earlier choices were, and what ideas, theoretical viewpoints and conclusions it had already committed itself to before it began writing. There will be many drafts, and the process of writing is one of discovery, not presentation.
• Much of the data must be rejected as the researcher focuses on the topic.
• The researcher will lack much evidence, but there is little that can be done since the researcher cannot claim to know everything.
• The researcher can write in the first person (viz. ‘I’), but must not be overdone.
• The researcher can illustrate analytic points by using specific instances from fieldnotes.
• Always consider the audience for whom the text is written – so improving its clarity and accessibility.
• Brevity is essential to writing, and inherent in this is the process of correcting, adding, revising and editing. Having a supportive and knowledgeable friend or supervisor is equally necessary to make useful suggestions.

We have characterised the method of participant observation as compatible with several perspectives (e.g., realism, feminism, Marxism and positivism). Nevertheless there are several criticisms:

• The issue surrounding data production as mediated by the researcher is not peculiar to participant observation, but as it relies so heavily upon the researcher’s powers of observation and selection, then it is directly reliant upon their abilities. It is possible that researchers will omit a whole range of data in order to confirm their own pre-established beliefs, leaving the method open to the charge of bias.
• The observation of small-scale settings leaves it open to the charge that its findings are local, specific and not generalisable: it lacks external validity. This may be countered arguing that the observed social scene is ‘typical’ and adopting a realist perspective on reality.
• Naturalism often becomes translated as positivism by concentrating upon the production of data about the social world whose validity is based upon it being untainted or uncontaminated by the medium of its collection. Hence, the emphasis on ‘going native’ or ‘getting close to the people’. Yet, to produce untainted data is a myth. To be sure, observations are always theory-laden, so trying to reach a natural setting is questionable. There is a constant interaction between theory and data.
• There are practical limitations to participant observation. It demands that researchers spend time with relatively small groups of people in order to understand fully the social milieu that they inhabit. It is poor, however, at dealing with large-scale cases such as large organisations or national economies.