Home » Misc » Observational method definition

Observational method definition


Observational Research – Research Methods in Psychology

Non-Experimental Research

Learning Objectives

  1. List the various types of observational research methods and distinguish between each.
  2. Describe the strengths and weakness of each observational research method. 

What Is Observational Research?

The term is used to refer to several different types of non-experimental studies in which behavior is systematically observed and recorded. The goal of observational research is to describe a variable or set of variables. More generally, the goal is to obtain a snapshot of specific characteristics of an individual, group, or setting. As described previously, observational research is non-experimental because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and as such we cannot arrive at causal conclusions using this approach. The data that are collected in observational research studies are often qualitative in nature but they may also be quantitative or both (mixed-methods). There are several different types of observational methods that will be described below.

Naturalistic Observation

 is an observational method that involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). Jane Goodall’s famous research on chimpanzees is a classic example of naturalistic observation. Dr. Goodall spent three decades observing chimpanzees in their natural environment in East Africa. She examined such things as chimpanzee’s social structure, mating patterns, gender roles, family structure, and care of offspring by observing them in the wild. However, naturalistic observation could more simply involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are not aware that they are being studied. Such an approach is called . Ethically, this method is considered to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated. 

In cases where it is not ethical or practical to conduct disguised naturalistic observation, researchers can conduct  where the participants are made aware of the researcher presence and monitoring of their behavior. However, one concern with undisguised naturalistic observation is reactivity. refers to when a measure changes participants’ behavior. In the case of undisguised naturalistic observation, the concern with reactivity is that when people know they are being observed and studied, they may act differently than they normally would. This type of reactivity is known as the . For instance, you may act much differently in a bar if you know that someone is observing you and recording your behaviors and this would invalidate the study. So disguised observation is less reactive and therefore can have higher validity because people are not aware that their behaviors are being observed and recorded. However, we now know that people often become used to being observed and with time they begin to behave naturally in the researcher’s presence. In other words, over time people habituate to being observed. Think about reality shows like Big Brother or Survivor where people are constantly being observed and recorded. While they may be on their best behavior at first, in a fairly short amount of time they are flirting, having sex, wearing next to nothing, screaming at each other, and occasionally behaving in ways that are embarrassing.

Participant Observation

Another approach to data collection in observational research is participant observation. In , researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. Participant observation is very similar to naturalistic observation in that it involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. As with naturalistic observation, the data that are collected can include interviews (usually unstructured), notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The only difference between naturalistic observation and participant observation is that researchers engaged in participant observation become active members of the group or situations they are studying. The basic rationale for participant observation is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone who is an active participant in the group or situation. Like naturalistic observation, participant observation can be either disguised or undisguised. In , the researchers pretend to be members of the social group they are observing and conceal their true identity as researchers.

In a famous example of disguised participant observation, Leon Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a doomsday cult known as the Seekers, whose members believed that the apocalypse would occur on December 21, 1954. Interested in studying how members of the group would cope psychologically when the prophecy inevitably failed, they carefully recorded the events and reactions of the cult members in the days before and after the supposed end of the world. Unsurprisingly, the cult members did not give up their belief but instead convinced themselves that it was their faith and efforts that saved the world from destruction. Festinger and his colleagues later published a book about this experience, which they used to illustrate the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956)[1].

In contrast with , the researchers become a part of the group they are studying and they disclose their true identity as researchers to the group under investigation. Once again there are important ethical issues to consider with disguised participant observation. First no informed consent can be obtained and second deception is being used. The researcher is deceiving the participants by intentionally withholding information about their motivations for being a part of the social group they are studying. But sometimes disguised participation is the only way to access a protective group (like a cult). Further, disguised participant observation is less prone to reactivity than undisguised participant observation. 

Rosenhan’s study (1973)[2] of the experience of people in a psychiatric ward would be considered disguised participant observation because Rosenhan and his pseudopatients were admitted into psychiatric hospitals on the pretense of being patients so that they could observe the way that psychiatric patients are treated by staff. The staff and other patients were unaware of their true identities as researchers.

Another example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins on a university-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008)[3]. Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

One of the primary benefits of participant observation is that the researchers are in a much better position to understand the viewpoint and experiences of the people they are studying when they are a part of the social group. The primary limitation with this approach is that the mere presence of the observer could affect the behavior of the people being observed. While this is also a concern with naturalistic observation, additional concerns arise when researchers become active members of the social group they are studying because that they may change the social dynamics and/or influence the behavior of the people they are studying. Similarly, if the researcher acts as a participant observer there can be concerns with biases resulting from developing relationships with the participants. Concretely, the researcher may become less objective resulting in more experimenter bias.

Structured Observation

Another observational method is . Here the investigator makes careful observations of one or more specific behaviors in a particular setting that is more structured than the settings used in naturalistic or participant observation. Often the setting in which the observations are made is not the natural setting. Instead, the researcher may observe people in the laboratory environment. Alternatively, the researcher may observe people in a natural setting (like a classroom setting) that they have structured some way, for instance by introducing some specific task participants are to engage in or by introducing a specific social situation or manipulation.

Structured observation is very similar to naturalistic observation and participant observation in that in all three cases researchers are observing naturally occurring behavior; however, the emphasis in structured observation is on gathering quantitative rather than qualitative data. Researchers using this approach are interested in a limited set of behaviors. This allows them to quantify the behaviors they are observing. In other words, structured observation is less global than naturalistic or participant observation because the researcher engaged in structured observations is interested in a small number of specific behaviors. Therefore, rather than recording everything that happens, the researcher only focuses on very specific behaviors of interest.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used structured observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999)[4]. One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in Canada and Sweden covered 60 feet in just under 13 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds. When structured observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” the questions of when, where, and under what conditions the observations will be made, and who exactly will be observed are important to consider. Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

“Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most cities.” (p. 186).

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds. In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance.

As another example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979)[5]. But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

In yet another example (this one in a laboratory environment), Dov Cohen and his colleagues had observers rate the emotional reactions of participants who had just been deliberately bumped and insulted by a confederate after they dropped off a completed questionnaire at the end of a hallway. The confederate was posing as someone who worked in the same building and who was frustrated by having to close a file drawer twice in order to permit the participants to walk past them (first to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and once again on their way back to the room where they believed the study they signed up for was taking place). The two observers were positioned at different ends of the hallway so that they could read the participants’ body language and hear anything they might say. Interestingly, the researchers hypothesized that participants from the southern United States, which is one of several places in the world that has a “culture of honor,” would react with more aggression than participants from the northern United States, a prediction that was in fact supported by the observational data (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996)[6].

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in the studies by Kraut and Johnston and Cohen and his colleagues—a process referred to as   is typically required. Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that guides different observers to code them in the same way. This difficulty with coding illustrates the issue of interrater reliability, as mentioned in Chapter 4. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

One of the primary benefits of structured observation is that it is far more efficient than naturalistic and participant observation. Since the researchers are focused on specific behaviors this reduces time and expense. Also, often times the environment is structured to encourage the behaviors of interest which again means that researchers do not have to invest as much time in waiting for the behaviors of interest to naturally occur. Finally, researchers using this approach can clearly exert greater control over the environment. However, when researchers exert more control over the environment it may make the environment less natural which decreases external validity. It is less clear for instance whether structured observations made in a laboratory environment will generalize to a real world environment. Furthermore, since researchers engaged in structured observation are often not disguised there may be more concerns with reactivity.

Case Studies

A  is an in-depth examination of an individual. Sometimes case studies are also completed on social units (e.g., a cult) and events (e.g., a natural disaster). Most commonly in psychology, however, case studies provide a detailed description and analysis of an individual. Often the individual has a rare or unusual condition or disorder or has damage to a specific region of the brain.

Like many observational research methods, case studies tend to be more qualitative in nature. Case study methods involve an in-depth, and often a longitudinal examination of an individual. Depending on the focus of the case study, individuals may or may not be observed in their natural setting. If the natural setting is not what is of interest, then the individual may be brought into a therapist’s office or a researcher’s lab for study. Also, the bulk of the case study report will focus on in-depth descriptions of the person rather than on statistical analyses. With that said some quantitative data may also be included in the write-up of a case study. For instance, an individual’s depression score may be compared to normative scores or their score before and after treatment may be compared. As with other qualitative methods, a variety of different methods and tools can be used to collect information on the case. For instance, interviews, naturalistic observation, structured observation, psychological testing (e.g., IQ test), and/or physiological measurements (e.g., brain scans) may be used to collect information on the individual.

HM is one of the most notorious case studies in psychology. HM suffered from intractable and very severe epilepsy. A surgeon localized HM’s epilepsy to his medial temporal lobe and in 1953 he removed large sections of his hippocampus in an attempt to stop the seizures. The treatment was a success, in that it resolved his epilepsy and his IQ and personality were unaffected. However, the doctors soon realized that HM exhibited a strange form of amnesia, called anterograde amnesia. HM was able to carry out a conversation and he could remember short strings of letters, digits, and words. Basically, his short term memory was preserved. However, HM could not commit new events to memory. He lost the ability to transfer information from his short-term memory to his long term memory, something memory researchers call consolidation. So while he could carry on a conversation with someone, he would completely forget the conversation after it ended. This was an extremely important case study for memory researchers because it suggested that there’s a dissociation between short-term memory and long-term memory, it suggested that these were two different abilities sub-served by different areas of the brain. It also suggested that the temporal lobes are particularly important for consolidating new information (i.e., for transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory).

Reading in print? Scan this QR code to view the video on your mobile device. Or go to youtu.be/KkaXNvzE4pk

The history of psychology is filled with influential cases studies, such as Sigmund Freud’s description of “Anna O.” (see Note 6.1 “The Case of “Anna O.””) and John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s description of Little Albert (Watson & Rayner, 1920)[7], who allegedly learned to fear a white rat—along with other furry objects—when the researchers repeatedly made a loud noise every time the rat approached him.

 

The Case of “Anna O.”

Sigmund Freud used the case of a young woman he called “Anna O. ” to illustrate many principles of his theory of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1961)[8]. (Her real name was Bertha Pappenheim, and she was an early feminist who went on to make important contributions to the field of social work.) Anna had come to Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer around 1880 with a variety of odd physical and psychological symptoms. One of them was that for several weeks she was unable to drink any fluids. According to Freud,

She would take up the glass of water that she longed for, but as soon as it touched her lips she would push it away like someone suffering from hydrophobia.…She lived only on fruit, such as melons, etc., so as to lessen her tormenting thirst. (p. 9)

But according to Freud, a breakthrough came one day while Anna was under hypnosis.

[S]he grumbled about her English “lady-companion,” whom she did not care for, and went on to describe, with every sign of disgust, how she had once gone into this lady’s room and how her little dog—horrid creature!—had drunk out of a glass there. The patient had said nothing, as she had wanted to be polite. After giving further energetic expression to the anger she had held back, she asked for something to drink, drank a large quantity of water without any difficulty, and awoke from her hypnosis with the glass at her lips; and thereupon the disturbance vanished, never to return. (p.9)

Freud’s interpretation was that Anna had repressed the memory of this incident along with the emotion that it triggered and that this was what had caused her inability to drink. Furthermore, he believed that her recollection of the incident, along with her expression of the emotion she had repressed, caused the symptom to go away.

As an illustration of Freud’s theory, the case study of Anna O. is quite effective. As evidence for the theory, however, it is essentially worthless. The description provides no way of knowing whether Anna had really repressed the memory of the dog drinking from the glass, whether this repression had caused her inability to drink, or whether recalling this “trauma” relieved the symptom. It is also unclear from this case study how typical or atypical Anna’s experience was.

 

Figure 6.8 Anna O. “Anna O.” was the subject of a famous case study used by Freud to illustrate the principles of psychoanalysis. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pappenheim_1882.jpg

Case studies are useful because they provide a level of detailed analysis not found in many other research methods and greater insights may be gained from this more detailed analysis. As a result of the case study, the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of what might become important to look at more extensively in future more controlled research. Case studies are also often the only way to study rare conditions because it may be impossible to find a large enough sample of individuals with the condition to use quantitative methods. Although at first glance a case study of a rare individual might seem to tell us little about ourselves, they often do provide insights into normal behavior. The case of HM provided important insights into the role of the hippocampus in memory consolidation.

However, it is important to note that while case studies can provide insights into certain areas and variables to study, and can be useful in helping develop theories, they should never be used as evidence for theories. In other words, case studies can be used as inspiration to formulate theories and hypotheses, but those hypotheses and theories then need to be formally tested using more rigorous quantitative methods. The reason case studies shouldn’t be used to provide support for theories is that they suffer from problems with both internal and external validity. Case studies lack the proper controls that true experiments contain. As such, they suffer from problems with internal validity, so they cannot be used to determine causation. For instance, during HM’s surgery, the surgeon may have accidentally lesioned another area of HM’s brain (a possibility suggested by the dissection of HM’s brain following his death) and that lesion may have contributed to his inability to consolidate new information. The fact is, with case studies we cannot rule out these sorts of alternative explanations. So, as with all observational methods, case studies do not permit determination of causation. In addition, because case studies are often of a single individual, and typically an abnormal individual, researchers cannot generalize their conclusions to other individuals. Recall that with most research designs there is a trade-off between internal and external validity. With case studies, however, there are problems with both internal validity and external validity. So there are limits both to the ability to determine causation and to generalize the results. A final limitation of case studies is that ample opportunity exists for the theoretical biases of the researcher to color or bias the case description. Indeed, there have been accusations that the woman who studied HM destroyed a lot of her data that were not published and she has been called into question for destroying contradictory data that didn’t support her theory about how memories are consolidated. There is a fascinating New York Times article that describes some of the controversies that ensued after HM’s death and analysis of his brain that can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/magazine/the-brain-that-couldnt-remember.html?_r=0

Archival Research

Another approach that is often considered observational research involves analyzing archival data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005)[9]. In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988)[10]. In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as undergraduate students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as undergraduate students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was +.25.

This method is an example of —a family of systematic approaches to measurement using complex archival data. Just as structured observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

Media Attributions

  • What happens when you remove the hippocampus? – Sam Kean by TED-Ed licensed under a standard YouTube License
  • Pappenheim 1882 by unknown is in the Public Domain.
  1. Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. University of Minnesota Press. ↵
  2. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258. ↵
  3. Wilkins, A. (2008). “Happier than Non-Christians”: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 281–301. ↵
  4. Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 178–205. ↵
  5. Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1539–1553. ↵
  6. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental ethnography." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945-960. ↵
  7. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1–14. ↵
  8. Freud, S. (1961). Five lectures on psycho-analysis. New York, NY: Norton. ↵
  9. Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 106–110. ↵
  10. Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 23–27. ↵

Observation Methods - Definition, Types, Examples, Advantages

Table of Contents

Definition 

The observation method is described as a method to observe and describe the behavior of a subject. As the name suggests, it is a way of collecting relevant information and data by observing. It is also referred to as a participatory study because the researcher has to establish a link with the respondent and for this has to immerse himself in the same setting as theirs. Only then can he use the observation method to record and take notes.

Meaning and examples

Observation method is used in cases where you want to avoid an error that can be a result of bias during evaluation and interpretation processes. It is a way to obtain objective data by watching a participant and recording it for analysis at a later stage.

A researcher can use the observation method in a Montessori school and record the behavior of the children at a young age. Are the children comfortable sharing their tiffin at such an early age will make a good study for the researcher? In this example, the researcher can observe and record the details objectively. Observation data collection method is associated with a few ethical issues as it needs the full consent of a research participant.

Observation method in data collection can be
  • Structured observation method – This is a systematic observation method where data is collected as per a pre-defined schedule. The specific variable is used in this method for data collection.
  • Unstructured observation method – The unstructured observation method is conducted in a free and open manner without using any pre-determined objectives, schedules or variables.

Sampling methods for Observational Data

The researcher has a vital role to play as he will have to collect, record and classify the data appropriately. The primary sampling methods are

  • Event sampling – In the event sampling observation method the researcher decides beforehand what events or behavior he will record and which ones he is going to ignore
  • Time sampling – In the time sampling observation method, the researcher chooses the time when he will observe. He makes a record of the occurrence only in the specified and pre-determined period
  • Target-time or instantaneous sampling –  In the target-time or instantaneous sampling observation method, the researcher decides beforehand the moments when the observation will happen and will be recorded at that moment. Everything that happens before or after that moment is of no consequence hence is typically ignored

Types of observation method

The different types of observation method are as follows-

1) Controlled observations

The controlled observation is carried out in a closed space. It is the researcher who has the authority to decide the place and the time where and when the observation will take place. He also decides who the participants will be and in what circumstances will he use the standardized process.

The participants are chosen for a variable group randomly. The researcher observes and records a detailed and descriptive data of behavior and divides it into a distinct category. Sometimes the researcher codes the action as per an agreed scale by using a behavior schedule. The coding can include letters or numbers or a range to measure behavior intensity and describe its characteristics.

The collected data is often turned into statistics. In a controlled observation method, the participants are informed by the researcher about the aim of the research. This makes them aware of being observed. The researcher avoids direct contact during the observation method and generally uses a two-way mirror to observe and record details.

Advantages of controlled observation method
  1. The data and information received from a controlled observation method are structured and analytical. It is thus easy to analyze it quickly and is considered less time-consuming than the other observation methods
  2. Other researchers can easily replicate the report that has been created through the controlled observation method. They use a similar observation schedule, and this makes it easy to test for reliability.
  3. As the controlled observation method is several quick observations can be conducted within a short time frame. Thus the researcher can collect large samples which makes it easier for him to generalize a large population

Limitations of controlled observation method 
  1. The controlled observation method lacks validity because when the participants are aware of being observed their behavior will automatically change

2) Naturalistic observations

Social scientists and psychologists generally use the naturalistic observation method. The process involves observing and studying the spontaneous behavior of the participants in open or natural surroundings. The role of the researcher is to find and record whatever he can see and observe in natural habitat.

Advantages of naturalistic observation method 
  1. When a participant is in a natural habitat, his flow of behavior is natural and not forced.
  2. The studies have gained better ecological validity than the controlled observation method
  3. The naturalistic observation method is used by the researchers to create new ideas. The researcher has the chance to observe the total situation and can find avenues that other people have not thought about

Limitations of naturalistic observation methods
  1. The naturalistic observation method facilitates observations on a micro-scale. It often lacks a representative sample and thus cannot help the researcher in making a generalization that relates to a broader society
  2. In this type of observation method, the researcher needs proper training to recognize aspects that are significant and worth attention.
  3. The observations through naturalistic observation method are not as reliable as the researcher wants them to be because it is not possible to control some variables. This is why other researchers cannot similarly repeat the study or research.
  4. Establishing the cause and effect relationship is not possible because the researcher cannot manipulate the variables

3) Participant observations

The participant observation method is often considered a variant of the naturalistic observation method because it has some similarities with it. The point of difference is that the researcher is not a distant observer anymore because he has joined the participants and become a part of their group. He does this to get a more in-depth and greater insight into their lives.

The researcher interacts with other members of the group freely, participates in their activities, studies their behavior and acquires a different way of life. Participant observation can be overt or covert.

  1. Overt –When the researcher asks permission from a group to mingle the observation method is known as overt. He does so by revealing his true purpose and real identity to the group with whom he wants to mingle
  2. Covert– When the researcher does not show either his true identity or real meaning to the group he wants to join then the observation is known as covert. He keeps both concealed and takes on a false role and identity to enter and mingle in the group. He generally acts as if he is a genuine member of that group

Advantages of Participant Observation methods

  1. It is easy to study and observe the natural behavior of the participants in the group by becoming a part of that group. The respondents generally do not know that they are being observed and behavior recorded, so they are not restrained or constrained in their activities and behavior
  2. The researcher becomes understanding by following the events of the respondents from such a close angle.
  3. During the participant observation method, the researcher develops a good and healthy relationship with the respondents. This rapport helps him to participate in all the activities and make observations with a detached mind
  4. The participant observation method helps the research to observe the actual behavior of the respondents and create an inclusive and intensive case study of that group
  5. Actual participation in the activities provides the researcher with an opportunity to converse freely with other members about various events, their meaning and their importance to them. He gains an in-depth knowledge which would not have been possible only by observation.

Limitations of Participant Observation methods

  1. It is challenging to work undercover. For example, the researcher will have only to observe and not record in front of others because he will not want to blow his cover. He relies heavily on his memory which can be faulty at times
  2. Sometimes the researcher becomes too involved in the intricacies of that group. There is a higher chance of losing his objectivity because his reporting will be selective and dependent on his memory
  3. The emotional participation of the researcher can result in bias interpretation. He will be influenced to some degree and a time might come when he would start supporting them unconditionally because their views and behavior will ultimately become his. This will result in a personal viewpoint of the scenario and not an objective or scientific report
  4. In the participant observation method, the researcher’s experience becomes intense because of his proximity to the group members but the range becomes limited
  5. The researcher misses many vital points because of his familiarity
  6. Proximity with the group will involve him in group factionalism, and he will have to take sides. He then loses his objectivity as an impartial observer with whom everyone is ready to cooperate.

Advantages of Observation Method

  • Provides direct access to research phenomena
  • By observing firsthand, the researcher can collect, check and record accurate data
  • Greater flexibility in terms of application
  • Generate a permanent record of phenomena and the researcher or others can refer with it later
  • The organization method is one of the simplest methods of data collection. It does not require too much technical knowledge
  • The observation method is one of the best ways to formulate a hypothesis. The researcher can observe and come to know about the activities, perceptions, likes and dislikes to form a theory on his subject
  • Observation method is one of the most common methods used in all sciences and is very easy to follow and accept
  • In some instances observation is the only available tool to collect essential data and information
  • The observation method does not require the willingness of the participant to record. The researcher can observe from a distance and record his findings

Disadvantages of Observation Method
  • Faces a severe disadvantage because it takes a longer time frame compared to other data collection methods
  • There is a chance of higher observer bias in the observation method
  • Several personal behaviors are not open for observation and this proves a limitation in case of observation method
  • There is a higher chance of the observer influencing the behavior of a sample group elements
  • Uncertainties of the event cannot determine the actual time when the event will take place, and this is why every occurrence that is open to observation cannot be observed
  • Many of the incidents are abstract like love, affection and the researcher can’t gain an exact and correct account of those
  • The social phenomena generalization made by observation are not considered reliable as it cannot be used for lab experiments
  • In some cases, it is seen that two persons observing the same phenomena come at different results and this can lead to faulty perceptions
  • Observation method is considered an expensive affair as it requires hard effort, plenty of time and high cost

Observation as a research method

The concept of observation as a research method

Observation is one of the most common and common research methods. This method of cognition is easy to use, does not require additional costs, etc. To obtain the most accurate information, the observation method is used in combination with other methods, such as conversation, experiment, etc.

Definition 1

Observation is a planned and purposeful perception of an object, process, phenomenon, etc., the results of which are recorded by the researcher (observer).

The essence of observation lies in the accurate and complete recording of facts obtained with the help of the senses (vision, hearing, etc.), knowledge, skills and life experience.

Thus, observation is an active form of sensory cognition, the purpose of which is to accumulate facts and initial ideas about the object of study.

An important feature of observation is that it is closely related to thinking. The researcher conducting the observation must be able to analyze, isolate the important from the general, group facts, properties, phenomena and signs. In addition, observation is inseparable from speech, that is, the ability to accurately and fully describe what is seen. In the event that the facts obtained are described poorly or insufficiently, then the value of the information received will be unscientific and low.

Note 1

So, the method of observation can be used by a researcher who has developed observation, thinking, the ability to accurately and fully express phenomena and events.

Despite the fact that the method of observation seems simple, its implementation requires not only certain knowledge and skills from the researcher, but also a long and serious preparation.

The purpose of observation is to study the characteristic features and changes of a certain phenomenon, object or action that are in specific conditions. The results of the phenomenon largely depend on the level of preparedness and experience of the researcher.

One of the features of observation is that the results depend on the subjective attitude of the researcher to the object of observation. That is why observation must be combined with other research methods. A complex combination of methods guarantees the most objective result.

Types of observation

Classification of observation as a research method.

According to the involvement of the researcher in the observation process:

  1. Direct observation - a type of observation in which the researcher is directly involved in the process under study, that is, he acts together with the subjects. The degree of involvement of the researcher in the process can be different:

    • the researcher is aloof, not included in the group of participants;
    • The researcher takes an active part in the research process together with the participants.

  2. Indirect observation (indirect) - a type of observation in which the researcher is not directly involved in the process. For example, the researcher observes how the subjects perform an independent task (solving a problem, putting together a puzzle, etc. ).

  3. Self-observation is a process that consists in the contemplation of one's own internal processes and their external manifestation. For example, as self-observation, the teacher’s task can be to take a self-photo of his own working week, that is, write down all the things that the subject was doing during the week.

    Note 2

    The complexity, and at the same time, the uniqueness of the method of self-observation lies in the fact that the researcher must "penetrate" into his own mental processes and phenomena. Its complexity lies in the fact that sometimes it is difficult for the researcher to express his feelings and experiences.

By the duration of observation:

  1. Systematic observations are carried out regularly during a specific time interval (period).

    Systematic observations can be:

    • long,
    • continuous,
    • cyclic.

  2. Non-systematic observations - carried out when necessary. Most often, they are not organized in advance, observation is carried out for an unexpected situation or phenomenon.

According to the form of observation:

  1. Conscious observation. With this form of observation, the subject knows that he is being observed, he knows the purpose and objectives of the observation. However, sometimes there may be a situation in which the subject is told a different goal and objectives of observation. This need may be due to ethical standards, or some research problems.
  2. Unconscious observation. With this form of observation, the subject does not know about the study. The observer is inside the system under study, that is, he is introduced into it in order to obtain reliable information. It is important that the subjects should in no case be aware of the role of the observer. Most often, unconscious observation is used in social pedagogy to study the social behavior of small groups.

Note 3

Thus, observation as a research method has several types. The choice of the type of observation depends on the goal of the study and the characteristics of the objects and phenomena being tested.

Requirements for the organization of observation

It is advisable to single out the following stages of preparation and conduct of pedagogical observation:

  1. Determination of the purpose of observation. The narrower and more precise the target, the easier it is to record observations and draw reliable conclusions. It is useless to conduct a “just in case” observation and then decide where and how to use the data.
  2. Outline of observation objects. It can be individual students, classes or groups.
  3. Development of a scheme (plan) of observation. Prepare documents, including - forms of observation protocols, instructions for the observer. The plan details all the questions that the researcher needs to get specific answers to. If, for example, an observer studies a student's activity in a lesson, he prepares a detailed questionnaire about what he is interested in in this activity at each stage of the lesson. On the form of the protocol or in the diary, the date of observation, the educational institution, the study group, the student, the teacher, the topic of the lesson and tasks, the purpose of the observation, the content and nature of the observed actions are indicated.
  4. Choice of ways to capture results - this can be a log entry, tape recording, photography or video.
  5. Choice of methods for analyzing the obtained results. The researcher must remember that it is not enough just to observe and fix a specific phenomenon or process, it is necessary to give the correct interpretation of the observed phenomena and facts, to identify their cause-and-effect relationship.

Observation: a method of research in psychology

Observation in psychology is a descriptive psychological research method, which consists in purposeful and organized perception and registration of the behavior of the object under study. Observation is a purposeful, organized and in a certain way fixed perception of the object under study. In observation, phenomena are studied directly under the conditions in which they occur in real life.

Where applicable

​​​​​​​​​​​​​Together with introspection, observation is considered the oldest psychological method. Scientific observation has been widely used since the end of the 19th century in areas where the fixation of the characteristics of human behavior in various conditions is of particular importance - in clinical, social, educational psychology, developmental psychology, and since the beginning of the 20th century - in labor psychology. Surveillance is used when it is either impossible or inadmissible to interfere with the natural course of the process.

Types of observation

Observation as a research method in psychology can be different. It can be conscious and not, external and internal, continuous and selective, systematic and not. See →

Features of the method

Observation is used where the intervention of the experimenter will disrupt the process of human interaction with the environment. This method is indispensable when it is necessary to obtain a complete picture of what is happening and reflect the behavior of individuals in its entirety.

The main features of the observation method are:

  • direct connection between the observer and the observed object;
  • partiality (emotional coloring) of observation;
  • the complexity (sometimes - the impossibility) of repeated observation.

In the natural sciences, the observer, as a rule, does not influence the process (phenomenon) being studied. In psychology, there is a problem of interaction between the observer and the observed. If the subject knows that he is being observed, then the presence of the researcher influences his behavior. The limitations of the method of observation gave rise to other, more "perfect" methods of empirical research: experiment and measurement. See Druzhinin V.N. Experimental psychology. - St. Petersburg. 2000 and Pros and cons of the method of observation

Subject of observation

Various features of behavior are subjects of observation. The objects of research can be:

  • Verbal behavior, including content, length and intensity of speech,
  • Non-verbal behavior - expression of the face, eyes, body, expressive movements, etc.,
  • Movement of people - distance between people, physical influences (touches, pushes, blows, etc.).

That is, only that which can be objectively registered can act as an object of observation. Thus, the researcher does not observe the properties of the psyche, he registers only those manifestations of the object that are available for fixation. And only on the basis of the assumption that the psyche finds its manifestation in behavior, the psychologist can build hypotheses about mental properties, based on the data obtained during observation.

How to conduct observations

The results of observations carried out for research purposes, as a rule, are recorded in special protocols. It is good when the observation is carried out not by one person, but by several, and then the obtained data are compared and generalized (by the method of generalizing independent observations).

When using the observation method, the following requirements must be observed as fully as possible:

  • Preliminarily plan the observation program with the allocation of the most important objects and stages of observation.
  • The observations made must not affect the natural course of the phenomenon under study.
  • It is expedient to observe the same mental phenomenon on different persons. Even if the object of study is a specific person, it can be better and deeper to know by comparing with others.
  • Observation must be repeated, and in the study of personality - systematic. It is important that it be successive, that is, repeated observations take into account the information obtained from previous observations.

Stages of observational research

  1. Definition of the object of observation, object, situation.
  2. Select how to monitor and record data.
  3. Create an observation plan.
  4. Select method for processing results.
  5. Observation itself.
  6. Processing and interpretation of received information.

Means of observation

Observation can be carried out directly by the researcher, or by means of observation devices and fixing its results. These include audio, photo, video equipment, special surveillance cards.

Observation is opposed to experiment. This opposition is based on two assumptions:

  1. Passivity of the observer - the observer does not change the surrounding reality.
  2. Immediacy - the observer records what he sees in the protocol.

APA Code of Ethics and Surveillance

The American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics, or APA, permits surveillance under certain rules and precautions. Here is some of them:

  1. If the research is conducted in a public place, it is not considered necessary to obtain the informed consent of the participants. Otherwise, you must obtain their consent.
    Learn more