Observation Research

Theoretical Perspectives

Although the classic image of participant observation is the anthropologist who travels to a remote village of “vanishing” people, immerses him- or herself in tribal culture for multiple years, and records copious notes of what he or she witnesses, contemporary observation varies in practice, duration, and purpose. Its use as a method of inquiry emerges from the belief that human sight and direct eyewitness accounts are valuable, if not irreplaceable, resources for building knowledge. Direct observation and active participation in varied settings offer opportunities to witness and experience events from the perspective of insiders and pursue the question central to ethnographic field-work: “What's going on here?”

Indeed, ethnographers have used participant observation as a primary data source in fieldwork since the 1920s. The broader perspective of the observer can provide a more holistic view of events and setting dynamics than the partial perspectives of individuals within the setting. It also can provide crucial data on subjects who cannot fully articulate their experiences or who feel intimidated by interviews. Also, because what people say sometimes differs dramatically from what they do, observation can enrich and clarify findings from other data sources such as interviews and documents.

Variations in theories and methods of observation make it a subject of study in its own right for methodo-logists interested in the art and science of conducting research. Theoretical frameworks generally shape how researchers conduct observations and thus practices have varied across historical periods and scientific discipline. For example, in the nineteenth century, reigning beliefs about the power of measurement and instrumentation meant that observation was often accompanied by measurement to confirm visual data and extend the reach of the eye. In the same time period, ethnographic studies influenced by social Darwinism often constructed indigenous and tribal peoples as simplistic and savage and Westerners as superior.

Similarly, during the seventeenth century, Robert Boyle required an “open laboratory” and a special [Page 552]community of male elite witnesses to validate his experiments with the air pump. Women, even when present in the laboratory, could not serve as “witnesses” because they purportedly lacked the independent and objective status to gaze with detachment and reliability. Indeed, women were excluded from the Royal Society of London for hundreds of years until the practice became a legal matter in 1945. Such practices have led scholars to ask whether observation may sometimes reveal more about the researcher than those observed.

...