Participant Observation

Historical Development

The methodological development of participant observation dates back to the 1920s with the research of the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski as well as Robert Park, William Thomas, and Florian Znaniecki of the Chicago School of Sociology. Classics such as Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community (1933) by Marie Jahoda and Paul Lazarsfeld or Street Corner Society (1943) by William Whyte indicate that participant observation has been part of the methodological instruments used in the social sciences from the start. However, in the beginning of the 1950s, such observation methods fell out of favor due to the further development of survey research and standardized statistical methods. In the 1980s, when the discussion about the usefulness of a qualitative research approach increased, interest in participant observation was revived.

In comparison with other disciplines such as sociology or education, participant observation has until now been neglected in political science. Not only has it been rarely used in political science research, but political scientists have not been involved in its methodological development. The work of Richard Fenno is one of the few exceptions. His description of his research strategy as “soaking and poking” has become standard terminology. Fenno observed members of the U.S. House of Representatives in their constituencies and inductively developed a theory of their working styles. He later also accompanied U.S. senators on their campaigns, and in several of his works, he reflected on the experiences he had while observing politicians in Washington, D.C., and in their home districts.

Theory of Scientific Observation

At the most basic level, observation orients us to our environment—it is something we do every day. It becomes scientific observation if it allows us to systematically examine certain assumptions with results that are repeatable and intersubjectively comprehensible. Scientific methods of observation can be divided into the following five categories:

• 1.
  covert versus open observation,
• 2.
  participant versus nonparticipant observation,
• 3.
  structured versus unstructured observation,
[Page 1775]
• 4.
  observation in the field versus laboratory observation, and
• 5.
  introspection versus external observation.

In political science, participant observation is the most common variant. In general, this type of research is conducted openly, in a natural environment, and in the form of external observation. The extent of participation can be thought of as a continuum, since it can take a variety of forms, and the influence of the observer on the field can vary. For example, as a guest in committee meetings the political scientist is a quiet listener, but as a passenger in a politician's car on the way to the next appointment he or she can also be asked for advice. Accordingly, participant observation is not to be understood only literally, since in many institutional contexts action primarily consists of verbal communication. Observing means communicating. In most cases, participant observation is therefore combined with other methods of data collection. Take, for example, the observation of a parliamentary committee. Here, observation does not only mean direct participation in the meeting for the purpose of describing its course and the actions of the legislators. Essential to the observation is researching background information on committee members or studying the agenda and the motions, informal conversations, as well as later interviews with representatives. After the meeting, the observations must be examined to determine whether they confirm previous assumptions and earlier observations or whether new hypotheses must be generated.

...