RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

398 OBSERVATION
chart the incidence, presence and frequency of
elements and maybe wishes to compare one
situation with another, then it may be more
efficient in terms of time to go into a situation
with a prepared observation schedule. If, on the
other hand, we want to go into a situation
and let the elements of the situation speak for
themselves, perhaps with no concern with how
one situation compares with another, then it may
be more appropriate to opt for a less structured
observation.
The former, structured observation, takes much
time to prepare but the data analysis is fairly rapid,
the categories having already been established,
while the latter, less structured approach, is quicker
to prepare but the data take much longer to
analyse. The former approach operates within
the agenda of the researcher and hence might
neglect aspects of the four settings above if they
do not appear on the observation schedule, i.e.
it looks selectively at situations. On the other
hand, the latter operates within the agenda of
the participants, i.e. it is responsive to what
it finds and therefore, by definition, is honest
to the situation as it unfolds. Here selectivity
derives from the situation rather than from the
researcher in the sense that key issues emerge
from the observation rather than the researcher
knowing in advance what those key issues
will be. Structured observation is useful for
testing hypotheses, while unstructured observation
provides a rich description of a situation which,
in turn, can lead to the subsequent generation of
hypotheses.
Flick (1998: 137) suggests that observation has
to be considered along five dimensions:
structured, systematic and quantitative observation
versus unstructured and unsystematic
and qualitative observation
participant observation versus non-participant
observation
overt versus covert observation
observation in natural settings versus observation
in unnatural, artificial settings (e.g. a
‘laboratory’ or contrived situation)
self-observation versus observation of others.
Cooper and Schindler (2001: 375) suggest
that observation can be considered along three
dimensions:
whether the observation is direct or indirect:
the former requiring the presence of the
observer, the latter requiring recording devices
(e.g. video cameras)
whether the presence of the observer is
known or unknown (overt or covert research),
whether the researcher is concealed (e.g.
through a one-way mirror or hidden camera) or
partially concealed, i.e. the researcher is seen
but not known to be a researcher (e.g. the
researcher takes up a visible role in the school)
the role taken by the observer (participant
to non-participant observation, discussed
below).
We address these throughout the chapter.
Structured observation
A structured observation is very systematic
and enables the researcher to generate numerical
data from the observations. Numerical
data, in turn, facilitate the making of comparisons
between settings and situations, and
frequencies, patterns and trends to be noted
or calculated. The observer adopts a passive,
non-intrusive role, merely noting down the incidence
of the factors being studied. Observations
are entered on an observational schedule. An
example of this is shown in Box 18.1 (see http://
www.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415368780 –
Chapter 18, file 18.3.ppt). This is an example
of a schedule used to monitor student and teacher
conversations over a ten-minute period. The upper
seven categories indicate who is speaking to
whom, while the lower four categories indicate the
nature of the talk. Looking at the example of the
observation schedule, several points can be noted:
The categories for the observation are discrete,
i.e. there is no overlap between them. For this
to be the case requires a pilot to have been
developed and tested in order to iron out any
problems of overlap of categories.