RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

412 OBSERVATION
this raises ethical issues which have been addressed
in Chapter 2. Another suggestion is to adopt
habituation, i.e. the researcher remains in the
situation for such a long time that participants not
only become used to his or her presence but also
revert to their natural behaviour.
Lofland (1971: 104–6) suggests that, to
overcome problems of reliability in the research,
it is also important for the observer to write
up notes as soon after the event as possible,
to write quickly yet to expect to take a long
time to write notes, to consider dictating notes
(though writing may stimulate more thought),
to use a word-processing facility as it aids later
analysis through software packages, and to make
two copies: one of the original data and another
for manipulation and analysis (e.g. cutting and
pasting data).
Conclusion
Observation methods are powerful tools for gaining
insight into situations. 3 As with other data
collection techniques, they are beset by issues
of validity and reliability. Even low inference
observation, perhaps the safest form of observation,
is itself highly selective, just as perception is
selective. Higher forms of inference, while moving
towards establishing causality, rely on greater
levels of interpretation by the observer, wherein
the observer makes judgements about intentionality
and motivation. In this respect it has been
suggested that additional methods of gathering
data might be employed, to provide corroboration
and triangulation, in short, to ensure
that reliable inferences are derived from reliable
data.
In planning observations one has to consider
the following:
When, where, how and what to observe.
How much degree of structure is necessary in
the observation.
The duration of the observation period, which
must be suitable for the behaviour to occur and
be observed.
The timing of the observation period (e.g.
morning, afternoon, evening).
The context of the observation (a meeting,
alesson,adevelopmentworkshop,asenior
management briefing etc.).
The nature of the observation (structured,
semi-structured, open, molar, molecular etc.).
The need for there to be an opportunity to
observe, for example to ensure that there is the
presence of the people to be observed or the
behaviour to be observed.
The merging of subjective and objective
observation, even in a structured observation:
an observation schedule can become highly
subjective when it is being completed,
as interpretation, selection and countertransference
may enter the observation, and
operational definitions may not always be
sufficiently clear.
The value of covert participant observation in
order to reduce reactivity.
Threats to reliability and validity.
The need to operationalize the observation so
that what counts as evidence is consistent,
unambiguous and valid, for example, what
constitutes a particular quality (e.g. antisocial
behaviour: what counts as antisocial
behaviour – one person’s ‘sociable’ is another’s
‘unsociable’ and vice versa).
The need to choose the appropriate kind
of structured observation and recording
(e.g. event sampling, instantaneous sampling,
whole interval/partial interval recording,
duration recording, dichotomous/rating scale
recording).
How to go under cover, or whether informed
consent is necessary.
Whether deception is justified.
Which role(s) to adopt on the continuum
of complete participant, to participantas-observer,
to observer-as-participant, to
complete observer.
Observation can be a very useful research tool.
However, it exacts its price: it may take a long time
to catch the required behaviour or phenomenon,
it can be costly in time and effort, and it is prone
to difficulties of interpreting or inferring what