RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

INTRODUCTION 449
Box 21.1
Dimensions of role-play methods
Form
Content
Set imaginary Person: self versus
versus other
Action
performed
scripted
versus
Role: subject versus
another role
improvised
Dependent verbal versus Context: scenario other
variables behavioural actors audience
Source:adaptedfromHamilton1976
various dimensions of role-play methods identified
by Hamilton are set out in Box 21.1.
To illustrate the extremes of the range in
the role-playing methods identified in Box 21.1
we have selected two studies, the first of
which is passive, imaginary and verbal, typical
of the way in which role-playing is often
introduced to pupils; the second is active,
performed and behavioural, involving an elaborate
scenario and the participation of numerous other
actors.
In a lesson designed to develop empathizing
skills (Rogers and Atwood 1974), a number of
magazine pictures were selected. The pictures
included easily observed clues that served as the
basis for inferring an emotion or a situation. Some
pictures showed only the face of an individual,
others depicted one or more persons in a particular
social setting. The pictures exhibited a variety of
emotions such as anger, fear, compassion, anxiety
and joy. Students were asked to look carefully at a
particular picture and then to respond to questions
such as the following:
How do you think the individual(s) is (are)
feeling
Why do you think this is (Encourage students
to be specific about observations from which
they infer emotions. Distinguish between
observations and inferences.)
Might the person(s) be feeling a different
emotion than the one you inferred Give an
example.
Have you ever felt this way Why
What do you think might happen next to this
person
If you inferred an unpleasant emotion, what
possible action might the person(s) take in
order to feel better
The second example of a role-playing study
is the well-known Stanford Prison experiment
carried out by Haney et al. (1973), a brief overview
of which is given in Box 21.2. Enthusiasts
of role-playing as a research methodology cite
experiments such as the Stanford Prison study
to support their claim that where realism and
spontaneity can be introduced into role-play, then
such experimental conditions do, in fact, simulate
both symbolically and phenomenologically the
real-life analogues that they purport to represent.
Advocates of role-play would concur with the
conclusions of Haney and his associates that the
simulated prison developed into a psychologically
compelling prison environment and they, too,
would infer that the dramatic differences in the
behaviour of prisoners and guards arose out of
their location in different positions within the
institutional structure of the prison and the social
psychological conditions that prevailed there,
rather than from personality differences between
the two groups of subjects (see Banuazizi and
Movahedi 1975).
On the other hand, the passive, imaginary
role-play required of subjects taking part in
the lesson cited in the first example has been
the focus of much of the criticism levelled at
role-playing as a research technique. Ginsburg
(1978) summarizes the argument against roleplaying
as a device for generating scientific
knowledge:
Role-playing is unreal with respect to the
variables under study in that subjects report
what they would do, and that is taken as though
they did do it.
The behaviour displayed is not spontaneous
even in the more active forms of role-playing.
The verbal reports in role-playing are very
susceptible to artefactual influence such as
social desirability.
Chapter 21