OBSERVATION

Methods, Tools & Techniques

 

Methods, Tools and Techniques are ways of gathering data and collecting the information to learn what changes have happened.

OVERVIEW

(Adapted from: http://atlasti.com/observational-research)

Observation is a method in which a person observes behaviour to note changes in people or places, typically as the result of an intervention. Most simply it is learning through observing and documenting.

Observation is most common in psychology and other social sciences. It lets the researcher describe situations under study using the five senses.

Using observation in different ways

You can use observational research in different ways.  At one end is the controlled observation, where the researcher completely manages the environment. At the other is non-participant observation where the researcher observes participants in their natural environment without intervening. Both have strengths and weaknesses which are often linked to how much an evaluator or researcher has influenced the environment and it’s subjects.

Data collection in observational research can take several forms. Note-taking is common, where the researcher writes down what they observe. This can involve completing a structured template if the research requires consistent data from multiple observations. Taking photos, video and audio-recordings are also common. Observational research can be combined with other methods such as interviews or focus groups with participants to gather data about what they recall from their actions and behaviours.

Naturalistic (or nonparticipant) observation happens when a researcher       doesn’t intervene and studies behaviour that occurs naturally.

In participant observation, the researcher takes part in the environment they are observing. Most commonly, this happens when the researcher joins a group to observe behaviour that otherwise would be inaccessible.

 USEFUL RESOURCES

This Forum for Qualitative Social Research site includes a comprehensive explanation of observation methods, recommendations on what to observe, ethics in observation and tips to collect useful data.

This slide deck and presentation by Melanie Bryant presents the basics of conducting participant observation in applied research projects.

This site outlines some key ideas around using observation effectively in evaluation.

Characteristics of effective observers

  • Having an open, non-judgmental attitude.
  • Being interested in learning about others.
  • Being a careful observer, recorder and a good listener.
  • Being open to the unexpected.

Advantages

  • Allows insight into contexts, relationships and behaviour. By being able to observe the flow of behaviour in its own setting, the evidence gathered can be more credible than, say, surveys, which rely on the participants’ memory, honesty and awareness.
  • Observation is often used to generate new ideas. As observation gives the person gathering evidence the opportunity to explore the total situation, it often suggests lines of enquiry and outcomes not thought of before. Observation can provide new information that is crucial for service improvements, project design, other data collection, and interpretation of other data.

Disadvantages & Limitations

  • Observation usually takes a lot of time compared with other methods.
  • In social services, observation requires a high level of trust between the person collecting information and participants. Sometimes service staff have easy access to the homes, workplaces and social settings that clients are part of. Often however, these settings are not open to observers, so it can be difficult to find authentic environments to observe changes in behaviour.
  • In participant observation it can be difficult to get time/privacy for recording. For example, with participant observations, researchers can’t take notes openly as this would affect their participation. This means they have to wait until they are alone and rely on memory.
  • Observations are often small-scale and conclusions may not be able to be generalised. It can also be difficult to claim the intervention was responsible for the changes observed.
  • The researcher needs to be trained or experienced enough to recognise events that are significant and worth further attention.
  • If the researcher becomes too involved they may lose objectivity and become biased. There is always the danger that we will see what we expect, or want, to see. This is a problem for anyone within an organisation doing any evaluation work.