In my opinion, participant observation is a great way to find an understanding to a culture because it involves “immersion, to the extent permitted, in local life in order to understand and document how things work.” It, like all methods, has drawbacks, and some are mentioned in the article I read at the site Community Adaptations and Sustainable Livelihoods (www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/ParticipantObserver.htm). Some drawbacks stated in the article are subjectivism, the fact that documentation can be tricky and the method is “less suited to project situations”. Basically saying that it is the least objective of all methods , and that some of the notes may contain confidential information thus making it “tricky” to document. The last drawback is pretty self explanatory.
This article does not really state any advantages. One would be that the Hawthorne effect is reduced. First off the Hawthorne effect is basically the participants changing behaviors to conform to the expectations of the researcher. If the researcher lives like them and with them the participant is more likely to live their ‘normal’ life.
As well, participant observation and participatory action research differ and that participatory action research involves individual surveys or interviews (involving gathering data thorough questions or conversations that are guided between a minimum of 2 people) whereas participant observers live and observe the actual culture. I also think that this would probably lead to information that is far more emic versus etic, and that this is a good thing, because to understand a culture one needs to know how insiders perceive their culture as well as their explanations for what they do, how they do it and why they do it a certain way.
The idea of participant observer sounds interesting, and I think that the drawbacks are minimal compared to the understanding that is gained by the researcher.
I agree that the participant observer technique benefits outweigh it's draw backs. So much of what we've talked about in class is about the standpoint of the author and what argument they choose to make. I think it would be hard to make an argument and be passionate about it without getting to know the culture you're talking about, which is the case in armchair anthropology.
ReplyDelete