Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is an approach used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies involved in international development. The approach aims to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of rural people in the planning and management of development projects and programmes.
Origins of participatory rural appraisal
The roots of PRA techniques can be traced to the activist adult education methods of Paulo Freire and the study clubs of the Antigonish Movement. In this view, an actively involved and empowered local population is essential to successful rural community development. Robert Chambers, a key exponent of PRA, argues that the approach owes much to "the Freirian theme, that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyze their own reality."[1].
By the early 1980’s, there was growing dissatisfaction among development experts with both the reductionism of formal surveys, and the biases of typical field visits. In 1983, Robert Chambers, a Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (UK), used the term Rapid Rural Appraisal to describe techniques that could bring about a 'reversal of learning' [2]. Two years later, the first international conference to share experiences relating to RRA was held in Thailand [3]. This was followed by a rapid growth in the development of methods that involved rural people in examining their own problems, setting their own goals, and monitoring their own achievements. By the mid 1990’s, the term RRA had been replaced by a number of other terms including ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)’ and ‘Participatory Learning and Action’ (PLA).
[edit] Overview of PRA techniques
Hundreds of participatory techniques and tools have been described in a variety of books and newsletters, or taught at training courses around the world. These techniques can be divided into four categories:
* Group dynamics, e.g. learning contracts, role reversals, feedback sessions
* Sampling, e.g. transect walks, wealth ranking, social mapping
* Interviewing, e.g. focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, triangulation
* Visualization e.g. venn diagrams, matrix scoring, timelines
To ensure that people are not excluded from participation, these techniques avoid writing wherever possible, relying instead on the tools of oral communication like pictures, symbols, physical objects and group memory. Efforts are made in many projects, however, to build a bridge to formal literacy; for example by teaching people how to sign their names or recognize their signatures.
[edit] A 'new professionalism' for development
A key idea that has accompanied the development of PRA techniques is that of a new professionalism. Robert Chambers has explained this as follows:
“The central thrusts of the [new] paradigm … are decentralization and empowerment. Decentralization means that resources and discretion are devolved, turning back the inward and upward flows of resources and people. Empowerment means that people, especially poorer people, are enabled to take more control over their lives, and secure a better livelihood with ownership and control of productive assets as one key element. Decentralization and empowerment enable local people to exploit the diverse complexities of their own conditions, and to adapt to rapid change”.[4]
To be an external agent of change within this discipline implies two-way learning. Development agents learn to both appreciate and lever the power of oral culture and the transformations that are possible within it. Walter J. Ong has argued that “many of the contrasts often made between ‘western’ and other views seem reducible to contrasts between deeply interiorized literacy and more or less residually oral states of consciousness.”[5]
[edit] The limits of PRA
There are those who see limits to PRA. This is on a range of grounds - for example that it doesn't work, that it reveals the secrets of rural communities to be managed by development agencies, or that it is a tool of cooptation into neo-liberal development agendas. These were summarized in Participation: The New Tyranny? [6]
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_rural_appraisal
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Focus group
A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about their attitude towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members.
Ernest Dichter originated the idea of having a "group therapy" for products and this process is what became known as a focus group.
In the social sciences and urban planning, focus groups allow interviewers to study people in a more natural setting than a one-to-one interview. In combination with participant observation, they can be used for gaining access to various cultural and social groups, selecting sites to study, sampling of such sites, and raising unexpected issues for exploration. Focus groups have a high apparent validity - since the idea is easy to understand, the results are believable. Also, they are low in cost, one can get results relatively quickly, and they can increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once. (Material based on: Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications, 1999, p. 115)
Traditional focus groups
In traditional focus groups, a screened (qualified) group of respondents gathers in the same room. They are screened to ensure that they are part of the relevant target market and that the group is a representative subgroup of this market segment. There are usually 6 to 10 members in the group, and the session usually lasts for 1 to 2 hours. A moderator guides the group through a discussion that probes attitudes about a client's proposed products or services. The discussion is loosely structured, and the moderator encourages the free flow of ideas. The moderator is typically given a list of objectives or an anticipated outline. He/she will generally have only a few specific questions prepared prior to the focus group. These questions will serve to initiate open-ended discussions.
Client representatives observe the discussion from behind a one-way mirror. Participants cannot see out, but the researchers and their clients can see in. Usually, a video camera records the meeting so that it can be seen by others who were not able to travel to the site. Transcripts can be created from the video tape. If the participants speak a different language than the clients, a simultaneous interpreter may be used.
Researchers examine more than the spoken words. They also try to interpret facial expressions, body language, and group dynamics. Moderators may use straight questioning or various projective techniques, including fixed or free association, story-telling and role-playing. Focus groups are often used to garner reaction to specific stimuli such as concepts, prototypes and advertising.
It is often suggested that respondents feel group pressure to conform and this can contaminate the results. Others hold that by using trained and experienced moderators who appropriately manage the discussion, this potential problem can be mitigated. Further, despite the potential for groupthink, marketers and sociologists find that group dynamics are useful in developing new streams of thought and covering an issue thoroughly.
Types of focus groups
Variants of focus groups include:
* Two-way focus group - one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusions
* Dual moderator focus group - one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered
* Dueling moderator focus group - two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion
* Respondent moderator focus group - one or more of the respondents are asked to act as the moderator temporarily
* Client participant focus groups - one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly
* Mini focus groups - groups are comprised of 4 or 5 members rather than 8 to 12
* Teleconference focus groups - telephone network is used
* Online focus groups - computers connected via the internet are used
Traditional focus groups can provide accurate information, and are less expensive than other forms of traditional marketing research. There can be significant costs however : if a product is to be marketed on a nationwide basis, it would be critical to gather respondents from various locales throughout the country since attitudes about a new product may vary due to geographical considerations. This would require a considerable expenditure in travel and lodging expenses. Additionally, the site of a traditional focus group may or may not be in a locale convenient to a specific client, so client representatives may have to incur travel and lodging expenses as well.
The use of focus groups has steadily evolved over time and is becoming increasingly widespread.
[edit] Problems and criticism
However, focus groups also have disadvantages: The researcher has less control over a group than a one-on-one interview, and thus time can be lost on issues irrelevant to the topic; the data are tough to analyze because the talking is in reaction to the comments of other group members; observers/ moderators need to be highly trained, and groups are quite variable and can be tough to get together. (Ibid.) Moreover, the number of members of a focus group is not large enough to be a representative sample of a population; thus, the data obtained from the groups is not necessarily representative of the whole population, unlike in opinion polls.
A fundamental difficulty with focus groups (and other forms of qualitative research) is the issue of observer dependency: the results obtained are influenced by the researcher, raising questions of validity. The issue evokes associations with Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle. As Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Indeed, the design of the focus group study (e.g. respondent selection, the questions asked, how they are phrased, how they are posed, in what setting, by whom, and so on) affects the answers obtained from respondents. In focus groups, researchers are not detached observers but always participants. Researchers must take this into account when making their analysis (Based on: Tjaco H. Walvis (2003), “Avoiding advertising research disaster: Advertising and the uncertainty principle”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 403-409).
Douglas Rushkoff[2] argues that focus groups are often useless, and frequently cause more trouble than they are intended to solve, with focus groups often aiming to please rather than offering their own opinions or evaluations, and with data often cherry picked to support a foregone conclusion. Rushkoff cites the disastrous introduction of New Coke in the 1980s as a vivid example of focus group analysis gone bad.
[edit] Federal government use of focus groups
The United States Federal Government makes extensive use of focus groups to assess public education materials and messages for their many programs. While many of these are appropriate for the purpose, many others are reluctant compromises which federal officials have had to make as a result of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The bureaucratic procedures require the federal researcher to go through a very elaborate justification of why he/she needs to conduct a survey or any study that will involve more than 10 people. The researcher must also have the complete methodology approved by the Office of Manangement and Budgetof the Executive Office of the President--not always the paragon of scientific objectivity. Often, the labor for the approval is far greater than the labor to do the research. Federal researchers most often take the path of least resistance and use 9 person focus group or even several of these with different questions asked. So there are many federal focus groups and few surveys or other type studies independent of whether a focus group is the best or even appropriate methodology.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group
Ernest Dichter originated the idea of having a "group therapy" for products and this process is what became known as a focus group.
In the social sciences and urban planning, focus groups allow interviewers to study people in a more natural setting than a one-to-one interview. In combination with participant observation, they can be used for gaining access to various cultural and social groups, selecting sites to study, sampling of such sites, and raising unexpected issues for exploration. Focus groups have a high apparent validity - since the idea is easy to understand, the results are believable. Also, they are low in cost, one can get results relatively quickly, and they can increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once. (Material based on: Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications, 1999, p. 115)
Traditional focus groups
In traditional focus groups, a screened (qualified) group of respondents gathers in the same room. They are screened to ensure that they are part of the relevant target market and that the group is a representative subgroup of this market segment. There are usually 6 to 10 members in the group, and the session usually lasts for 1 to 2 hours. A moderator guides the group through a discussion that probes attitudes about a client's proposed products or services. The discussion is loosely structured, and the moderator encourages the free flow of ideas. The moderator is typically given a list of objectives or an anticipated outline. He/she will generally have only a few specific questions prepared prior to the focus group. These questions will serve to initiate open-ended discussions.
Client representatives observe the discussion from behind a one-way mirror. Participants cannot see out, but the researchers and their clients can see in. Usually, a video camera records the meeting so that it can be seen by others who were not able to travel to the site. Transcripts can be created from the video tape. If the participants speak a different language than the clients, a simultaneous interpreter may be used.
Researchers examine more than the spoken words. They also try to interpret facial expressions, body language, and group dynamics. Moderators may use straight questioning or various projective techniques, including fixed or free association, story-telling and role-playing. Focus groups are often used to garner reaction to specific stimuli such as concepts, prototypes and advertising.
It is often suggested that respondents feel group pressure to conform and this can contaminate the results. Others hold that by using trained and experienced moderators who appropriately manage the discussion, this potential problem can be mitigated. Further, despite the potential for groupthink, marketers and sociologists find that group dynamics are useful in developing new streams of thought and covering an issue thoroughly.
Types of focus groups
Variants of focus groups include:
* Two-way focus group - one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusions
* Dual moderator focus group - one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are covered
* Dueling moderator focus group - two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion
* Respondent moderator focus group - one or more of the respondents are asked to act as the moderator temporarily
* Client participant focus groups - one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly
* Mini focus groups - groups are comprised of 4 or 5 members rather than 8 to 12
* Teleconference focus groups - telephone network is used
* Online focus groups - computers connected via the internet are used
Traditional focus groups can provide accurate information, and are less expensive than other forms of traditional marketing research. There can be significant costs however : if a product is to be marketed on a nationwide basis, it would be critical to gather respondents from various locales throughout the country since attitudes about a new product may vary due to geographical considerations. This would require a considerable expenditure in travel and lodging expenses. Additionally, the site of a traditional focus group may or may not be in a locale convenient to a specific client, so client representatives may have to incur travel and lodging expenses as well.
The use of focus groups has steadily evolved over time and is becoming increasingly widespread.
[edit] Problems and criticism
However, focus groups also have disadvantages: The researcher has less control over a group than a one-on-one interview, and thus time can be lost on issues irrelevant to the topic; the data are tough to analyze because the talking is in reaction to the comments of other group members; observers/ moderators need to be highly trained, and groups are quite variable and can be tough to get together. (Ibid.) Moreover, the number of members of a focus group is not large enough to be a representative sample of a population; thus, the data obtained from the groups is not necessarily representative of the whole population, unlike in opinion polls.
A fundamental difficulty with focus groups (and other forms of qualitative research) is the issue of observer dependency: the results obtained are influenced by the researcher, raising questions of validity. The issue evokes associations with Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle. As Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Indeed, the design of the focus group study (e.g. respondent selection, the questions asked, how they are phrased, how they are posed, in what setting, by whom, and so on) affects the answers obtained from respondents. In focus groups, researchers are not detached observers but always participants. Researchers must take this into account when making their analysis (Based on: Tjaco H. Walvis (2003), “Avoiding advertising research disaster: Advertising and the uncertainty principle”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 403-409).
Douglas Rushkoff[2] argues that focus groups are often useless, and frequently cause more trouble than they are intended to solve, with focus groups often aiming to please rather than offering their own opinions or evaluations, and with data often cherry picked to support a foregone conclusion. Rushkoff cites the disastrous introduction of New Coke in the 1980s as a vivid example of focus group analysis gone bad.
[edit] Federal government use of focus groups
The United States Federal Government makes extensive use of focus groups to assess public education materials and messages for their many programs. While many of these are appropriate for the purpose, many others are reluctant compromises which federal officials have had to make as a result of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The bureaucratic procedures require the federal researcher to go through a very elaborate justification of why he/she needs to conduct a survey or any study that will involve more than 10 people. The researcher must also have the complete methodology approved by the Office of Manangement and Budgetof the Executive Office of the President--not always the paragon of scientific objectivity. Often, the labor for the approval is far greater than the labor to do the research. Federal researchers most often take the path of least resistance and use 9 person focus group or even several of these with different questions asked. So there are many federal focus groups and few surveys or other type studies independent of whether a focus group is the best or even appropriate methodology.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group
Computer Assisted telephone interviewing
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) is a telephone surveying technique in which the interviewer follows a script provided by a software application. The software is able to customize the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information already known about the participant.
Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) is a telephone surveying technique in which the interviewer follows a script provided by a software application. The software is able to customize the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information already known about the participant.
CATI may function in the following manner
* A computerized questionnaire is administered to respondents over the telephone.
* The interviewer sits in front of a computer screen
* Upon command, the computer dials the telephone number to be called.
* When contact is made, the interviewer reads the questions posed on the computer screen and records the respondent's answers directly into the computer.
* Interim and update reports can be compiled instantaneously, as the data are being collected.
* CATI software has built-in logic, which also enhances data accuracy.
* The program will personalize questions and control for logically incorrect answers, such as percentage answers that do not add up to 100 percent.
* The software has built-in branching logic, which will skip questions that are not applicable or will probe for more detail when warranted.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_telephone_interviewing
Automated computer telephone interviewing (ACTI) is a telephone surveying technique by which a computer with speaker independent voice recognition capabilities asks respondents a series of questions, recognizes then stores the answers, and is able to follow scripted logic and branch intelligently according to the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information known about the participant.
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/automated-computer-telephone-interviewing?cat=technology
Automated Computer Telephone Interviewing (ACTI) is a telephone surveying technique by which a computer with speaker independent voice recognition capabilities asks respondents a series of questions, recognizes then stores the answers, and is able to follow scripted logic and branch intelligently according to the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information known about the participant.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_computer_telephone_interviewing
Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) is a telephone surveying technique in which the interviewer follows a script provided by a software application. The software is able to customize the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information already known about the participant.
CATI may function in the following manner
* A computerized questionnaire is administered to respondents over the telephone.
* The interviewer sits in front of a computer screen
* Upon command, the computer dials the telephone number to be called.
* When contact is made, the interviewer reads the questions posed on the computer screen and records the respondent's answers directly into the computer.
* Interim and update reports can be compiled instantaneously, as the data are being collected.
* CATI software has built-in logic, which also enhances data accuracy.
* The program will personalize questions and control for logically incorrect answers, such as percentage answers that do not add up to 100 percent.
* The software has built-in branching logic, which will skip questions that are not applicable or will probe for more detail when warranted.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_telephone_interviewing
Automated computer telephone interviewing (ACTI) is a telephone surveying technique by which a computer with speaker independent voice recognition capabilities asks respondents a series of questions, recognizes then stores the answers, and is able to follow scripted logic and branch intelligently according to the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information known about the participant.
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/automated-computer-telephone-interviewing?cat=technology
Automated Computer Telephone Interviewing (ACTI) is a telephone surveying technique by which a computer with speaker independent voice recognition capabilities asks respondents a series of questions, recognizes then stores the answers, and is able to follow scripted logic and branch intelligently according to the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information known about the participant.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_computer_telephone_interviewing
Questionnaire
Questionnaire:
A form containing a set of questions, especially one addressed to a statistically significant number of subjects as a way of gathering information for a survey.
Importance to use
Questionnaires are a good survey technique, because the cost (printing, distribution, collection, analysis) is low relative to that of other methods such as personal interviews, because participants can respond at their own convenience, because no interviewer bias is introduced, and because responses can be kept completely confidential. The disadvantages are that the results may be biased toward the opinions of those who chose to respond to the questionnaire versus all those who had been asked to respond, and the results may be distorted if the questions were misunderstood.
Questionnaires can be used to examine the general characteristics of a population, to compare attitudes of different groups, and to test theories. Questionnaires appear simple, but they are very difficult to compile in a manner which establishes reliability and validity. A question worded in one way, for example, may elicit a different response from the same question worded slightly differently.
The biggest problem is to keep the size of the questionnaire small enough to avoid exasperating the subjects. It is also desirable to couch the questions so that the responses can be easily categorized and the results computerized.
Questionnaires are frequently used in quantitative marketing research and social research in general. They are a valuable method of collecting a wide range of information from a large number of respondents. Good questionnaire construction is critical to the success of a survey. Inappropriate questions, incorrect ordering of questions, incorrect scaling, or bad questionnaire format can make the survey valueless. A useful method for checking a questionnaire for problems is to pretest it. This usually involves giving it to a small sample of respondents, then interviewing the respondents to get their impressions and to confirm that the questions accurately captured their opinions.
Questionnaire construction issues
* The research objectives and frame of reference should be defined beforehand, including the questionnaire's context of time, budget, manpower, intrusion and privacy.
* The nature of the expected responses should be defined and retained for interpretation of the responses, be it preferences (of products or services), facts, beliefs, feelings, descriptions of past behavior, or standards of action.
* Unneeded questions are an expense to the researcher and an unwelcome imposition on the respondents. All questions should contribute to the objective(s) of the research.
* The topics should fit the respondents’ frame of reference. Their background may affect their interpretation of the questions. Respondents should have enough information or expertise to answer the questions truthfully.
* The type of scale, index, or typology to be used shall be determined.
* The types of questions (closed, multiple-choice, open) should fit the statistical data analysis techniques available.
* Questions and prepared responses to choose from should be neutral as to intended outcome. A biased question or questionnaire encourages respondents to answer one way rather than another. Even questions without bias may leave respondents with expectations.
* The order or “natural” grouping of questions is often relevant. Prior previous questions may bias later questions.
* The wording should be kept simple: no technical or specialized words.
* The meaning should be clear. Ambiguous words, equivocal sentence structures and negatives may cause misunderstanding, possibly invalidating questionnaire results. Double negatives should be reworded as positives.
* If a survey question actually contains more than one issue, the researcher will not know which one the respondent is answering. Care should be taken to ask one question at a time.
* The list of possible responses should be inclusive. Respondents should not find themselves with no category that fits their situation. One solution is to use a final category for “other ________”.
* The possible responses should be mutually exclusive. Categories should not overlap. Respondents should not find themselves in more than one category, for example in both the “married” category and the “single” category - there may be need for a “not living with spouse” category.
* Writing style should be conversational, yet concise and accurate and appropriate to the target audience.
* Most people will not answer personal or intimate questions.
* “Loaded” questions evoke emotional responses and may skew results.
* Presentation of the questions on the page (or computer screen) and use of white space, colors, pictures, charts, or other graphics may affect respondent's interest or distract from the questions.
* Numbering of questions may be helpful.
* Questionnaires can be administered by research staff, by volunteers or self-administered by the respondents. Clear, detailed instructions are needed in either case, matching the needs of each audience.
Types of questions
1. Contingency questions - A question that is answered only if the respondent gives a particular response to a previous question. This avoids asking questions of people that do not apply to them (for example, asking men if they have ever been pregnant).
2. Matrix questions - Identical response categories are assigned to multiple questions. The questions are placed one under the other, forming a matrix with response categories along the top and a list of questions down the side. This is an efficient use of page space and respondents’ time.
3. Scaled questions - Responses are graded on a continuum (example : rate the appearance of the product on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most preferred appearance). Examples of types of scales include the Likert scale, semantic differential scale, and rank-order scale (See scale for a complete list of scaling techniques.).
4. Closed ended questions - Respondents’ answers are limited to a fixed set of responses. Most scales are closed ended. Other types of closed ended questions include:
* Dichotomous questions - The respondent answers with a “yes” or a “no”.
* Multiple choice - The respondent has several option from which to choose.
5. Open ended questions - No options or predefined categories are suggested. The respondent supplies their own answer without being constrained by a fixed set of possible responses. Examples of types of open ended questions include:
* Completely unstructured - For example, “What is your opinion of questionnaires?”
* Word association - Words are presented and the respondent mentions the first word that comes to mind.
* Sentence completion - Respondents complete an incomplete sentence. For example, “The most important consideration in my decision to buy a new house is . . .”
* Story completion - Respondents complete an incomplete story.
* Picture completion - Respondents fill in an empty conversation balloon.
* Thematic apperception test - Respondents explain a picture or make up a story about what they think is happening in the picture
Question sequence
* Questions should flow logically from one to the next.
* The researcher must ensure that the answer to a question is not influenced by previous questions.
* Questions should flow from the more general to the more specific.
* Questions should flow from the least sensitive to the most sensitive.
* Questions should flow from factual and behavioural questions to attitudinal and opinion questions.
* Questions should flow from unaided to aided questions
* According to the three stage theory (also called the sandwich theory), initial questions should be screening and rapport questions. Then in the second stage you ask all the product specific questions. In the last stage you ask demographic questions.
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/questionnaire-construction
A form containing a set of questions, especially one addressed to a statistically significant number of subjects as a way of gathering information for a survey.
Importance to use
Questionnaires are a good survey technique, because the cost (printing, distribution, collection, analysis) is low relative to that of other methods such as personal interviews, because participants can respond at their own convenience, because no interviewer bias is introduced, and because responses can be kept completely confidential. The disadvantages are that the results may be biased toward the opinions of those who chose to respond to the questionnaire versus all those who had been asked to respond, and the results may be distorted if the questions were misunderstood.
Questionnaires can be used to examine the general characteristics of a population, to compare attitudes of different groups, and to test theories. Questionnaires appear simple, but they are very difficult to compile in a manner which establishes reliability and validity. A question worded in one way, for example, may elicit a different response from the same question worded slightly differently.
The biggest problem is to keep the size of the questionnaire small enough to avoid exasperating the subjects. It is also desirable to couch the questions so that the responses can be easily categorized and the results computerized.
Questionnaires are frequently used in quantitative marketing research and social research in general. They are a valuable method of collecting a wide range of information from a large number of respondents. Good questionnaire construction is critical to the success of a survey. Inappropriate questions, incorrect ordering of questions, incorrect scaling, or bad questionnaire format can make the survey valueless. A useful method for checking a questionnaire for problems is to pretest it. This usually involves giving it to a small sample of respondents, then interviewing the respondents to get their impressions and to confirm that the questions accurately captured their opinions.
Questionnaire construction issues
* The research objectives and frame of reference should be defined beforehand, including the questionnaire's context of time, budget, manpower, intrusion and privacy.
* The nature of the expected responses should be defined and retained for interpretation of the responses, be it preferences (of products or services), facts, beliefs, feelings, descriptions of past behavior, or standards of action.
* Unneeded questions are an expense to the researcher and an unwelcome imposition on the respondents. All questions should contribute to the objective(s) of the research.
* The topics should fit the respondents’ frame of reference. Their background may affect their interpretation of the questions. Respondents should have enough information or expertise to answer the questions truthfully.
* The type of scale, index, or typology to be used shall be determined.
* The types of questions (closed, multiple-choice, open) should fit the statistical data analysis techniques available.
* Questions and prepared responses to choose from should be neutral as to intended outcome. A biased question or questionnaire encourages respondents to answer one way rather than another. Even questions without bias may leave respondents with expectations.
* The order or “natural” grouping of questions is often relevant. Prior previous questions may bias later questions.
* The wording should be kept simple: no technical or specialized words.
* The meaning should be clear. Ambiguous words, equivocal sentence structures and negatives may cause misunderstanding, possibly invalidating questionnaire results. Double negatives should be reworded as positives.
* If a survey question actually contains more than one issue, the researcher will not know which one the respondent is answering. Care should be taken to ask one question at a time.
* The list of possible responses should be inclusive. Respondents should not find themselves with no category that fits their situation. One solution is to use a final category for “other ________”.
* The possible responses should be mutually exclusive. Categories should not overlap. Respondents should not find themselves in more than one category, for example in both the “married” category and the “single” category - there may be need for a “not living with spouse” category.
* Writing style should be conversational, yet concise and accurate and appropriate to the target audience.
* Most people will not answer personal or intimate questions.
* “Loaded” questions evoke emotional responses and may skew results.
* Presentation of the questions on the page (or computer screen) and use of white space, colors, pictures, charts, or other graphics may affect respondent's interest or distract from the questions.
* Numbering of questions may be helpful.
* Questionnaires can be administered by research staff, by volunteers or self-administered by the respondents. Clear, detailed instructions are needed in either case, matching the needs of each audience.
Types of questions
1. Contingency questions - A question that is answered only if the respondent gives a particular response to a previous question. This avoids asking questions of people that do not apply to them (for example, asking men if they have ever been pregnant).
2. Matrix questions - Identical response categories are assigned to multiple questions. The questions are placed one under the other, forming a matrix with response categories along the top and a list of questions down the side. This is an efficient use of page space and respondents’ time.
3. Scaled questions - Responses are graded on a continuum (example : rate the appearance of the product on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most preferred appearance). Examples of types of scales include the Likert scale, semantic differential scale, and rank-order scale (See scale for a complete list of scaling techniques.).
4. Closed ended questions - Respondents’ answers are limited to a fixed set of responses. Most scales are closed ended. Other types of closed ended questions include:
* Dichotomous questions - The respondent answers with a “yes” or a “no”.
* Multiple choice - The respondent has several option from which to choose.
5. Open ended questions - No options or predefined categories are suggested. The respondent supplies their own answer without being constrained by a fixed set of possible responses. Examples of types of open ended questions include:
* Completely unstructured - For example, “What is your opinion of questionnaires?”
* Word association - Words are presented and the respondent mentions the first word that comes to mind.
* Sentence completion - Respondents complete an incomplete sentence. For example, “The most important consideration in my decision to buy a new house is . . .”
* Story completion - Respondents complete an incomplete story.
* Picture completion - Respondents fill in an empty conversation balloon.
* Thematic apperception test - Respondents explain a picture or make up a story about what they think is happening in the picture
Question sequence
* Questions should flow logically from one to the next.
* The researcher must ensure that the answer to a question is not influenced by previous questions.
* Questions should flow from the more general to the more specific.
* Questions should flow from the least sensitive to the most sensitive.
* Questions should flow from factual and behavioural questions to attitudinal and opinion questions.
* Questions should flow from unaided to aided questions
* According to the three stage theory (also called the sandwich theory), initial questions should be screening and rapport questions. Then in the second stage you ask all the product specific questions. In the last stage you ask demographic questions.
Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/questionnaire-construction
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Army selection
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/eb14.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/index.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/index.html
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Participant observation
Source: http://uk.geocities.com/balihar_sanghera/qrmparticipantobservation.html
Qualitative Research Methods: Participant Observation
We shall discuss the historical roots of participant observation, its practice, and its analysis. Finally, we shall discuss some criticisms made of this method.
The history of participant observation
Participant observation has a quite distinct history from that of the positivist approach to research. Positivist researchers employing questionnaires and surveys assume that they already know what is important. In contrast, participant observation makes no firm assumptions about what is important. This method encourages researchers to immerse themselves in the day-to-day activities of the people whom they are attempting to understand. In contrast to testing ideas (deductive), they may be developed from observations (inductive).
In the Chicago School of participant observation and research, there are two intellectual traditions.
Pragmatism: this emphasises that social life is not fixed, but dynamic and changing. Therefore, if people’s social lives are constantly changing, researchers must participate in it, and record their experiences of those transformations, their effects on people, as well as their interpretations. Here, knowledge comes from experience and undertaking detailed inquiries. It is important to participate in the social relations and seek to understand actions within the context of an observed setting, as people act and make sense of their world by taking meanings from their environment. As such, researchers must become part of that environment for only then can they understand the actions of people who occupy and produce cultures. This technique is least likely to lead researchers imposing their own reality on the social world they seek to understand.
Formalism: this argues that while social relationships may differ from each other, they take forms that display similarities. In this way, researchers explore the typicality of relations and events. Formalism is also concerned with the way in which particular social and cultural forms of life emerge. Researchers are encouraged to stroll in order to understand the flux of social life in which the individual self is also subject to change. For example, to stroll or walk through the city to observe people’s sense of fashion.
The above ideas are combined with another strand of thought:
Naturalism: this proposes that, as far as possible, the social world should be studied in its ‘natural state’ undistributed by the researcher. According to this view, people are busy interpreting and acting within a social world infused with meaning. The process of learning behaviour is argued to be absent from other forms of research such as questionnaires which captures only a static snapshot of people’s attitudes. In contrast, participant observation is defined as a process in which a researcher establishes a many-sided and long-term relationship with individuals and groups in their natural setting, for the purposes of developing a scientific understanding of those individuals and groups. Ethnography leads to an empathic understanding of social science – it leads to researchers abandoning their preconceptions as they are exposed to a new social milieu that demands their full engagement.
However, the Chicago tradition does not dictate the nature of participant observation, as other perspectives frequently use the same method, or combine it with other methods. To be sure, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative social research is not as clear-cut as many researchers would like to claim. For instance, qualitative researchers often resort to the language of quantification in their work, and quantitative surveys tap into questions of meaning and must understand people’s frames of reference, and so have a qualitative dimension to their design and interpretation. In other words, numbers may equally appear in the representation of ethnographic studies, while there is a central ethnographic component to successful survey work.
In addition, participation observation has been used in conjunction with Marxist perspectives on factory work and urban development, realist perspectives on organisations and racism, and feminist perspectives on employment practices and household relations.
To sum up, there are three positive aspects of participant observation:
* it is least likely to lead researchers to impose their own reality on the social world;
* it seeks to understand action: as to how and why practices and relations change;
* observers record their own experiences in order to understand the cultural universe which their researched subjects occupy (subjective experiences), and convey these observations to a wide audience (from field-notes) within the (theoretical) context of explaining their data.
The practice of participant observation
On first glance, participant observation appears to be just looking, listening, generally experiencing, and writing it all down. However, it is the most personally demanding and analytically difficult method of social research to undertake. It requires researchers to spend a great deal of time in surrounding within which researchers may not be familiar (e.g., factory floor or bank office); to secure and maintain relationships with people with who, they have little personal affinity (e.g., criminals and market traders); to take a lot of notes on what appears to be everyday mundane happenings (e.g., people’s body language and speech patterns, and their arrival and departures); to possibly incurring some personal risk in their fieldwork (e.g., accidents at work); and to spend months of analysis after the fieldwork, analysing field-notes and diaries. Nevertheless, to those who are prepared and willing, it is also one of the most rewarding methods which yields fascinating insights into people’s social lives and relationships (e.g., the social world of factory workers or gang members).
We shall examine the role of the researcher, access to site and data, being flexible, writing field-notes, and adequacy of observations.
The researcher’s role
The ethnographer is the instrument of data collection. Ethnographers gather data by their active participation in the social world; they enter a social universe in which people are already busy interpreting and understanding their environments. One method involves getting close to the people, sometimes living among them (as anthropologists do). In adopting this form of study, it does not follow that researchers comprehend the situation as though it were uncontaminated by their social presence. For this reason, naturalism is regarded as dishonest by denying the effect of the researcher on the social scene. On the contrary, the aim of understanding is actually enhanced by considering how they are affected by the social scene, what goes on within it and how people, including themselves, act and interpret within their social situations.
In doing ethnography, engagement is used to an advantaged. In the process, ethnographers explicitly draw upon their own biographies in the research process; e.g., having been personally and politically engaged as part of an ecological group before deciding to analysing it. This is an example of reflexivity. It implies that the orientations of researchers will be shaped by their socio-historical locations (e.g., rural areas), including the values and interests (e.g., religious and cultural norms) that these locations confer upon them. What this represents is a rejection of the idea that social research is, or can be, carried out in some autonomous realm that is insulated from the wider society, and from the particular biography of the researcher.
There are four roles of field research that assist in the process of analysing field notes:
* Complete participant: the researcher employing this role attempts to engage fully in the activities of the group or organisation under investigation. Their role is also covert (hidden) for their intentions are not made explicit (e.g., a researcher investigating a racist or fascist organisation). Among its advantages, it is agreed to produce more accurate information and an understanding not available not available by other means.
* Participant as observer: the researcher adopts an overt (open) role, and makes their presence and intentions known to the group. Despite traditional concerns with ‘establishing rapport’ or ‘going native’, for many researchers, this view of scientific inquiry has been subjected to scrutiny and criticisms. The researcher often becomes a ‘fan’ or supporter, though this does not mean attempting to act as one of the group – for instance, in studying prostitution, it does not entail being a prostitute.
* Observer as participant: the researcher moves away from the idea of participation. This usually involves one-visit interviews, and calls for relatively more formal observation (e.g., ownership and structure of a firm, rather than its internal practices and norms) than either informal observation or participation. Here, there is a possibility of mis-understanding as it is more of an encounter between strangers that does not utilise the strengths of time in the field, so unable to understand the rules, roles and relationships.
* Complete observer: the researcher is uninvolved and detached, and merely, passively records behaviour at a distance (e.g., a researcher sitting in a classroom, making observations of pupils and their teacher).
Access
Participant observation does not simply mean ‘hanging around’. To become part of a social scene and participate in it requires that the researcher be accepted to some degree. This period of ‘moving into’ a setting is both analytically and personally important. For the researcher, it is important to regard the normal as unfamiliar – i.e., to make familiar strange; e.g., people’s shopping habits and routines should be seen as strange and challenged. Further, in negotiating access into a social setting or organisation (say, village community or corporate firm), the researcher should be aware of power relations (say, gendered and clan relations or management-worker relations) within the setting.
Initial reactions to researcher’s presence can cause a sense of personal discomfort, but this tells the researcher a great deal about relations and concerns of people, and should be recorded and not regarded as personal problems or weaknesses. For instance, senior managers may challenge a researcher in order to protect or promote their vested interests, and ensuring their point of view in the final research report.
Utilising flexibility
One of the main advantages of participant observation is its flexibility. Fieldwork is a continual process of reflection and alteration of the focus of observations in accordance with analytic developments. It permits researchers to witness people’s actions in different settings and routinely ask themselves in myriad of questions concerning motivations, beliefs and actions. For instance, initially, a researcher may explore relationship between market traders and customers, and then gradually change to examine the nature of state regulation of market places and bazaars.
In addition, participant observation often employs the unstructured interview as a routine part of its practice. These two methods are compatible: observation guides researchers to some of the important questions they want to ask the respondent, and interviewing helps to interpret the significance of what researchers are observing.
The decision as to when to withdraw from fieldwork may be taken when there is theoretical saturation – when observations no longer serve to question or modify the theories generated from earlier observations.
Fieldnotes
The data logging process is often regarded as boring (sometimes taking up three hours in a day in writing the fieldnotes in a daily journal), but if the researcher lacks any personal emotional attachment to the concerns of the research, the quality of the project and, even its completion, may be jeopardised. The quality of the project relies not only upon emotional commitment but also on the quality of the researcher’s observations, fieldnotes and analytical abilities.
In recording their observations, researcher use exercise books with wide margins on the left-hand side to enable to highlight particular observations of interest, to make analytic notes, and to remind themselves to investigate an event or relationship in more depth or to read other literature on a topic which relates to an observation.
There are three rules to note-taking:
* to take notes to familiarise oneself with the social setting and the people within it;
* one’s theoretical interests ought to guide one’s observations, and, in turn, modify and alter those interests – it is impossible and undesirable to record everything;
* minimise the time from observations to full notes to maintain good recall.
While the nature of relationships is noted, the order and setting in which events unfolded are important to record. Over time, a picture is constructed of the roles, rules and relationships between people. In addition, a particular short-hand, abbreviations, notions and filing system will emerge. Whatever the short-hand and filing system are used, it is important to ensure consistency, clarity and accessibility in recording and storing data.
Subjective adequacy
In writing notes, it is felt that something is missing, or the observations are too selective or too general. There are six indices to subjective adequacy to enhance the understanding of the setting, and ensure validity of the research:
* time: the more time that the observer spends in a setting, the greater the adequacy (i.e., understanding, interpretation and meaning) achieved;
* place: concentration on a physical setting ensures greater consistency, relevance and understanding;
* social circumstances: the more varied the observers’ opportunities to relate to a social group and milieu in terms of status, role and activities, the greater the depth;
* language: the more familiar the researcher is with the language (includes culture) of a social setting, the more accurate will be the interpretation;
* intimacy: the greater the personal involvement with a social group and milieu, the greater the understanding of and feeling for meanings and actions;
* social consensus: the greater the mutual and shared understanding between the observer and the researched, the better the interpretation.
The analysis of observations
There are four stages of analysis whose overall aim is the categorisation of collected data within the context of a developed theoretical framework.
* To select and define problems, concepts and indices (e.g., inequalities, social classes, class mobility, wages and status). Once established, observed phenomena are then placed within a theoretical framework (say, theory of market inequality) for further investigation.
* A check on the frequency and distribution of phenomena (e.g., percentage of sample population in different social classes). This means to see what events and relations are typical and widespread. It is at this point that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative work breaks down (but not between good and bad research).
* The construction of a social system model; i.e., moving from substantive to formal theory, and the need to make broader links in observational studies (e.g., social class tensions and mobility in other parts of society). In analysing different contexts (say, various households, communities, and/or places), the researcher can then move to more formal theory composed of abstract categories (say, Marx’s theory of class). Assisting in this stage of analysis is the use of units. A unit is a tool to use in scrutinising the data. Types of unit include ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘practices’, ‘roles’, ‘relationships’, ‘organisations’, ‘settlements’, etc. Each of these different units may have different questions asked of them by the analyst. Here, the development of an analytic framework during fieldwork renders the data both manageable and intelligible.
* The withdrawal from the field to a final analysis and write-up. Both distance and time are needed for reflection and analyse of the data. No matter how well the data are analysed, the results must be presented and communicated in a way that is both persuasive, well argued and accessible to the audience, demonstrating the authenticity of the descriptions and their analyses.
Writing ethnography
There are several points to writing up the fieldwork:
* The researcher has to maintain a focus on the topic, and continually ask the question, ‘What is this really a study of?’ However, a mixed-up early draft is no cause for shame. Rather, it shows the researcher what its earlier choices were, and what ideas, theoretical viewpoints and conclusions it had already committed itself to before it began writing. There will be many drafts, and the process of writing is one of discovery, not presentation.
* Much of the data must be rejected as the researcher focuses on the topic.
* The researcher will lack much evidence, but there is little that can be done since the researcher cannot claim to know everything.
* The researcher can write in the first person (viz. ‘I’), but must not be overdone.
* The researcher can illustrate analytic points by using specific instances from fieldnotes.
* Always consider the audience for whom the text is written – so improving its clarity and accessibility.
* Brevity is essential to writing, and inherent in this is the process of correcting, adding, revising and editing. Having a supportive and knowledgeable friend or supervisor is equally necessary to make useful suggestions.
Issues of participant observation
We have characterised the method of participant observation as compatible with several perspectives (e.g., realism, feminism, Marxism and positivism). Nevertheless there are several criticisms:
* The issue surrounding data production as mediated by the researcher is not peculiar to participant observation, but as it relies so heavily upon the researcher’s powers of observation and selection, then it is directly reliant upon their abilities. It is possible that researchers will omit a whole range of data in order to confirm their own pre-established beliefs, leaving the method open to the charge of bias.
* The observation of small-scale settings leaves it open to the charge that its findings are local, specific and not generalisable: it lacks external validity. This may be countered arguing that the observed social scene is ‘typical’ and adopting a realist perspective on reality.
* Naturalism often becomes translated as positivism by concentrating upon the production of data about the social world whose validity is based upon it being untainted or uncontaminated by the medium of its collection. Hence, the emphasis on ‘going native’ or ‘getting close to the people’. Yet, to produce untainted data is a myth. To be sure, observations are always theory-laden, so trying to reach a natural setting is questionable. There is a constant interaction between theory and data.
* There are practical limitations to participant observation. It demands that researchers spend time with relatively small groups of people in order to understand fully the social milieu that they inhabit. It is poor, however, at dealing with large-scale cases such as large organisations or national economies.
1
Qualitative Research Methods: Participant Observation
We shall discuss the historical roots of participant observation, its practice, and its analysis. Finally, we shall discuss some criticisms made of this method.
The history of participant observation
Participant observation has a quite distinct history from that of the positivist approach to research. Positivist researchers employing questionnaires and surveys assume that they already know what is important. In contrast, participant observation makes no firm assumptions about what is important. This method encourages researchers to immerse themselves in the day-to-day activities of the people whom they are attempting to understand. In contrast to testing ideas (deductive), they may be developed from observations (inductive).
In the Chicago School of participant observation and research, there are two intellectual traditions.
Pragmatism: this emphasises that social life is not fixed, but dynamic and changing. Therefore, if people’s social lives are constantly changing, researchers must participate in it, and record their experiences of those transformations, their effects on people, as well as their interpretations. Here, knowledge comes from experience and undertaking detailed inquiries. It is important to participate in the social relations and seek to understand actions within the context of an observed setting, as people act and make sense of their world by taking meanings from their environment. As such, researchers must become part of that environment for only then can they understand the actions of people who occupy and produce cultures. This technique is least likely to lead researchers imposing their own reality on the social world they seek to understand.
Formalism: this argues that while social relationships may differ from each other, they take forms that display similarities. In this way, researchers explore the typicality of relations and events. Formalism is also concerned with the way in which particular social and cultural forms of life emerge. Researchers are encouraged to stroll in order to understand the flux of social life in which the individual self is also subject to change. For example, to stroll or walk through the city to observe people’s sense of fashion.
The above ideas are combined with another strand of thought:
Naturalism: this proposes that, as far as possible, the social world should be studied in its ‘natural state’ undistributed by the researcher. According to this view, people are busy interpreting and acting within a social world infused with meaning. The process of learning behaviour is argued to be absent from other forms of research such as questionnaires which captures only a static snapshot of people’s attitudes. In contrast, participant observation is defined as a process in which a researcher establishes a many-sided and long-term relationship with individuals and groups in their natural setting, for the purposes of developing a scientific understanding of those individuals and groups. Ethnography leads to an empathic understanding of social science – it leads to researchers abandoning their preconceptions as they are exposed to a new social milieu that demands their full engagement.
However, the Chicago tradition does not dictate the nature of participant observation, as other perspectives frequently use the same method, or combine it with other methods. To be sure, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative social research is not as clear-cut as many researchers would like to claim. For instance, qualitative researchers often resort to the language of quantification in their work, and quantitative surveys tap into questions of meaning and must understand people’s frames of reference, and so have a qualitative dimension to their design and interpretation. In other words, numbers may equally appear in the representation of ethnographic studies, while there is a central ethnographic component to successful survey work.
In addition, participation observation has been used in conjunction with Marxist perspectives on factory work and urban development, realist perspectives on organisations and racism, and feminist perspectives on employment practices and household relations.
To sum up, there are three positive aspects of participant observation:
* it is least likely to lead researchers to impose their own reality on the social world;
* it seeks to understand action: as to how and why practices and relations change;
* observers record their own experiences in order to understand the cultural universe which their researched subjects occupy (subjective experiences), and convey these observations to a wide audience (from field-notes) within the (theoretical) context of explaining their data.
The practice of participant observation
On first glance, participant observation appears to be just looking, listening, generally experiencing, and writing it all down. However, it is the most personally demanding and analytically difficult method of social research to undertake. It requires researchers to spend a great deal of time in surrounding within which researchers may not be familiar (e.g., factory floor or bank office); to secure and maintain relationships with people with who, they have little personal affinity (e.g., criminals and market traders); to take a lot of notes on what appears to be everyday mundane happenings (e.g., people’s body language and speech patterns, and their arrival and departures); to possibly incurring some personal risk in their fieldwork (e.g., accidents at work); and to spend months of analysis after the fieldwork, analysing field-notes and diaries. Nevertheless, to those who are prepared and willing, it is also one of the most rewarding methods which yields fascinating insights into people’s social lives and relationships (e.g., the social world of factory workers or gang members).
We shall examine the role of the researcher, access to site and data, being flexible, writing field-notes, and adequacy of observations.
The researcher’s role
The ethnographer is the instrument of data collection. Ethnographers gather data by their active participation in the social world; they enter a social universe in which people are already busy interpreting and understanding their environments. One method involves getting close to the people, sometimes living among them (as anthropologists do). In adopting this form of study, it does not follow that researchers comprehend the situation as though it were uncontaminated by their social presence. For this reason, naturalism is regarded as dishonest by denying the effect of the researcher on the social scene. On the contrary, the aim of understanding is actually enhanced by considering how they are affected by the social scene, what goes on within it and how people, including themselves, act and interpret within their social situations.
In doing ethnography, engagement is used to an advantaged. In the process, ethnographers explicitly draw upon their own biographies in the research process; e.g., having been personally and politically engaged as part of an ecological group before deciding to analysing it. This is an example of reflexivity. It implies that the orientations of researchers will be shaped by their socio-historical locations (e.g., rural areas), including the values and interests (e.g., religious and cultural norms) that these locations confer upon them. What this represents is a rejection of the idea that social research is, or can be, carried out in some autonomous realm that is insulated from the wider society, and from the particular biography of the researcher.
There are four roles of field research that assist in the process of analysing field notes:
* Complete participant: the researcher employing this role attempts to engage fully in the activities of the group or organisation under investigation. Their role is also covert (hidden) for their intentions are not made explicit (e.g., a researcher investigating a racist or fascist organisation). Among its advantages, it is agreed to produce more accurate information and an understanding not available not available by other means.
* Participant as observer: the researcher adopts an overt (open) role, and makes their presence and intentions known to the group. Despite traditional concerns with ‘establishing rapport’ or ‘going native’, for many researchers, this view of scientific inquiry has been subjected to scrutiny and criticisms. The researcher often becomes a ‘fan’ or supporter, though this does not mean attempting to act as one of the group – for instance, in studying prostitution, it does not entail being a prostitute.
* Observer as participant: the researcher moves away from the idea of participation. This usually involves one-visit interviews, and calls for relatively more formal observation (e.g., ownership and structure of a firm, rather than its internal practices and norms) than either informal observation or participation. Here, there is a possibility of mis-understanding as it is more of an encounter between strangers that does not utilise the strengths of time in the field, so unable to understand the rules, roles and relationships.
* Complete observer: the researcher is uninvolved and detached, and merely, passively records behaviour at a distance (e.g., a researcher sitting in a classroom, making observations of pupils and their teacher).
Access
Participant observation does not simply mean ‘hanging around’. To become part of a social scene and participate in it requires that the researcher be accepted to some degree. This period of ‘moving into’ a setting is both analytically and personally important. For the researcher, it is important to regard the normal as unfamiliar – i.e., to make familiar strange; e.g., people’s shopping habits and routines should be seen as strange and challenged. Further, in negotiating access into a social setting or organisation (say, village community or corporate firm), the researcher should be aware of power relations (say, gendered and clan relations or management-worker relations) within the setting.
Initial reactions to researcher’s presence can cause a sense of personal discomfort, but this tells the researcher a great deal about relations and concerns of people, and should be recorded and not regarded as personal problems or weaknesses. For instance, senior managers may challenge a researcher in order to protect or promote their vested interests, and ensuring their point of view in the final research report.
Utilising flexibility
One of the main advantages of participant observation is its flexibility. Fieldwork is a continual process of reflection and alteration of the focus of observations in accordance with analytic developments. It permits researchers to witness people’s actions in different settings and routinely ask themselves in myriad of questions concerning motivations, beliefs and actions. For instance, initially, a researcher may explore relationship between market traders and customers, and then gradually change to examine the nature of state regulation of market places and bazaars.
In addition, participant observation often employs the unstructured interview as a routine part of its practice. These two methods are compatible: observation guides researchers to some of the important questions they want to ask the respondent, and interviewing helps to interpret the significance of what researchers are observing.
The decision as to when to withdraw from fieldwork may be taken when there is theoretical saturation – when observations no longer serve to question or modify the theories generated from earlier observations.
Fieldnotes
The data logging process is often regarded as boring (sometimes taking up three hours in a day in writing the fieldnotes in a daily journal), but if the researcher lacks any personal emotional attachment to the concerns of the research, the quality of the project and, even its completion, may be jeopardised. The quality of the project relies not only upon emotional commitment but also on the quality of the researcher’s observations, fieldnotes and analytical abilities.
In recording their observations, researcher use exercise books with wide margins on the left-hand side to enable to highlight particular observations of interest, to make analytic notes, and to remind themselves to investigate an event or relationship in more depth or to read other literature on a topic which relates to an observation.
There are three rules to note-taking:
* to take notes to familiarise oneself with the social setting and the people within it;
* one’s theoretical interests ought to guide one’s observations, and, in turn, modify and alter those interests – it is impossible and undesirable to record everything;
* minimise the time from observations to full notes to maintain good recall.
While the nature of relationships is noted, the order and setting in which events unfolded are important to record. Over time, a picture is constructed of the roles, rules and relationships between people. In addition, a particular short-hand, abbreviations, notions and filing system will emerge. Whatever the short-hand and filing system are used, it is important to ensure consistency, clarity and accessibility in recording and storing data.
Subjective adequacy
In writing notes, it is felt that something is missing, or the observations are too selective or too general. There are six indices to subjective adequacy to enhance the understanding of the setting, and ensure validity of the research:
* time: the more time that the observer spends in a setting, the greater the adequacy (i.e., understanding, interpretation and meaning) achieved;
* place: concentration on a physical setting ensures greater consistency, relevance and understanding;
* social circumstances: the more varied the observers’ opportunities to relate to a social group and milieu in terms of status, role and activities, the greater the depth;
* language: the more familiar the researcher is with the language (includes culture) of a social setting, the more accurate will be the interpretation;
* intimacy: the greater the personal involvement with a social group and milieu, the greater the understanding of and feeling for meanings and actions;
* social consensus: the greater the mutual and shared understanding between the observer and the researched, the better the interpretation.
The analysis of observations
There are four stages of analysis whose overall aim is the categorisation of collected data within the context of a developed theoretical framework.
* To select and define problems, concepts and indices (e.g., inequalities, social classes, class mobility, wages and status). Once established, observed phenomena are then placed within a theoretical framework (say, theory of market inequality) for further investigation.
* A check on the frequency and distribution of phenomena (e.g., percentage of sample population in different social classes). This means to see what events and relations are typical and widespread. It is at this point that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative work breaks down (but not between good and bad research).
* The construction of a social system model; i.e., moving from substantive to formal theory, and the need to make broader links in observational studies (e.g., social class tensions and mobility in other parts of society). In analysing different contexts (say, various households, communities, and/or places), the researcher can then move to more formal theory composed of abstract categories (say, Marx’s theory of class). Assisting in this stage of analysis is the use of units. A unit is a tool to use in scrutinising the data. Types of unit include ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘practices’, ‘roles’, ‘relationships’, ‘organisations’, ‘settlements’, etc. Each of these different units may have different questions asked of them by the analyst. Here, the development of an analytic framework during fieldwork renders the data both manageable and intelligible.
* The withdrawal from the field to a final analysis and write-up. Both distance and time are needed for reflection and analyse of the data. No matter how well the data are analysed, the results must be presented and communicated in a way that is both persuasive, well argued and accessible to the audience, demonstrating the authenticity of the descriptions and their analyses.
Writing ethnography
There are several points to writing up the fieldwork:
* The researcher has to maintain a focus on the topic, and continually ask the question, ‘What is this really a study of?’ However, a mixed-up early draft is no cause for shame. Rather, it shows the researcher what its earlier choices were, and what ideas, theoretical viewpoints and conclusions it had already committed itself to before it began writing. There will be many drafts, and the process of writing is one of discovery, not presentation.
* Much of the data must be rejected as the researcher focuses on the topic.
* The researcher will lack much evidence, but there is little that can be done since the researcher cannot claim to know everything.
* The researcher can write in the first person (viz. ‘I’), but must not be overdone.
* The researcher can illustrate analytic points by using specific instances from fieldnotes.
* Always consider the audience for whom the text is written – so improving its clarity and accessibility.
* Brevity is essential to writing, and inherent in this is the process of correcting, adding, revising and editing. Having a supportive and knowledgeable friend or supervisor is equally necessary to make useful suggestions.
Issues of participant observation
We have characterised the method of participant observation as compatible with several perspectives (e.g., realism, feminism, Marxism and positivism). Nevertheless there are several criticisms:
* The issue surrounding data production as mediated by the researcher is not peculiar to participant observation, but as it relies so heavily upon the researcher’s powers of observation and selection, then it is directly reliant upon their abilities. It is possible that researchers will omit a whole range of data in order to confirm their own pre-established beliefs, leaving the method open to the charge of bias.
* The observation of small-scale settings leaves it open to the charge that its findings are local, specific and not generalisable: it lacks external validity. This may be countered arguing that the observed social scene is ‘typical’ and adopting a realist perspective on reality.
* Naturalism often becomes translated as positivism by concentrating upon the production of data about the social world whose validity is based upon it being untainted or uncontaminated by the medium of its collection. Hence, the emphasis on ‘going native’ or ‘getting close to the people’. Yet, to produce untainted data is a myth. To be sure, observations are always theory-laden, so trying to reach a natural setting is questionable. There is a constant interaction between theory and data.
* There are practical limitations to participant observation. It demands that researchers spend time with relatively small groups of people in order to understand fully the social milieu that they inhabit. It is poor, however, at dealing with large-scale cases such as large organisations or national economies.
1
Prof. Malinowski
Today, I read about Prof. Malinowski's theory about participant observation.
Reading his theory, it comes to my mind that I had similar experience during my meet with tribals of Tripura and Manipur.
As I do not know their languages, I translated my questionnaire into their own languages. But by interaction with tribals, I never felt any differences in the mind of tribal and non tribals. In many areas, I got very good support in collection of data from tribals. But non-tribals were afraid to go there. I visited Mandai with escort but Jumpaijala without escort.
If I could stay there for more time and could understand their language, I could explore more about their pattern of needs.
This is my experience. Prof. Malinowski had similar experience. He was frustrated with his first research and thought to understand the language of tribal people and observed their behaviour, their life style etc.
, 
Reading his theory, it comes to my mind that I had similar experience during my meet with tribals of Tripura and Manipur.
As I do not know their languages, I translated my questionnaire into their own languages. But by interaction with tribals, I never felt any differences in the mind of tribal and non tribals. In many areas, I got very good support in collection of data from tribals. But non-tribals were afraid to go there. I visited Mandai with escort but Jumpaijala without escort.
If I could stay there for more time and could understand their language, I could explore more about their pattern of needs.
This is my experience. Prof. Malinowski had similar experience. He was frustrated with his first research and thought to understand the language of tribal people and observed their behaviour, their life style etc.
,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
