Types and Recording of Observations

    Participant
observers typically place few restrictions on the nature of the data collected,
in keeping with the goal of minimizing observer-imposed meanings and structure.
Nevertheless, participant observers often have a broad plan for the types of
information to be gathered. Among the aspects likely to be considered relevant
are the following:

    1. The physical setting. What are the main features of the
physical setting? What is the context within which human behavior unfolds? What
types of behaviors and characteristics are promoted (or constrained) by the
physical environment? How does the environment contribute to what is happening? 

    2. The participants. What are the characteristics of the people being observed?
How many people are there? What are their roles? Who is given free access to
the setting who “belongs”? What brings these people together? 

    3. Activities and
interactions. What is going on what are people doing and saying, and how are
they behaving? Is there a discernible progression of activities? How do people
interact with one another? What methods do they use to communicate, and how
frequently do they do so? What is the tone of their communications? What type of
emotions do they show during their interactions? How are participants interconnected
to one another or to activities underground? 

    4. Frequency and duration. When
did the activity or event begin, and when is it scheduled to end? How much time
has elapsed? Is the activity a recurring one, and if so, how regularly does it
recur? How typical of such activities is the one that is under observation? 

    5.
Precipitating factors. Why is the event or interaction happening? What
contributes to how the event or interaction unfolds? 

   6. Organization. How is
the event or interaction organized? How are relationships structured? What
norms or rules are in operation? 

    7. Intangible factors. What did not happen
(especially if it ought to have happened)? Are participants saying one thing
verbally but communicating other messages nonverbally? What types of things
were disruptive to the activity or situation? Clearly, this is far more
information than can be absorbed in a single session (and not all categories
may be relevant to the research question). 

    However, this framework provides a
starting point for thinking about observational possibilities while in the
field. Spradley (1980) distinguishes three levels of observation that typically
occur during fieldwork. The first level is descriptive observation, which tends
to be broad and is used to help observers figure out what is going on. 

    During
these descriptive observations, researchers make every attempt to observe as
much as possible. Later in the inquiry, observers do focused observations on
more carefully selected events and interactions. 

    Based on the research aims and
on what has been learned from the descriptive observations, participant
observers begin to focus more sharply on key aspects of the setting. From these
focused observations, they may develop a system for organizing observations,
such as a taxonomy or category system. 

    Finally, selective observations are the
most highly focused, and are undertaken to facilitate comparisons between
categories or activities. Spradley describes these levels as analogous to a
funnel, with an increasingly narrow and more systematic focus. 

    While in the
field, participant observers have to make decisions about how to sample
observations and to select observational locations. Single positioning means
staying in a single location for a period to observe behaviors and transactions
in that location. 

    Multiple positioning involves moving around the site to
observe behaviors from different locations. Mobile positioning involves
following a person throughout a given activity or period. It is usually useful
to use a combination of positioning approaches in selecting observational
locations. 

    Because participant observers cannot spend a lifetime in one site
and because they cannot be in more than one place at a time, observation is
almost always supplemented with information obtained in unstructured interviews
or conversations. For example, informants may be asked to describe what went on
in a meeting that the observer was unable to attend, or to describe events that
occurred before the observer entered the field. In such a case, the informant
functions as the observer’s observer.

Recording
Observations

    Participant
observers may find it tempting to put more emphasis on the participation and
observation parts of their research than on the recording of those activities.
Without systematic daily recording of the observational data, however, the
project will flounder. Observational information cannot be trusted to memory;
it must be diligently recorded as soon after the observations as possible.

Types
of Observational Records

    The
most common forms of record-keeping in participant observation are logs and
field notes, but photographs and videotapes may also be used. A log (or field
diary) is a daily record of events and conversations in the field. A log is a
historical listing of how researchers have spent their time and can be used for
planning purposes, for keeping track of expenses, and for reviewing what work
has already been completed.

     Field notes are much broader, more
analytical, and more interpretive than a simple listing of occurrences. Field
notes represent the participant observer’s efforts to record information and
also to synthesize and understand the data. The next sections discuss the
content of field notes and the process of writing them.