Descriptive,Reflective,Theoretical and Personal Notes
What are Notes
Participant
observers’ field notes contain a narrative account of what is happening in the
field; they serve as the data for analysis. Most “field” notes are not written
while observers are literally in the field but rather are written after an
observational session in the field has been completed. Field notes are usually
lengthy and time consuming to prepare.
Observational Notes
Observers need to discipline themselves
to provide a wealth of detail, the meaning and importance of which may not
emerge for weeks. Descriptions of what has transpired must include enough
contextual information about time, place, and actors to portray the situation
fully. The term thick description is often used to characterize the goal of
participating observers’ field notes.
Descriptive Notes
Field
notes are both descriptive and reflective. Descriptive notes (or observational
notes) are objective descriptions of observed events and conversations;
information about actions, dialogue, and context are recorded as completely and
objectively as possible. Reflective notes, which document the researcher’s
personal experiences, reflections, and progress while in the field, can serve a
number of different purposes.
Methodological Notes
Methodologic
notes are reflections about the strategies and methods used in the
observations. Sometimes participant observers do things that do not “work,” and
methodologic notes document their thoughts about new strategies and reasons why
they might be needed or thoughts about why a strategy that was used was
especially effective. Methodologic notes also can provide instructions or
reminders about how subsequent observations will be made.
Theoretical
notes (or analytical notes) document researchers’ thoughts about how to make
sense of what is going on. These notes are the researchers’ efforts to attach
meaning to observations while in the field, and serve as a starting point for
subsequent analysis.
Personal Note
Personal
notes are comments about researchers’ own feelings while in the field. Almost
inevitably, field experiences give rise to personal emotions, and challenge
researchers’ assumptions. It is essential to reflect on such feelings because
there is no other way to determine whether the feelings are influencing what is
being observed or what is being done in the participant role. Personal notes
can also contain reflections relating to ethical dilemmas and possible
conflicts.
Reflective Notes
Reflective notes are typically not
integrated into the descriptive notes, but are kept separately as parallel
notes; they may be maintained in a journal or series of self-memos. Strauss and
Corbin (1990) argue that these reflective memos or journals help researchers to
achieve analytic distance from the actual data, and therefore play a critical
role in the project’s success.
The
Process of Writing
Field Notes The success of any participant observation study
depends heavily on the quality of the field notes. This section describes some
techniques for enhancing their quality. A fundamental issue concerns the timing
of field note preparation: They should be written as soon as possible after an
observation is made because memory is bound to fail if there is too long a
delay.
The longer the interval between an observation and field note
preparation, the greater the risk of losing or distorting the data. If the
delay is long, intricate details will be forgotten; moreover, memory of what
was observed may be biased by things that happen subsequently.
Participant
observers cannot usually write their field notes while they are in the field
observing, in part because this would distract them from their job of being
keen observers, and also because it would undermine their role as ordinary
group participants. Researchers must develop the skill of making detailed
mental notes that can later be committed to a permanent record.
In addition,
observers usually try to jot down unobtrusively a phrase or sentence that will
later serve as a reminder of an event, conversation, or impression. Many
experienced field workers use the tactic of frequent trips to the bathroom to
record these jottings, either in a small notebook or perhaps into a recording
device. With the widespread use of cell phones, researchers can also excuse
themselves to make a call, and “phone in” their jottings to an answering
machine.
Observers use the jottings and mental recordings to develop more
extensive field notes. It is important to schedule enough time for properly
recording field notes after an observation. An hour of observation may take 3
or 4 hours to record, so advance planning is essential. This also means that
observation sessions must be relatively brief.
Observational
field notes obviously need to be as complete and detailed as possible. This in
turn means that hundreds of pages of field notes typically will be created, and
so systems need to be developed for recording and managing them. For example,
each entry should have the date and time the observation was made, the
location, and the name of the observer (if several are working together as a
team).
It is useful to give observational sessions a name that will trigger a
memory (eg, “Emotional Outburst by a Patient With Ovarian Cancer”). Thought
also needs to be given to how to record participants’ dialogue. The goal is to
record conversations as accurately as possible, but it is not always possible
to maintain verbatim records because tape recordings are seldom made if
researchers are trying to maintain a stance as regular participants.
Systems need
to be developed to distinguish different levels of accuracy in recording
dialogue (eg, by using quotation marks and italics for true verbatim
recordings, and a different designation for paraphrasings ). Observation,
participation, and record-keeping are exhausting, labor-intensive activities.
It is important to establish the proper pace of these activities to ensure the
highest possible quality notes for analysis.
Evaluation
of Participant Observation
Participant observation can provide a deeper and
richer understanding of human behaviors and social situations than is possible
with more structured procedures. Participant observation is particularly
valuable for its ability to “get inside” a particular situation and
lead to a more complete understanding of its complexities.
Furthermore, this
approach is inherently flexible and therefore gives observers the freedom to
reconceptualize problems after becoming more familiar with the situation.
Participant observation is the preferred method for answering questions about
intangible phenomena that are difficult for insiders to explain or articulate
because these phenomena are taken for granted (eg, group norms, cultural
patterns, approaches to problem-solving).
However, like all research methods,
there are potential problems with the approach that need to be considered. The
risk of observer bias and observer influence are prominent difficulties.
Observers may lose objectivity in viewing and recording actual observations;
they may also inappropriately sample events and situations to be observed.
Once
researchers begin to participate in a group’s activities, the possibility of
emotional involvement becomes a salient concern. Researchers in their member
role may fail to attend to many scientifically relevant aspects of the
situation or may develop a myopic view on issues of importance to the group.
Participant observation may thus be an unsuitable approach when the risk of
identification is strong. Another important issue concerns the ethical dilemmas
that often arise in participant observation studies. Finally, participant
observation depends more on the observational and interpersonal skills of the
observer than do highly structured techniques skills that may be difficult to
cultivate.
On the whole, observation participant and other unstructured
observational methods are extremely profitable for in-depth research in which
researchers wish to develop a comprehensive conceptualization of phenomena
within a social setting or culture. The more structured observational methods
discussed next are better suited to the formal testing of research hypotheses.