Qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further contexts.[1] Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed, rather than large samples.

Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only hypotheses (informative guesses). Quantitative methods can be used to verify which of such hypotheses are true.

Contents

[hide]

1 History 2 Distinctions from quantitative research 3 Data collection 4 Data analysis 5 Paradigmatic differences 6 Validation 7 Academic research 8 See also 9 Notes 10 References 11 External links

[edit] History

Until the 20 1970s, the phrase 'qualitative research' was used only to refer to a discipline of anthropology or sociology. During the 1970s and 1980s qualitative research began to be used in other disciplines, and became a significant type of research in the fields of education studies, social work studies, women's studies, disability studies, information studies, management studies, nursing service studies, political science, psychology, communication studies, and many other fields. Qualitative research occurred in the consumer products industry during this period, with researchers investigating new consumer products and product positioning/advertising opportunities. The earliest consumer research pioneers including Gene Reilly of The Gene Reilly Group in Darien, CT, Jerry Schoenfeld of Gerald Schoenfeld & Partners in Tarrytown, NY and Martin Calle of Calle & Company, Greenwich, CT, also Peter Cooper in London, England, and Hugh Mackay in Mission, Australia.[citation needed] There continued to be disagreement about the proper place of qualitative versus quantitative research. In the late 1980s and 1990s after a spate of criticisms from the quantitative side, new methods of qualitative research evolved, to address the perceived problems with reliability and imprecise modes of data analysis.[2] During this same decade, there was a slowdown in traditional media advertising spending, so there was heightened

interest in making research related to advertising more effective. To this date the present representative concept of antropy has a way and hence fort.

In the last thirty years the acceptance of qualitative research by journal publishers and editors has been growing. Prior to that time many mainstream journals were far more likely to publish research articles based upon the natural sciences and which featured quantitative analysis, than they were to publish articles based on qualitative methods.[3]

[edit] Distinctions from quantitative research

This section does not cite any references or sources.Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

(In simplified terms - Qualitative means a non-numerical data collection or explanation based on the attributes of the graph or source of data. For example, if you are asked to explain in qualitative terms a thermal image displayed in multiple colours, then you would explain the colour differences rather than the heat's numerical value.)

First, in qualitative research, cases can be selected purposefully, according to whether or not they typify certain characteristics or contextual locations.

Second, the researcher's role receives greater critical attention. This is because in qualitative research the possibility of the researcher taking a 'neutral' or transcendental position is seen as more problematic in practical and/or philosophical terms. Hence qualitative researchers are often exhorted to reflect on their role in the research process and make this clear in the analysis.

Third, while qualitative data analysis can take a wide variety of forms, it differs from quantitative research in its focus on language, signs and meaning. In addition, qualitative research approaches analysis holistically and contextually, rather than being reductionistic and isolationist. Nevertheless, systematic and transparent approaches to analysis are almost always regarded as essential for rigor. For example, many qualitative methods require researchers to carefully code data and discern and document themes consistently and reliably.

Perhaps the most traditional division between the uses of qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences is that qualitative methods are used for exploration (i.e., hypothesis-generating) or for explaining puzzling quantitative results. Quantitative methods, by contrast, are used to test hypotheses. This is because establishing content validity — do measures measure what a researcher thinks they measure? — is seen as one of the strengths of qualitative research. Some consider quantitative methods to provide more representative, reliable and precise measures through focused hypotheses, measurement tools and applied mathematics. By contrast, qualitative data is usually difficult to graph or display in mathematical terms.

Qualitative research is often used for policy and program evaluation research since it can answer certain important questions more efficiently and effectively than quantitative approaches. This is particularly the case for understanding how and why certain outcomes were achieved (not just

what was achieved) but also for answering important questions about relevance, unintended effects and impact of programs such as: Were expectations reasonable? Did processes operate as expected? Were key players able to carry out their duties? Did the program cause any unintended effects?

Qualitative approaches have the advantage of allowing for more diversity in responses as well as the capacity to adapt to new developments or issues during the research process itself. While qualitative research can be expensive and time-consuming to conduct, many fields of research employ qualitative techniques that have been specifically developed to provide more succinct, cost-efficient and timely results. Rapid Rural Appraisal is one formalized example of these adaptations but there are many others.

[edit] Data collection

Qualitative researchers may use different approaches in collecting data, such as the grounded theory practice, narratology, storytelling, classical ethnography, or shadowing. Qualitative methods are also loosely present in other methodological approaches, such as action research or actor-network theory. Forms of the data collected can include interviews and group discussions, observation and reflection field notes, various texts, pictures, and other materials.

Qualitative research often categorizes data into patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results.[citation needed] Qualitative researchers typically rely on the following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant Observation, Field Notes, Reflexive Journals, Structured Interview, Semi-structured Interview, Unstructured Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials.[4]

The ways of participating and observing can vary widely from setting to setting. Participant observation is a strategy of reflexive learning, not a single method of observing[5] In participant observation [6] researchers typically become members of a culture, group, or setting, and adopt roles to conform to that setting. In doing so, the aim is for the researcher to gain a closer insight into the culture's practices, motivations and emotions. It is argued that the researchers' ability to understand the experiences of the culture may be inhibited if they observe without participating[citation needed].

Some distinctive qualitative methods are the use of focus groups and key informant interviews. The focus group technique involves a moderator facilitating a small group discussion between selected individuals on a particular topic. This is a particularly popular method in market research and testing new initiatives with users/workers.

One traditional and specialized form of qualitative research is called cognitive testing or pilot testing which is used in the development of quantitative survey items. Survey items are piloted on study participants to test the reliability and validity of the items.

In the academic social sciences the most frequently used qualitative research approaches include the following:

1. Ethnographic Research, used for investigating cultures by collecting and describing data that is intended to help in the development of a theory. This method is also called “ethnomethodology” or "methodology of the people". An example of applied ethnographic research, is the study of a particular culture and their understanding of the role of a particular disease in their cultural framework.

2. Critical Social Research , used by a researcher to understand how people communicate and develop symbolic meanings.

3. Ethical Inquiry , an intellectual analysis of ethical problems. It includes the study of ethics as related to obligation, rights, duty, right and wrong, choice etc.

4. Foundational Research, examines the foundations for a science, analyses the beliefs and develops ways to specify how a knowledge base should change in light of new information.

5. Historical Research, allows one to discuss past and present events in the context of the present condition, and allows one to reflect and provide possible answers to current issues and problems. Historical research helps us in answering questions such as: Where have we come from, where are we, who are we now and where are we going?

6. Grounded Theory , is an inductive type of research, based or “grounded” in the observations or data from which it was developed; it uses a variety of data sources, including quantitative data, review of records, interviews, observation and surveys.

7. Phenomenology , describes the “subjective reality” of an event, as perceived by the study population; it is the study of a phenomenon.

8. Philosophical Research, is conducted by field experts within the boundaries of a specific field of study or profession, the best qualified individual in any field of study to use an intellectual analyses, in order to clarify definitions, identify ethics, or make a value judgment concerning an issue in their field of study.

[edit] Data analysis

This section does not cite any references or sources.Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)

Interpretive techniques

The most common analysis of qualitative data is observer impression. That is, expert or bystander observers examine the data, interpret it via forming an impression and report their impression in a structured and sometimes quantitative form.

Coding

Coding is an interpretive technique that both organizes the data and provides a means to introduce the interpretations of it into certain quantitative methods. Most coding requires the analyst to read the data and demarcate segments within it. Each segment is labeled with a “code” – usually a word or short phrase that suggests how the associated data segments inform the research objectives. When coding is complete, the analyst prepares reports via a mix of: summarizing the prevalence of codes, discussing similarities and differences in related codes

across distinct original sources/contexts, or comparing the relationship between one or more codes.

Some qualitative data that is highly structured (e.g., open-end responses from surveys or tightly defined interview questions) is typically coded without additional segmenting of the content. In these cases, codes are often applied as a layer on top of the data. Quantitative analysis of these codes is typically the capstone analytical step for this type of qualitative data.

Contemporary qualitative data analyses are sometimes supported by computer programs, termed Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software. These programs do not supplant the interpretive nature of coding but rather are aimed at enhancing the analyst’s efficiency at data storage/retrieval and at applying the codes to the data. Many programs offer efficiencies in editing and revising coding, which allow for work sharing, peer review, and recursive examination of data.

A frequent criticism of coding method is that it seeks to transform qualitative data into quantitative data, thereby draining the data of its variety, richness, and individual character. Analysts respond to this criticism by thoroughly expositing their definitions of codes and linking those codes soundly to the underlying data, therein bringing back some of the richness that might be absent from a mere list of codes.

Recursive abstraction

Some qualitative datasets are analyzed without coding. A common method here is recursive abstraction, where datasets are summarized, those summaries are then further summarized, and so on. The end result is a more compact summary that would have been difficult to accurately discern without the preceding steps of distillation.

A frequent criticism of recursive abstraction is that the final conclusions are several times removed from the underlying data. While it is true that poor initial summaries will certainly yield an inaccurate final report, qualitative analysts can respond to this criticism. They do so, like those using coding method, by documenting the reasoning behind each summary step, citing examples from the data where statements were included and where statements were excluded from the intermediate summary.

Mechanical techniques

Some techniques rely on leveraging computers to scan and sort large sets of qualitative data. At their most basic level, mechanical techniques rely on counting words, phrases, or coincidences of tokens within the data. Often referred to as content analysis, the output from these techniques is amenable to many advanced statistical analyses.

Mechanical techniques are particularly well-suited for a few scenarios. One such scenario is for datasets that are simply too large for a human to effectively analyze, or where analysis of them would be cost prohibitive relative to the value of information they contain. Another scenario is when the chief value of a dataset is the extent to which it contains “red flags” (e.g., searching for

reports of certain adverse events within a lengthy journal dataset from patients in a clinical trial) or “green flags” (e.g., searching for mentions of your brand in positive reviews of marketplace products).

A frequent criticism of mechanical techniques is the absence of a human interpreter. And while masters of these methods are able to write sophisticated software to mimic some human decisions, the bulk of the “analysis” is nonhuman. Analysts respond by proving the value of their methods relative to either a) hiring and training a human team to analyze the data or b) letting the data go untouched, leaving any actionable nuggets undiscovered.

[edit] Paradigmatic differences

Contemporary qualitative research has been conducted from a large number of various paradigms that influence conceptual and metatheoretical concerns of legitimacy, control, data analysis, ontology, and epistemology, among others. Research conducted in the last 10 years has been characterized by a distinct turn toward more interpretive, postmodern, and critical practices.[7] Guba and Lincoln (2005) identify five main paradigms of contemporary qualitative research: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory/cooperative paradigms.[7] Each of the paradigms listed by Guba and Lincoln are characterized by axiomatic differences in axiology, intended action of research, control of research process/outcomes, relationship to foundations of truth and knowledge, validity (see below), textual representation and voice of the researcher/participants, and commensurability with other paradigms. In particular, commensurability involves the extent to which paradigmatic concerns “can be retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneous practice of both possible”.[8] Positivist and postpositivist paradigms share commensurable assumptions but are largely incommensurable with critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms. Likewise, critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms are commensurable on certain issues (e.g., intended action and textual representation).

[edit] Validation

A central issue in qualitative research is validity (also known as credibility and/or dependability). There are many different ways of establishing validity, including: member check, interviewer corroboration, peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, auditability, confirmability, bracketing, and balance. Most of these methods were coined, or at least extensively described by Lincoln and Guba (1985)[9]

[edit] Academic research

By the end of the 1970s many leading journals began to publish qualitative research articles[3] and several new journals emerged which published only qualitative research studies and articles about qualitative research methods.[10]

In the 1980s and 1990s, the new qualitative research journals became more multidisciplinary in focus moving beyond qualitative research’s traditional disciplinary roots of anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.[10]

The new millennium saw a dramatic increase in the number of journals specializing in qualitative research with at least one new qualitative research journal being launched each year.

This article is about the method of doing research. For the teaching method, see Case method. For the method of teaching law, see Casebook method.

A case study is a research method common in social science. It is based on an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, or event. Case studies may be descriptive or explanatory. The latter type is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles.[1]

[2]

Rather than using samples and following a rigid protocol (strict set of rules) to examine limited number of variables, case study methods involve an in-depth, longitudinal (over a long period of time) examination of a single instance or event: a case. They provide a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and reporting the results. As a result the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of why the instance happened as it did, and what might become important to look at more extensively in future research. Case studies lend themselves to both generating and testing hypotheses.[3]

Another suggestion is that case study should be defined as a research strategy, an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context. Case study research means single and multiple case studies, can include quantitative evidence, relies on multiple sources of evidence and benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions. Case studies should not be confused with qualitative research and they can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Single-subject research provides the statistical framework for making inferences from quantitative case-study data.[2][4] This is also supported and well-formulated in (Lamnek, 2005): "The case study is a research approach, situated between concrete data taking techniques and methodologic paradigms."

Case selection

When selecting a subject for a case study, researchers often use information-oriented sampling , as opposed to random sampling [3]. This is because an average case is often not the richest in information. Extreme or atypical cases reveal more information because they activate more basic mechanisms and more actors in the situation studied. In addition, from both an understanding-oriented and an action-oriented perspective, it is often more important to clarify the deeper causes behind a given problem and its consequences than to describe the symptoms of the problem and how frequently they occur. Random samples emphasizing representativeness will seldom be able to produce this kind of insight; it is more appropriate to select some few cases chosen for their validity, but this isn't always the case.

Three types of cases may be distinguished:

1. Key cases2. Outlier cases3. Local knowledge cases

Yin (2005) suggested that researchers should decide whether to do single-case or multiple-case studies and chose to keep the case holistic or have embedded sub-cases. This two-by-two combination can produce four basic designs for case studies.

Whatever the frame of reference for the choice of the subject of the case study (key, outlier, local knowledge), there is a distinction to be made between the subject and the object of the case study. The subject is the “practical, historical unity” [5] through which the theoretical focus of the study is being viewed. The object is that theoretical focus – the analytical frame. Thus, for example, if a researcher were interested in US resistance to communist expansion as a theoretical focus, then the Korean War might be taken to be the subject, the lens, the case study through which that theoretical focus could be viewed and explicated [6]

Generalizing from case studies

A critical case can be defined as having strategic importance in relation to the general problem. A critical case allows the following type of generalization, ‘If it is valid for this case, it is valid for all (or many) cases.’ In its negative form, the generalization would be, ‘If it is not valid for this case, then it is not valid for any (or only few) cases.’

The case study is also effective for generalizing using the type of test that Karl Popper called falsification, which forms part of critical reflexivity [3]. Falsification is one of the most rigorous tests to which a scientific proposition can be subjected: if just one observation does not fit with the proposition it is considered not valid generally and must therefore be either revised or rejected. Popper himself used the now famous example of, "All swans are white," and proposed that just one observation of a single black swan would falsify this proposition and in this way have general significance and stimulate further investigations and theory-building. The case study is well suited for identifying "black swans" because of its in-depth approach: what appears to be "white" often turns out on closer examination to be "black."

For Galileo Galilei’s rejection of Aristotle’s law of gravity was based on a case study selected by information-oriented sampling and not random sampling. The rejection consisted primarily of a conceptual experiment and later on of a practical one. These experiments, with the benefit of hindsight, are self-evident. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s incorrect view of gravity dominated scientific inquiry for nearly two thousand years before it was falsified. In his experimental thinking, Galileo reasoned as follows: if two objects with the same weight are released from the same height at the same time, they will hit the ground simultaneously, having fallen at the same speed. If the two objects are then stuck together into one, this object will have double the weight and will according to the Aristotelian view therefore fall faster than the two individual objects. This conclusion seemed contradictory to Galileo. The only way to avoid the contradiction was to eliminate weight as a determinant factor for acceleration in free fall. Galileo’s experimentalism did not involve a large random sample of trials of objects falling from a wide range of randomly

selected heights under varying wind conditions, and so on. Rather, it was a matter of a single experiment, that is, a case study.(Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 225-6) [2]

Galileo’s view continued to be subjected to doubt, however, and the Aristotelian view was not finally rejected until half a century later, with the invention of the air pump. The air pump made it possible to conduct the ultimate experiment, known by every pupil, whereby a coin or a piece of lead inside a vacuum tube falls with the same speed as a feather. After this experiment, Aristotle’s view could be maintained no longer. What is especially worth noting, however, is that the matter was settled by an individual case due to the clever choice of the extremes of metal and feather. One might call it a critical case, for if Galileo’s thesis held for these materials, it could be expected to be valid for all or a large range of materials. Random and large samples were at no time part of the picture. However it was Galileo's view that was the subject of doubt as it was not reasonable enough to be the Aristotelian view. By selecting cases strategically in this manner one may arrive at case studies that allow generalization.(Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 225-6) For more on generalizing from case studies, see [3]

Misunderstandings about case study research

Flyvbjerg (2006) identifies and corrects five prevalent misunderstandings about case study research:

1. General, theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical knowledge.2. One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case and, therefore, the case study

cannot contribute to scientific development.3. The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more

suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building.4. The case study contains a bias toward verification, i.e., a tendency to confirm the

researcher’s preconceived notions.5. It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the

basis of specific case studies.

History of the case study

It is generally believed that the case-study method was first introduced into social science by Frederic Le Play in 1829 as a handmaiden to statistics in his studies of family budgets. (Les Ouvriers Europeens (2nd edition, 1879).[7]

The use of case studies for the creation of new theory in social sciences has been further developed by the sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss who presented their research method, Grounded theory, in 1967.

The popularity of case studies in testing hypotheses has developed only in recent decades. One of the areas in which case studies have been gaining popularity is education and in particular educational evaluation.[8]

Case studies have also been used as a teaching method and as part of professional development, especially in business and legal education. The problem-based learning (PBL) movement is such an example. When used in (non-business) education and professional development, case studies are often referred to as critical incidents.

When the Harvard Business School was started, the faculty quickly realized that there were no textbooks suitable to a graduate program in business. Their first solution to this problem was to interview leading practitioners of business and to write detailed accounts of what these managers were doing. Cases are generally written by business school faculty with particular learning objectives in mind and are refined in the classroom before publication. Additional relevant documentation (such as financial statements, time-lines, and short biographies, often referred to in the case as "exhibits"), multimedia supplements (such as video-recordings of interviews with the case protagonist), and a carefully crafted teaching note often accompany cases.

Case study in psychology refers to the use of a descriptive research approach to obtain an in-depth analysis of a person, group, or phenomenon. A variety of techniques may be employed including personal interviews, direct-observation, psychometric tests, and archival records.[1] In psychology case studies are most often used in clinical research to describe rare events and conditions, which contradict well established principles in the field of psychology.[2] Case studies are generally a single-case design, but can also be a multiple-case design, where replication instead of sampling is the criterion for inclusion.[3] Like other research methodologies within psychology, the case study must produce valid and reliable results in order to be useful for the development of future research. Distinct advantages and disadvantages are associated with the case study in psychology.

Advantages

One major advantage of the case study in psychology is the potential for the development of novel hypotheses for later testing. Second, the case study can provide detailed descriptions of specific and rare cases. brings researchers closer to experiences

Disadvantages

The major disadvantages of the case study in psychology is the inability to draw cause and effect relationships or test hypotheses. Further, with the case study it is impossible to generalize the findings to a wider population of people.[2]

Famous case studies in psychology

Harlow - Phineas Gage Breuer & Freud (1895) - Anna O. Cleckley's (1941) case studies of psychopathy (The mask of sanity) Freud and Little Hans Freud and the Rat Man John Money and the John/Joan case

Genie (feral child) Piaget's studies Rosenthal's book on the murder of Kitty Genovese Washoe (sign language)

participant observation and informal education

In this piece we examine the nature of participant observation, the various social roles that researchers can take; and some classic problems of participant observation - especially around questions of access and ethics.

contents: introduction · what is participant observation? ·  participant observation - the question of roles · access and field relations · participant observation - questions of ethics · conclusion ·  further reading and references · how to cite this article. see, also: research for practice.

All social research, say Hammersley and Atkinson, takes the form of participant observation:

[I]t involves participating in the social world, in whatever role, and reflecting on the products of that participation. Irrespective of the method employed, it is not fundamentally different from other forms of practical everyday activity, though of course it is closer in character to some that to others. As participants in the social world we are still able, at least in anticipation or retrospect, to observe our activities 'from outside' as objects in the world (1983: 16-17; 2004)

In what Martyn Hammersley and Paul Atkinson say we can see the close relationship between what is approached here as a research methodology - and our activities as informal educators. We, too, engage in participant observation. We involve ourselves in everyday (and not so everyday) situations, we look at, and listen to, what is happening the encounter. We try to make sense of what is going on, so that we may act. However, participant observation isn't something restricted to researchers and informal educators - we all do it to some degree.

Fairly frequently I used to go to a local cafe to have a curry. As a regular certain privileges were accorded me. I was offered a paper, 'specials' were recommended, and other regulars became less guarded in their topics of conversation e.g. around various deals etc. that they have going on. Now I can talk about these things because I have engaged with the situation as a participant observer. I suppose the significant question here is the extent to which we conscious of, and have

a care for, such matters. As researchers and educators it is through the way we participate and observe that our work is done. In short, what we are concerned with here is our basic orientation to the world as practitioners.

What is participant observation?

As Mac an Ghaill (1994) has argued, the participant observer collects data by participating in the daily life of those he or she is studying.  ‘The approach is close to everyday interaction, involving conversations to discover participants' interpretations of situations they are involved in’ (Becker 1958, p. 652). The aim of participant observation is to produce a 'thick description' of social interaction within natural settings. At the same time informants are encouraged to use their own language and everyday concepts to describe what is going on in their lives. Hopefully, in the process a more adequate picture emerges of the research setting as a social system described from a number of participants' perspectives (Geertz, 1973; Burgess, 1984). In other words, we are seeking to find meaning in the encounters and situations.

McCall and Simmons (1969: 1) describe the variety of methods involved in the participant observer role.  They maintain that:

....participant observation is not a single method but rather a characteristic style of research which makes use of a number of methods and techniques - observation, informant interviewing, document analysis, respondent interviewing and participation with self-analysis.

Hargreaves (1967: 193) describes the advantages of participant observation as a research method for those carrying out studies in institutions in which they work.

The method of participant observation leads the investigator to accept a role within the social situation he studies: he participates as a member of the group while observing it. In theory, this direct participation in the group life permits an easy entrance into the social situation by reducing the resistance of the group members; decreases the extent to which the investigator disturbs the 'natural' situation, and permits the investigator to experience and observe the group's norms, values, conflicts and pressures, which (over a long period) cannot be hidden from someone playing an in-group role.

Again, as Mairtin Mac an Ghaill points out it is important to recognize that in participant observation, we are the main research instrument of our studies. An immediate task is to make unfamiliar the research arena, with which we may be very familiar. 'Most events in our own society and especially settings with which we are familiar seem "natural" and "obvious". We have already learned the culture and we find few things problematic.' (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 128; 2004).

Many ethnographers will use interviews to supplement the material gained by participating in the usual round of social encounters and experiences, William Foote Whyte did relatively little formal interviewing. 'I sought to show this interested acceptance of the people and the community in my everyday participation' (ibid: 302). He went on, 'As I sat and listened, I learned

answers to questions that I would not even have the sense to ask if I had been getting my information solely on an interview basis' (ibid: 303).

Participant observation - the question of roles

There are various ways of describing or characterising the roles that researchers take in situations. Here I want to look at one such model suggested by Junkers (1960) and Gold (1958) (reported in Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 93). They distinguish between the:

complete participant; participant as observer observer as participant; and the complete observer.

In the first role, as a complete participant, our activities as researchers and educators may be wholly concealed (or we may seek to conceal them). Like the detached workers in Mary Morse's book The Unattached we may pretend that we are something quite different. As researchers we may join a group - a church or political party - and pose as 'ordinary members' - but have the purpose of doing research. Alternatively, we may already be part of a situation - for example, me in the cafe, and then take up the life of the cafe as a research topic. In some cases it may be necessary to take up this role as we would not otherwise gain access to a situation. However, the strategy can end up being very limiting. The depth and nature of the material we gather can be very restricted.

The participant will, by definition, be implicated in existing social practices and expectations in a far more rigid manner than the known researcher. The research activity will therefore be hedged round by these pre-existing social routines and realities. It will prove hard for the field-worker to arrange his or her actions in order to optimize data collection possibilities. (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 94)

On the other extreme we have the 'complete observer'. This person has no contact with those she or he is observing. A classic example of this sort of approach is covert observation of behaviour - perhaps in the street or public place. Many of the same problems apply here are with the complete participant. In both cases we are not able to engage with people as researchers. There is not opportunity to explore with people in any depth - what meanings they are placing on the situation.

As might be expected most research and practice falls between these to poles. Again, as Atkinson and Hammersley point out, whether there is any significant distinction between the participant as observer and observer as participant is a moot point. However, consideration of the model does bring out some important considerations.

The first concerns secrecy and deception - and whether these are ever acceptable in research. I will return to this question a little later. A second set of questions surrounds the taking on of existing roles. In secret research we have little option but to take up one of the roles that is acceptable in the situation or exclude ourselves from interaction. Where we are out as

researchers or educators we do have some choice about the matter. We have to weigh up the pros and cons. Would taking on a familiar or known role in the situation provide us with the opportunity to gain useful material - or could it act to limit the usefulness of material. For example, some researchers in schools have chosen to take on the role of 'teacher'. In so doing they can gain access to encounters (especially in the staffroom) but they may correspondingly cut themselves off from access to particular elements of student interaction.

A third set of questions arises around questions of experience and distance. As a 'complete participant' we may get some better sense of how 'insiders' experience situations - but at the same time there is the danger that we simply become part of the situation, that get too close. By joining in we may not be able to see the wood for the trees. As practitioners we have learnt to stand back from situations, to try to keep some distance between ourselves and those we work with. That distance is necessary so that we have 'space’ to think about the situation. Yet, at the same time, if that distance is experienced as being too great we can prejudice our ability to act. Hammersley and Atkinson put it well with respect to research:

There must always remain some part held back, some social and intellectual 'distance'. For it is in the 'space' created by this distance that the analytical work of the ethnographer gets done. Without that distance, without such analytical space, the ethnography can be little more than the autobiographical account of a personal conversation. (1983: 103)

Access and field relations and participant observation

I now want to turn to the work of William Foote Whyte, and in particular Street Corner Society, his seminal study of an Italian neighbourhood in an eastern city in the USA (which he calls 'Cornerville'). The book is subtitled 'the social structure of an Italian slum'. The first section of the book concentrates on the experiences of two contrasting groups: Doc and his corner-boy gang, and Chick and his college-boy club. From this he seeks to explore the different careers of individual members. These two case studies are then taken to be representative of a large part of local society - they are all "little guys" Cornerville (Whyte 1955: xix). He then turns to the activities of the "big shots" - the politicians and racketeers. 'If we can get to know these people intimately and understand the relations between little guy and little guy, big shot and little guy, and big shot and big shot' says Whyte (1955: xx), 'then we know how Cornerville society is organized. On the basis of that knowledge it becomes possible to explain people's loyalties and the significance of political and racket activities'.

The resulting book is full of wonderful descriptions of situations and encounters, analyses of group structures and process; the social role of the settlement house and social workers; and discussions of loyalty and social mobility. Subsequent chapters bring out the relationship of the gangs and social clubs with racketeering; and politics and the social structure, The book is a classic in its own right. From these small-scale studies Whyte is able to make connections and generalize. Through his writing, crucially, he is able communicate something of the feeling of the place and the relationships. However, probably what has cemented the book in the canon of sociological texts is his extensive discussion of the methodology. It tells the story of his 3½ years in Cornerville and how his research became fundamentally reshaped by the experience.

Whyte began his study with very little background in community studies of this kind or of participant observation. However, what he did have was the sort of curiosity that drove him to explore different ways of conducting research with his peers; and a preparedness to join in with local ways of life - much like anthropologists in more distant places. He began by trying to work his way into the local community by hanging round hotels and bars etc. This was met with great success. He then got to know social workers in local settlement houses - and while they had a great deal of knowledge - gained to some extent from the 'outside' - Whyte was still not getting the sort of picture he wanted. One of the workers suggested he talked to 'Doc'.

'Doc' first became a key informant, then a friend and, in all essences, a co-worker. What Doc was able to do was to both provide Whyte with data about people and the neighbourhood, and to sponsor Whyte into various groups that he would have had considerable difficulties in entering. Other gatekeepers sponsored his search for a place to live and so on. In this way he gained access to key networks. However, he also had to engage in a 'crash course' in participant observation - and to learn ways of working that are very familiar to us.

As I began hanging about Cornerville, I found that I needed an explanation for myself and for my study. As long as I was with Doc and vouched for by him, no one asked me who I was or what I was doing. When I circulated in other groups or even among the Nortons without him, it was obvious that they were curious about me.

I began with a rather elaborate explanation... I gave the explanation on only two occasions, and each time, when I had finished, there was an awkward silence. No one, myself included, knew what to say.

I soon found that people were developing their own explanation about me: I was writing a book about Cornerville. This might seem entirely too vague an explanation, and yet it sufficed. I found that my acceptance in the district depended on the personal relationships I developed far more than any explanations I might give. (Whyte 1955: 300)

'Getting in', 'staying in' and 'getting out' are key moments in a participant observation study. 'Getting in' is what Whyte here is referring to. 'Staying in' refers to the quality of the relationships that we develop with the research participants. As Mac an Ghaill (1996) writes:

For me these included being one of the youngest members of staff, living in the local black community and being able to cope with and contribute to the students' sense of humour. The most unexpected aspect of the fieldwork was that the students identified with my Irish nationality. This had major implications for my research that none of the text books on social science  methodology had prepared me for. For example, on a number of occasions outside of school, when the students' friends objected to my presence among them, it was pointed out that I was 'Irish not white' and this seemed to satisfy their objections.

'Getting out' involves us in leaving the research site, or abandoning our role as researcher, hopefully with the participants feeling positive about their involvement in the study.

Participant observation - questions of ethics

Lincoln Williams (1988, p.136) warns us of the possible paternalism entailed in participant observation, and 'the arrogance of the researcher invading another group's world to get information in order to relay it to the outside world'. Williams is referring here to the question of power relations within the research arena.  Wolpe (1988, p.160) notes in her study of schooling and sexuality that 'the type of information boys would give a female researcher is likely to differ from that given to a male researcher'.  In his study of white girls, Meyenn (1979, quoted in Wolpe) found that private areas of their lives were not discussed with him. More importantly, as feminist and black writers argue, in the past researchers have reified the research process with truth claims based on appeals to scientific objectivity and technical expertise, which serve to make invisible the complex internal sets of power relations in operation (Griffin, 1986; and Bhavnani, 1991).  Mac an Ghaill comments that is his own work:

I hoped that by adopting a theoretical position that located racism and sexism as the major barriers to the schooling of black youth, I became more sensitive to the question of how social location in a stratified society, including differential power relations, influences one's perspective, and that this in turn helped to shape my qualitative studies. Nevertheless, a problem that remained throughout the research was the feeling of 'ripping off' the students.  This raises the issue of what participants are getting out of taking part in our research.

Becker (1967) has addressed another key aspect of the power relations operating within the research arena. He asked 'whose side are we on?'. He answered by suggesting that the researcher must choose between the subordinates' and the superiors' perspectives.  In the polarised environment of schools Mac an Ghaill 's main problem was not on whose side he was, but rather whose side he appeared to be on. He found that while observing and participating with both teachers and students created tensions of identifying with groups who were hostile to each other, nevertheless, it was productive for an understanding of what was really going on in the classroom. Equally productive was the conflict of the teacher-researcher role.

A further important ethical issue concerns the question of working covertly. Whatever its advantages, as Schatzman and Strauss (1973, p. 62) argue, participant observation with a hidden identity does raise ethical problems that are not easily resolved.  It may be argued that if in adopting this research tactic we gain new insights; that the end justifies the means. However, the ethical problem of recording individuals without their knowledge remains.  The moral dilemma is not necessarily overcome by making known one's presence as a researcher to those who are the subjects of the study. As Hargreaves (1967) points out, a certain amount of deception is inevitable in participant observation; it was when the teachers appeared to treat him as a friend rather than a researcher that the most significant things were said.

In conclusion

Participant observation takes time and commitment. It offers the chance to generate new understandings and to build theories. Yet with it comes various problems - of ethics, of power, of interpretation. It may be, as we have already noted, that it is part and parcel of social life - but this doesn't make it any easier.