chapter builds upon the previous abstract theoretical discussions of qualitative methods focus on one specific mode of qualitative data naturalistic observation, In the follow- lof naturalistic observation, discussing meth- logical issues, strengths, and weaknesses in practice. We then consider several theoretical tions underlying observation, showing how lary individuals and their works in these ‘enact the conceptual andepistemologi- | themes. We then bring select themes into er focus in a discussion of ethical issues ed to observational research and the influ- Of scholarly and political forces in shaping ‘We conclude by extrapolating from the nt into the future, speculating on how these ‘will play out against the tide of shifting nological currents. as long as people have been interested in the social and natural world around them, has served as the bedrock source of Knowledge. Early classicists rooted their dings of the world, from Aristotle's bo- ‘observations on the island of Lesbos to 's chronicled observations of the Greco- ‘wars, in their own visions, travels, and cal worlds. Observational Techniques PATRICIA A. ADLER PETER ADLER NOTE: We would like to acknowledge gratefully the assistance of Spencer Cal er, Lyn Lofland, Jeff Nash, and Carol Warren, who shared ideas with us and permitted us a glimpse into their ‘ogy, elucidated observation as one of the four core research methods (along with comparison, historical analysis, and experimentation) appro- priate to his fledgling science of saciety. Not only is observation one of the earliest and most basic forms of research, but it is the most likely to be used in conjunction with others, such as parti pant observation, experimental design, and inter- viewing, ‘As members of society, we also make observa- tions of the everyday world. These guide us in forging paths of action and interpreting the ac- tions and reactions of others. They also generate the kind of “common sense” or “cultural know!- edge” that Johnson (1975, p. 21) has argued lies at the base of all knowledge and theory, from that amassed by the layperson to that conducted by the survey, experimental, participant, or simple ob- servational methodologist. What differentiates the observations of social scientists from those of everyday-life actors is the former's systematic and purposive nature. Social science researchers study their surroundings regularly and repeat- edly, with a curiosity spurred by theoretical ques- tions about the nature of human action, interac- tion, and society I, Carol Brooks 377Observational Techniques PATRICIA A. ADLER PETER ADLER IS chapter builds upon the previous abstract direct experiences. Comic, the founder of sociol- theoretical discussions of qualitative methods ogy, elucidated observation as one of the four focus on one specific mode of qualitative data core research methods (along with comparison, : naturalistic observation. In the follow- _historical analysis, and experimentation) appro- [pages we examine some of the essential fea- priate to his fledgling science of society. Not only es of naturalistic observation, discussing meth- _is observation one of the earliest and most basic logical issues, strengths, and weaknesses in forms of research, but it is the most likely to be practice. We then consider several theoretical __used in conjunction with others, such as parti fitions underlying observation, showing how pant observation, experimental design, and inter- lary individuals and their works in these viewing jaradigmsenact the conceptual andepistemologi- As members of society, we also make observa- J themes. We then bring select themes into tions of the everyday world. These guide us in er focus in a discussion of ethical issues forging paths of action and interpreting the ac- ed to observational research and the influ- tions and reactions of others. They algo generate ce of scholarly and political forces in shaping _the kind of “common sense” or “cultural know!- We conclude by extrapolating from the edge” that Johnson (1975, p. 21) has argued lies nt into the future, speculating on how these _at the base of all knowledge and theory, from that ‘will play out against the tide of shifting amassed by the layperson to that conducted by the emological currents survey, experimental, participant, or simple ob- as long as people have been interested in _servational methodologist. What differentiates the the social and natural world around them, observations of social scientists from those of has served as the bedrock source of everyday-life actors is the former's systematic knowledge, Early classicists rooted their and purposive nature. Social science researchers, sstandings of the world, from Aristotle's bo- study their surroundings regularly and repeat- ‘observations on the island of Lesbos to edly, with a curiosity spurred by theoretical ques- 's chronicled observations of the Greco- tions about the nature of human action, interac- ‘wars, in their own visions, travels, and tion, and society ORS’ NOTE: We would like to acknowledge gratefully the assistance of Spencer Cahill, Carol Brooks 1159 Lofland, Jeff Nash, and Carol Warren, who shared ideas with us and permitted us a glimpse into their cal worlds.378 METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS Morris (1973) offers a broad explanation of observation that defines it as “the act of noting a phenomenon, often with instruments, ing it for scientific or other purposes” (p. 906). Although we sometimes think of observa involving only visual data gathering, this is far from true; all of the senses can also be fully engaged in this endeavor, from smell to hearing, touch, and taste. Observation thus consists 0 gathering impressions of the surrounding world through all relevant human faculties. This gener. ally necessitates direct contact with the subject(s) Of observation, although remote observation can be carried out by recording the data with photog: raphy, audiotape, or videotape and studying it either concurrently or later." In either case, re- searchers must actively witness the phenomena they are studying in action. ‘One of the hallmarks of observation has tradi- tionally been its noninterventionism. Observers neither manipulate nor stimulate their subjects They do not ask the subjects research questions, pose tasks for them, or deliberately create new provocations. This stands in marked contrast to tesearchers using interview questionnaires, who direct the interaction and introduce potentially. new ideas into the arena, and to experimental researchers, who offen set up structured situations where they can alter certain conditions to measure the covariance of others. Simple observers follow the flow of events, Behavior and interaction con- tinue as they would without the presence of a researcher, uninterrupted by intrusion. Yet often when we think of the social scientist as observer, we conjure up an image of a labora- tory scientist in a white coat, jotting notes on a clipboard while observing people from behind a one-way mirror. This detached and sterile view of observation is rooted in the quantitative observa tional paradigm, one enhanced by the prestige accorded science since the birth of the Enlighten- ment, Quantitative observational research has forged a stronghold in experimental psychology and so- iological small group research through careful attention tothe precise operationalization and meas urement of dependent variables. ‘Quantitative observations, conducted in situations deliberately designed to ensure standardization and control, differ markedly from observations framed by the qualitative paradigm. Qualitative observation is fundamentally naturalistic in es sence; it occurs in the natural context of occur- fence, among the actors who would naturally be participating in the interaction, and follows the natural stream of everyday life. As such, it enjoys the advantage of drawing the observer into the phenomenological complexity of the world, where connections, correlations, and causes can be wit nessed as and how they unfold. Qualitative ob- servers are not bound, thus, by predetermined categories of measurement or response, but are free to search for concepts or categories that ap- pear meaningful to subjects. As Carol Brooks Gardner (personal communication, 1993) told us in describing her recognition of significant find- ings: “I look for the ‘Click!” experience—some- thing of a sudden, though minor, epiphany as to the emotional depth or importance of an event or a phenomenon.” Naturalistic observers thus often differ from quantitative observers in the scope of their observations: Whereas the latter focus on ‘minute particles of the world that can be agglom- erated into a variable, the former look for much larger trends, patterns, and styles of behavior. These differcaces arc rooted not only in yi ations between the ways the two groups observe, but in the types of questions they pose. ‘Qualitative observation has remained underad- dressed in the methodological literature. It has been elaborated for the student audience in some general methods texts that treat observation as fone research strategy in a broad consideration of all data gathering techniques (c.g., Kidder, 19813 Phillips, 1985). Other exemplary works that have more specifically addressed qualitative observa- tional methods include Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, and Sechrest's (1966) early work on unobtrusive measures; Gold's (1958) classic typology of ob- servational roles; Schatzman and Strauss's (1973) interpretive guide to naturalisticresearch; Spradley’s (1980) more formal handbook, which focuses on the stages of observation; and Denzin's (1989) comprehensive description of research methods, for studying social interaction. ‘Yet observation by itself has remained a step- child to its more widely recognized offshoot; par- ticipant observation. Most of the major research treatments of qualitative methods (Berg, 1989; Dovglas, 1976; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Ham- ‘mersley & Atkinson, 1983; Jorgensen, 1989; Lofland & Lofland, 1984) focus on participant observa- tion to the virtual exclusion of observation as 3 method in its own right: This may be traced to the strong theoretical roots of participant observation in the symbolic interaction perspective; interac= tionist researchers usually want to gather data from their subjects while interacting with them. Although pure observation is somewhat propelled by the symbolic interactionist perspective, the questions it answers make it more compatible with the scope of the dramaturgical perspective and, to a secondary extent, ethnomethodology. Yet dramaturgy has failed to inspire methodologi cal discussions and expositions comparable to those of symbolic interactionism. In fact, few of the dramaturgical perspective’ major exponents, Goffman included, have discussed their method: ology explicitly. This may be because itis seen a$ subjective and, hence, difficult to legitimate, Eth= nomethodology, and especially its late twentieth=