Participant Observations: Overt and Covert and Requirements

Participant Observation
Name:
Course:
Institution:
Date:
Participant Observations
Participant observation is a method of study in which an investigator makes their way into an area or a social group to watch people's behavior and activities to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying structure of a society. Because it is in its natural condition, it is regarded as an efficient model for collecting data. Because the participants are unaware that they are being observed, they continue to act similarly, ensuring that the evidence collected is accurate. Another way it demonstrates its usefulness is that it investigates social interaction at a profound level, which allows the researcher to be more receptive to new findings.
The potential of participant observation to permit the acquisition of "rich" information, which is usually unavailable from other sources, is one of the benefits of using this research method (Greenstein and Davis, 2019). It may be utilized to augment, inform, or dispute theorized research. Consequently, it can significantly increase the information already known about a topic. It may be used at two different phases of a study first, as a preliminary phase in which the researcher observes events "as they occur" to establish a hypothesis for future research; and second, as a final stage in which a hypothesis is formed based on theoretical research is tested. It has a dual purpose. One use is to utilize the information as the basis for a hypothesis that can then be tested (McGrath and Laliberte, 2019).
The participants may be unaware that they are being observed throughout the observation process; hence, they do not alter their behavior in any manner, which results in the data being collected is accurate and unaltered. As a result of its ability to take into consideration non-verbal interaction and behavior, it also delivers information that is of a higher quality than that delivered by interviews or surveys (Gitomer and Crouse, 2019). Consequently, it is a potentially helpful tool for examining the effect of structures or events on people and groups. During the observation, it is also possible for occurrences that have not been planned for or anticipated to occur; this contributes to the observation's value in gaining access to one-of-a-kind data (Gitomer and Crouse, 2019). It is often connected with exploratory and explanatory research aims, such as "why" inquiries, causal explanations, and revealing the cognitive components, rules, and norms behind the observed actions. The data collected are often unstructured than direct observation, and the analysis is far more open to interpretation. Moreover, this component of participant observation serves as the method's primary advantage and is the root of the criticisms that are sometimes brought up in participant observation research.
Overt and Covert Participant Observation
The covert and overt research methodologies are the two that are used in participant organization research, respectively. When participants in a study are unaware of the presence of a researcher or when the observer is trying to conceal their true motivations, this is an example of covert research. A subject's behavior may change when they are aware they are being watched, and covert methods aim to reduce the degree to which subjects respond negatively to research by reducing the frequency with which they are aware they are being observed. This impact may be nullified by preventing the participants from reacting negatively to the researcher and the study methods being used and by avoiding the imposition of one's orientation on the findings. A second advantage of using a covert method is that it eliminates the inability to carry out the study due to a lack of access, which is particularly problematic in an institutional or organizational setting (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016).
On the other hand, overt research is done when the people being studied are aware of and educated about the study process. This kind of research is called "participatory action research." Overt research is more morally acceptable than hidden research; gatekeepers may provide access to a wider variety of places inside an organization, making it simpler to capture data (Monahan and Fisher, 2015). An overt method is more ethically sound than clandestine research. The obstacles in covert research include; the trust problem may prove to be a hurdle; subject response to the study may be more intense; obtaining access clearances may take time; and access may be limited to certain areas inside an organization (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). There are positives and negatives associated with both of the methodologies that have been discussed so far concerning participant organization. These aspects have to do with (1) responsiveness, (2) ethics, and (3) access.
According to the findings of Spano's (2006) study on the culture of the police force, officers are wary of people from the outside and are not used to having their judgments analyzed by their superiors. Spano's study also found that officers are reluctant to admit their mistakes. As a result, the idea of an observer contributing their thoughts could not be accepted. Researchers in the criminal justice field have acknowledged the possibility of reactivity during observational studies of offenders or players in the criminal justice system due to these issues. This essay provided insight into how study participants (as well as the police) adjust their conduct when an observer is present. The essay also discussed the link between time spent working in a field and reactivity. Based on previous research findings, it was hypothesized that reactivity would decrease with increasing experience in the area. The paper also addressed the connection between the gender of the observer and their level of reaction while looking at data gathered by the police. Spano (2006) carried out the analysis of reactivity in the observational data collected by the police. In line with previous field research and policing literature, he discovered evidence that police officers adjusted their conduct to protect female study observers from potentially risky incidents.
As described by Saunders et al. (2016), ethics is "the appropriateness of the researcher's behavior in respect to the rights of individuals who become the topic of a research project, or who are impacted by it," According to Saunders et al., a researcher must guarantee that the research's design—which in this instance is based on the two types of participant observation—is methodologically sound and ethically justified to all of the individuals participated in the study. This is because it is the design of the research that will determine the outcomes of the study (Saunders et al., 2016). Covert studies violate two fundamental ethical principles since it does not give participants the chance to give their informed permission. As a result, it entails deceit and a lack of trust between the parties involved. Additionally, the concept of privacy may be breached or invaded due to it (Nijhawan et al., 2013). It can further impede any study's future since the general public would see researchers as voyeurs (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). Because of this, it is possible to assert that fulfilling a small number of requirements indicates adherence to informed consent. First, the research participants are informed of the nature and goals of the study and are allowed to ask questions. Second, since the participants are aware of the nature of the study, they are in a position to voluntarily provide their assent to participate (Nijhawan et al., 2013).
The researcher's decision to conduct an overt or covert study may impact their access to organizational settings (Roulet et al., 2017). Because of the differences between these methodologies, there has b...