Why would a researcher use participant observation over other methods of research?

I think objectivity is most difficult to achieve with this method. Does anyone disagree and if so, why?

Why would a researcher use participant observation over other methods of research?
Objectivity is the most difficult to acheive with any qualitative research method (which is what p.o. is). However, the depth of knowledge you can gain from p.o. is amazing. The level of detail you acheive is astounding. While quant projects are typically the least biased, they lack description. After all, you're just reporting a bunch of stats. With qualitative research you get rich narratives that you cannot get with any other method. Many of the great sociology studies were from participant observation - Mitch Duneier's study of streetcorner society (Sidewalk and Slim's Table) were acheived with participant observation. The trick and difficulty of participant observation and any other qualitative reserach method is to overcome bias and subjectivity. The reseracher must analyze all aspects of what they are studying, not only those that fit in with what they hope to find.





There are pros and cons to any type of methodology. Typically you're research question guides what method you choose to use.





[edit]


Participant observation is actually quite costly in terms of time and money. Mitch Duneier spent over a year in his participant observation, moving to the neighborhood he was studying. It takes a lot of time to do a participant observation project. All research methods can be expensive, but typically qualitative projects are the most costly.
Reply:I agree, but the research they do this is because they want to conduct the experiment in a sociological atmosphere rather than research the info. This way they can see the experience first hand.
Reply:Participant observation is most useful when the field of study is still largely unexplored. You can't get generalizable results from participant observation but you can form basic theories, which can then be tested by more quantitative research.





In terms of objectivity, I've seen researchers throw out entire quantitative datasets because their findings just weren't "politically correct" enough. I think it's hard to be objective at any level of research.
Reply:Participant observation is more feasible than many types of research. It takes less time, costs less money, leads to convenient and quicker access to a group, and many behaviors can be observed within a small amount of time. That said, there is obviously alot of subjectivity to this research method and there is considerable room for researcher bias. For example, if my hypothesis is to find a certain type of behavior present in a group, then I may be inclined to see the behavior I am looking for while ignoring other group factors or behaviors. In addition, I may have a loose interpretation as to what constitutes a target behavior.

dr teeth