Observation: A Complex Research Method

Lynda M. Baker

Abstract
As an ethnographic research method, observation has a long his-
tory. The value of observation is that it permits researchers to study
people in their native environment in order to understand “things”
from their perspective. Observation requires the researcher to spend
considerable time in the field with the possibility of adopting vari-
ous roles in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the people being studied. A variety of techniques are used to col-
lect data. Gaining access to the group and leaving the field are two
important factors that need consideration. Other areas of concern
involve ethical problems, as well as validity and reliability issues.
Until recently, few library and information science (LIS) studies
have included this method; however, observation is gaining favor as
LIS researchers seek to understand better the role of information
in people’s everyday lives.

Introduction
As an ethnographic research method, observation seems to have no
specific beginning. While some researchers found indications of its use in
ancient times, others have pointed to the late nineteenth and early twen-
tieth centuries, when anthropologists starting “collecting data firsthand”
(Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994, p. 249). Describing it as the “bedrock
source of human knowledge” about the “social and natural world,” Adler
and Adler (1994) stated that Aristotle used observational techniques in
his botanical studies on the island of Lesbos and that Auguste Comte, the
father of sociology, listed observation as one of the “four core research
methods” (p. 377).

LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 55, No. 1, Summer 2006 (“Research Methods,” edited by Lynda M.
Baker), pp. 171–189
© 2006 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois
172 library trends/summer 2006

In the current research environment, its status seems to have changed,

leading Adler and Adler to question whether observation is a research
method “in its own right” or “a stepchild to its more widely recognized
offshoot: participant observation” (1994, p. 378). Further confusing the
picture is the variety of labels (for example, observation, participant ob-
servation, or ethnography) that seem to be used interchangeably by re-
searchers to describe what was once called simply “observation.” Finally,
in some research methods textbooks and articles, observation has been
described as a research method as well as a data collection method (Powell
& Connaway, 2004; Williamson, 2000; Pearsall, 1970). Williamson prefers
to categorize observation as a data collection technique because it can be
used in a variety of research methods.
Observation is a complex research method because it often requires the
researcher to play a number of roles and to use a number of techniques,
including her/his five senses, to collect data. In addition, despite the level
of involvement with the study group, the researcher must always remember
her/his primary role as a researcher and remain detached enough to collect
and analyze data relevant to the problem under investigation. The purpose
of this article is to describe in some depth the types of roles a researcher can
assume during an observational study. In addition, an overview of some of
the characteristics unique to observational research, as well as validity and
reliability and ethical issues, are addressed. Interspersed throughout the
article are some examples of LIS studies in which the observation method
has been used. Two topics are not covered in this article. The first topic
is structured observation, which Glazier defined as a “qualitative research
method” in which “pre-determined categories are used to guide” (1985, p.
105) the recording of activities undertaken by people in their natural envi-
ronments. Because the role of the observer is limited to recording events,
it is outside the scope of this article. Analysis of qualitative data has been
covered in detail in a number of books (see, for example, Strauss & Corbin,
1990; Spradley, 1980) and therefore will not be covered in this article.
At this point, it is also important to mention the difficulty one encounters
searching for studies that have used this method in either Library Literature
or Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Some researchers do not
specify what role they played. For example, in her study of janitors, Chat-
man (1990) does not indicate the role she adopted. This practice leads to
either broad subject headings or to the complete absence of indexing terms
applied to observational studies. As part of their study of research method
trends in the literature on human information behavior (HIB), McKechnie,
Baker, Greenwood, and Julien (2002) examined how Library Literature and
LISA indexed the methods used in 247 HIB articles published from 1993
to 2000 in seven international, peer-reviewed journals. Of the 247 articles,
152 articles were found in Library Literature and, of these, only “39 (26%)
were indexed by at least one method term” (p. 123). LISA had indexed 178
 baker/observation 173

articles, but even fewer (32 or 19 percent) articles “were indexed by at least
one method term” (p. 123). Furthermore, both indexes were found to use
terms that are too broad to be helpful to researchers who are searching for
articles in which a particular method has been used. These results reveal
the challenge of retrieving studies on specific methods.

Definition of Observation
Definitions of observation per se are difficult to find in the literature.
Gorman and Clayton define observation studies as those that “involve the
systematic recording of observable phenomena or behaviour in a natural
setting” (2005, p. 40). Other authors define observation within the broader
context of ethnography or the narrower one of participation observation.
What is consistent in the definitions, however, is the need to study and
understand people within their natural environment. Spradley wrote that
participation observation “leads to an ethnographic description” (1980, p.
vi). He defined ethnography as the “work of describing a culture” with the
central aim of understanding “another way of life from the native point of
view” (p. 3). Chatman defined ethnography as a method that allows the
researcher to get an insider’s view through observation and participation
“in social settings that reveal reality as lived by members of those settings”
(1992, p. 3). Becker and Geer defined participant observation as either a
covert or overt activity “in which the observer participates in the daily life
of the people under study . . . observing things that happen, listening to
what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time” (1970, p.
133). To observe people in their natural settings, there are a variety of roles
researchers can adopt. The roles and how they have changed over time are
described below. Where possible, examples of LIS studies are included.

Roles of the Researcher

Roles have been defined as “the characteristic posture[s] researchers
assume in their relationship” with the people whom they are studying (here-
after referred to as “insiders”) (Chatman, 1984, p. 429). In his article on
roles in field observations, Gold (1958) credited, and expanded on, Buford
Junker’s typology of four roles researchers can play in their efforts to study
and develop relationships with insiders, including complete observer, ob-
server-as-participant, participant-as-observer, and complete participant (p.
217). More recently others, such as Spradley (1980) and Adler and Adler
(1994), have proposed slightly different roles or used different terms than
did Gold, as will be discussed below.
While Gorman and Clayton described Gold’s four roles as “a range of
flexible positions in a continuum of participatory involvement” (2005, p.
106), not everyone has to start as a complete observer. The adopted role
depends on the problem to be studied, on the insiders’ willingness to be
studied, and on the researcher’s prior knowledge of or involvement in the
174 library trends/summer 2006

insiders’ world. Going into a new environment may require the researcher
to adopt the role of complete observer, whereas studying a group in which
she/he is already a member allows the researcher to adopt the complete
participant role. What is important is that the researcher assumes an
appropriate, fluid role—-one that allows her/him to observe intimately
the everyday life of the insiders (Chatman, 1984; Carey, McKechnie, &
McKenzie, 2001).
Nonparticipation
This role, described by Spradley (1980), involves no level of involve-
ment with insiders. The researcher is not present on the scene but rather
can “observe” from an entirely different environment. Transaction log
analysis (TLA) is an example of this type of observation. In his article Davis
described TLA as a “non-intrusive method for collecting data from a large
number of individuals for the purpose of understanding online-user be-
havior” (2004, p. 327). Using TLA he focused on the American Chemical
Society’s servers to determine how chemists at Cornell University located
information. Moukdad and Large analyzed over 2,000 search strategies
submitted by users to WebCrawler to determine query characteristics and
also to try “to understand how these users view the Web” (2001, p. 350). In
her study, Thompson (2003) used a screen viewer to watch, from another
room, the interaction of college students as they tested the library’s new
Web site. While this role has advantages and is effective for some LIS stud-
ies, it does not allow for any in-depth understanding of people’s behavior
in their own world.
Complete Observer
Gold’s (1958) complete observer and Gorman and Clayton’s (2005)
unobtrusive observer play the same “passive” role as described by Spradley
(1980). In this role, the researcher is present on the scene but, according
to these three authors, does not participate or interact with insiders to any
great extent. Her/his only role is to listen and observe. Within this role,
lesser ones are adopted to allow the researcher to be invisible while, at the
same time, ubiquitous in order to eavesdrop (Pearsall, 1970). One advan-
tage of this role is that the researcher can remain completely detached from
the group. Detachment, however, is also a major disadvantage because it
could prevent the researcher from hearing entire conversations or grasp-
ing the full significance of an information exchange. She/he cannot ask
insiders any questions to “qualify what they have said, or to answer other
questions his observations of them have brought to mind” (Gold, 1958, p.
222). In addition to eavesdropping, a complete observer can collect data
through videotaping, audio-taping, or photographing insiders (Adler &
Adler, 1994), all of which have ethical implications. Given its limitations,
Gold (1958) stated that complete observer is more often used as a subor-
dinate role to other dominant ones. He conceded, however, that this role
 baker/observation 175

may be an important starting point for future observations and interactions

when the researcher assumes other roles.
Although this role may not seem ideal in one’s quest to understand
insiders, it has its value and is often used in conjunction with other data
collection techniques. A few LIS examples are provided to illustrate its use-
fulness. Given and Leckie used an “unobtrusive patron-observation survey,
called ‘seating sweeps’” in their study of people’s use of public library space
(2003, p. 373). They developed a “seating sweeps checklist” (p. 375) and
walked through the library three times a day at different intervals to ob-
serve how people were using various spaces. Using unobtrusive participant
observation, as well as audiotapes of their verbal comments and exchanges,
McKechnie (2000) observed the behavior of four-year-old girls in a public
library. In addition, she collected a written diary from each girl’s mother.
Radford (1998) studied college students’ decisions to approach reference
librarians. For thirty-seven hours she unobtrusively observed students and
recorded the nonverbal behaviors of both librarians and clients on a struc-
tured data collection form. She also interviewed the students. In his study
of people with an autoimmune disease, Carey (2003) observed members
of a support group during their meetings, listened to them, and observed
their interactions. He also interviewed twenty-five members of the group.
The next example demonstrates that the role of complete observer
may be the only permitted way to conduct a study. The author (Baker)
and her colleague (Case) wanted to interview street-level female sex work-
ers to ascertain their health concerns (Baker, Case, & Policicchio, 2003).
They were restricted, however, to the role of complete observer by outside
forces, namely the human investigation committee of their university and
the outreach agency with whom they were working. The former required
the researchers to obtain signed informed consent from the participants,
while the latter felt this procedure would inhibit the agency’s work with
the women. Thus, the researchers had to gather information about health
issues by listening to the conversations between the sex workers and the
volunteers who distributed supplies to them.
Observer-as-Participant
This role, as described by Gold (1958) and Pearsall (1970), includes
more observation than participation. The researcher who adopts this role
advances very slightly in her/his involvement with the insiders. While still
mostly involved in observing, she/he may conduct short interviews. Unlike
the covert activity that is typical of the complete observer, in this role the re-
searcher’s identity can become more overt as it becomes known to more of the
insiders. The researcher, however, should remain “strongly research oriented”
and “not cross into the friendship domain” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 380).
Pearsall (1970) described two advantages to this role. First, insiders may
be more willing to talk to “attentive strangers” than they would be to talk to
176 library trends/summer 2006

people with whom they are more familiar. Second, there is less “temptation
either for the observer to go native or for the natives to try to include him
permanently in their lives” (p. 342). The downside of this role is that the
brief encounters with insiders limit “opportunities for gaining knowledge
of total situations” (p. 342). Gold saw this role as a source of frustration to
the researcher who “cannot take time to master” the insiders’ “universes of
discourse” (1958, p. 221). In other words, the brief interviews can contribute
to misunderstandings or misconceptions of which the researcher may not
be aware until it is too late to correct or address them.
Few LIS studies were found in which this role was adopted. In their
study of the health problems of female street-level prostitutes described
above, Baker and Case accompanied volunteers of a street outreach pro-
gram. Because they were unable to speak directly to the women, they relied
on the volunteers to obtain health-related information from some of the
women. The observations of the researchers and the volunteers, as well as
the discussions between them, provided good information about the health
concerns of women who worked the streets. Carey’s (2003) study of the
support group (mentioned above) included his participation as a librar-
ian before and after the meetings. In this role, he was able to observe and
participate to some degree by talking to the members about their selection
of library materials.
Moderate or Peripheral Membership
In 1994 Adler and Adler wrote that the roles of complete observer and
observer-as- participant were no longer as popular with qualitative research-
ers as they had been during the mid-twentieth century (p. 380). Instead,
researchers preferred “greater involvement,” which included what they
called “membership roles” (p. 379). Thus, new role labels appeared in the
literature. Adler and Adler’s “peripheral membership” seems to equate to
Spradley’s (1980) moderate role.
In this role the researcher wants to “maintain a balance between be-
ing an insider and an outsider, between participation and observation”
(Spradley, 1980, p. 60). To accomplish this, the researcher interacts with
the insiders and engages in similar activities but, according to Adler and
Adler she/he does not participate in those activities “that stand at the core
of group membership and identification” (1987, p. 36). They postulated two
reasons for adopting this role. First, the researcher may limit involvement
in the group, fearing that it will affect her/his ability to interpret the data
from a detached perspective. Second, the researcher may “intentionally
restrict” the level of involvement because she/he does not want to partici-
pate in the specific activities of the insiders being studied (p. 36). In their
study of drug dealers, this is the role Adler and Adler assumed.
 baker/observation 177

From the description of her study of older women living in Garden

Towers, Chatman’s (1992) role was that of peripheral membership. As
Gorman and Clayton (2005) pointed out, she sat with the women on a
regular basis, played cards, and ate with them. Throughout her study, how-
ever, she maintained the balance between observation and participation
by not becoming involved in their daily care, that is, she did not become
a member of the staff in the home. This role is similar to the one Carey
(2003) played as librarian at the support group meetings. His not having
the disease precluded his complete membership in the group.
Participant-as-Observer, Active Participation, Active Membership
The role that Gold (1958) called participant-as-observer, Spradley (1980)
and Adler and Adler (1987, 1994) labeled “active participation” and “active
membership,” respectively. It is in this role that the researcher becomes
more involved with the insiders’ central activities but still does not fully com-
mit to “members’ values and goals” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 380). During
this period of observation, the researcher may develop relationships with
the insiders, such that they become “friends.” Pearsall saw this relationship
as beneficial because, as friends, the insiders can “instruct the investigator
in the intricacies of their personal and social worlds” (1970, p. 343). Gold
(1958), on the other hand, viewed this relationship as more problematic.
First, he felt that the insider may identify too much with the researcher to
continue in the role of informant and may become, instead, “too much of
an observer” (p. 221). Second, the researcher may “over identify” with the
insider, loose objectivity, and “go native,” thus jeopardizing her/his role as
a researcher/observer (p. 221).
Complete Participation
Complete participation is the ultimate level of involvement as the re-
searcher goes native and studies a group in which she/he is already a mem-
ber (Spradley, 1980; Adler & Adler, 1994). Researchers act as members, not
researchers, so that they do not unnaturally “alter the flow of the interac-
tion” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 380). While this role is ideal for obtaining a
very good understanding of the insiders, both Gold (1958) and Spradley
(1980) had reservations about researchers engaging in complete participa-
tion. In this role, the identity of the complete participant is unknown to the
insiders, which can be problematic for the researcher who may become so self-
conscious “about revealing his true self” that she/he becomes “handicapped
when attempting to perform convincingly in the pretended role” (Gold,
1958, p. 220). Furthermore, the researcher may feel that “he has so violated
his observer role that it is almost impossible to report his findings” (p. 220).
Spradley agreed and cautioned that “the more you know about a situation,
. . . the more difficult it is to study it as an ethnographer” (1980, p. 61).
178 library trends/summer 2006

Complete Membership
In their book on membership roles, Adler and Adler (1987) state that
Gold’s (1958) role of complete participant is not equivalent to their role
of complete membership for several reasons. First, because the researcher
and the insiders “relate to each other as status equals, dedicated to shar-
ing in a common set of experiences, feelings, and goals” (Adler & Adler,
1987, p. 67), there is no need for the researcher to assume a covert role.
Second, unlike the prohibitions in complete participation about going na-
tive, researchers adopting the complete membership role are encouraged
to go native because this role enhances the data-gathering process through
a sharing of information between insiders and the researcher.
In their description of complete membership, Adler and Adler state
that a researcher’s level of commitment varies along a continuum and that
progression along this continuum “is usually associated with researchers
relinquishing their involvement in and commitment to their former world
and adopting the weltanschauung, or worldview, of members” (1987, p. 67).
At one end of the continuum are researchers who, although sharing the
“values, beliefs, and goals of other participants” (p. 67), do not fully join
the group. At the other end are people who never return from the field.
Adler and Adler (1987) divide researchers who enter into complete
membership roles into two categories: opportunistic and convert. Briefly
stated, opportunistic researchers are those who are already involved in or
are members of a group whom they eventually decide to study. Instead of
having to bring a “pretended self” (p. 69) to the research setting, they have
to “create the space and character for their research role to emerge” and
examine the setting from a different perspective. In this case, the member-
ship role precedes the researcher role. The converts, on the other hand,
start as researchers whose “initial interest . . . is purely data oriented” (p.
70) but then convert to become the phenomenon. Converting may take
one of two routes. Researchers may “enter the field with the express inten-
tion of making a ‘good faith commitment’ to becoming the phenomenon”
because of their “epistemological principles, their interest in the group they
are studying, or their evaluation of the pragmatic requisites for studying this
group” (Adler & Alder, 1987, p. 70). Other researchers may be pressured
to convert by the insiders or may be influenced by their own feelings to
become a member of a group.
Problems are inherent in the complete membership role. One concerns
the positive/legitimate or negative/stigma connotations of a researcher’s
association with the study group (Adler & Adler, 1987). Not only can re-
searchers be contaminated by the insiders’ status, they may also be stigma-
tized by other academics for going native. Another problem involves the
consequences of the complete membership role on data gathering. Adler
and Adler suggested, however, that the depth of data that can be collected
in this role more than compensates for the loss of scientific detachment.
 baker/observation 179

Finally, the authors acknowledged the effects the complete membership

role has on the “researcher’s self” (1987, p. 82). Researchers who adopt this
role may find that not only have they changed, but also their relationships
with others have been affected by their commitment to the insider group.
Thus, the role of complete membership is not one that can be entered into
lightly. No studies of LIS researchers engaging in either complete participa-
tion or complete membership were found in the literature.

Characteristics Unique to Observational Research

Observation has some aspects that are unique to this research method,
including training, entering and leaving the study group, length of time
in the field, sampling, and data collection techniques. Each of these topics
will be described briefly below.
Training
Few general LIS research texts discuss the need for special training for
those who engage in ethnographic research. Spradley (1980) states that
these skills could be learned only though an apprenticeship or on-the-
job training in the field. So important are these skills that he wrote two
handbooks “for doing ethnography” (p. vii), including The Ethnographic
Interview (Spradley, 1979) and Participant Observation (1980). In her article
published in an LIS health sciences journal on the use of anthropological
techniques to study the information needs of physicians, Forsythe (1998),
an anthropologist, also emphasized the need for formal training:
A word of caution: perhaps because ethnographic methods are largely
qualitative in nature and are intentionally unobtrusive, people without
formal training in these methods often mistakenly assume that eth-
nography is something that anyone can do. Doing valid and reliable
ethnographic research requires considerable training and practice.
(p. 407)

In their article Sandstrom and Sandstrom focus on “five misleading

stances or assumptions that pervade LIS writing on qualitative research
design” in the hope of clarifying “how the neglect of key issues in ethnog-
raphy diminishes the value of research findings for theory building and
practice” (1995, pp. 163–164). Two points in their article are relevant to
the issue of training for those who wish to conduct an observational study.
First, the authors attacked the naive belief that qualitative research would
be better if the researchers “forgo methodological training” (p. 179). Simi-
lar to Spradley (1980) and Forsythe (1998), they state that the “proper
application of qualitative methods and techniques can be achieved only
by trained observers” (p. 179). Sandstrom and Sandstrom also took is-
sue with the idea that “naturalistic inquiry . . . may begin with little or no
awareness of existing literature” so that the researcher can “observe with
no preconceived ideas or biases” (1995, p. 179). This view, according to the
180 library trends/summer 2006

authors, is a “flagrant violation of common sense” (p. 179). To emphasize

their point, they referred to Glaser and Strauss’s 1967 influential book, The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, wherein these
authors devote one chapter to the importance of critically reading the
literature. Sandstrom and Sandstrom (1995) thus suggest that researchers
get a “thorough grounding in the literature” (p. 180) before they start a
project because “[n]eglecting to read others’ work condemns the researcher
to rediscover what is already known and to repeat mistakes that could have
been avoided” (p. 180).
Gaining Access and Leaving the Field
If the researcher is already a member of the group she/he is interested in
studying, then gaining access is not a problem. The issues for these research-
ers are whether, when, and to whom to disclose oneself as a researcher (see
discussion above on complete participation and complete membership; see
also Labaree, 2002). Despite well-planned research and/or particular inter-
est in a group, gaining entry is not an easy process. Time, effort, patience,
and diplomacy are essential for success. In addition, maintaining that access
is an ongoing process rather than a static one. A few examples from LIS
studies demonstrate the difficulties researchers can encounter.
Chatman (1992) recounted her problems gaining entry in three dif-
ferent studies. In her research on single mothers in the Comprehensive
Employment Training Act programs, she had to go through months of
negotiation with city officials and site supervisors, one of whom terminated
her study early for no apparent reason. When she studied janitors, Chatman
had problems with the supervisors and the janitors, some of whom were
“suspicious of some lady going around snooping and asking questions for
some survey!” (1990, p. 5). Although gaining access to women in Garden
Towers was easier, Chatman lost time starting the research project when
the resident manager quit, requiring her to wait until another one was
hired. She also discussed accessibility to the residents after she had gained
access. The residents of Garden Towers closed their doors when they did
not want to be disturbed. Although she did not violate this informal policy,
Chatman noted the time lost to interviews (even prearranged ones) if a
woman had closed her door.
This author (Baker, 2004) also had trouble gaining access to female
vice police officers who work undercover as sex workers. It took approxi-
mately one year of negotiation with the head of the vice unit to gain access
to the officers. One reason for this was that the head of the vice depart-
ment changed during the negotiation period, which required starting the
negotiations over with the new person. Once permission to interview the
officers was obtained, there were no further problems obtaining permission
to accompany and observe the officers during one of their night shifts as
undercover street-level sex workers.
 baker/observation 181

Observation also requires researchers to consider how to “leave the

field,” although, according to Labaree (2002), little attention has been
paid in the literature to the process of disengagement. When the study
questions have been addressed or when data saturation becomes evident,
most researchers know it is time to leave. How they leave—-abruptly or
gradually—-is the major issue they have to address. External factors, such
as termination of funding, personal health, or withdrawal of permission
to continue the study, may precipitate abrupt termination of the study
(Jorgensen, 1989). Gradual departure may be more the norm when the
researcher has adopted the complete participant or membership role. As
Jorgensen pointed out, researchers may have to return periodically to get
questions answered or to complete unfinished business.
Further complicating one’s departure is the emotional attachment that
may have formed between the researcher and the insiders and the end
of relationships that have become “close and intimate . . . over lengthy
periods” (Jorgensen, 1989, p. 118). In this case, Jorgensen suggested that
the researcher withdraw “over a period of time so that everyone is able to
prepare for the end of participant observational study” (p. 119). He also
stated, however, that he has maintained contact with some of the friends he
made during one of his studies. According to Adler and Adler (1987), the
degree of disengagement from the study group depends on the role the
researcher played. For those involved in a complete membership role, they
are more likely to maintain ties with the study group than would researchers
who engage in either the active or peripheral membership.
Finally, the ethical obligations to the study participants depend on the
level of involvement and must be considered during the detachment period.
As Labaree (2002) noted,
Practices of strategic deceit, the tactical use of withholding information,
and making conscious decisions about limiting who will read about the
study’s findings can follow the insider participant observer in the com-
munity long after an outsider has moved on to other research projects.
These are risks that should be negotiated and carefully calculated by
the insider participant observer before the study begins. (p. 115)

Length of Time in the Field

One of the unique factors of observation is the length of time in the
field. Naturally, the amount of time depends on the research problem and
the role assumed by the researcher. As a nonparticipant, length of time
is similar to many quantitative studies. For example, in their respective
transaction log analysis studies, Moukdad and Large (2001) collected data
during two thirty-minute sessions in one day, while Davis (2004) collected
data over a three-month period. In the other roles researchers might have
to spend years in the field. Chatman, for example, spent two years study-
ing the women in Garden Towers and two years in her study of janitors.
182 library trends/summer 2006

What is important is that the researcher have “prolonged, personal contact

with events in a natural setting” (Chatman, 1984, p. 426) and play as many
roles as necessary to “gain at least a comfortable degree of rapport, even
intimacy, with the people, situation, and settings of research” (Jorgensen,
1989, p. 21).
Sampling
The crux of observational studies is the “who, what, where, and when”
questions. Polit and Hungler (1987) divided the units of observation into
two categories: molar and molecular. Molar involves observing large units
of activity “as a whole,” whereas the molecular approach “uses small and
highly specific behaviors as the unit of observation” (p. 268). These two
categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, the researcher may
use the molar approach at the beginning of the study and change to the
molecular one as her/his familiarity with, and understanding of, the insid-
ers and their environment grows. Adler and Adler (1994) used the analogy
of a funnel to describe this process wherein the stages of observation get
progressively narrower and direct the researcher’s “attention deeper into
the elements of the setting that have emerged as theoretically and/or em-
pirically essential” (p. 381).
To get rich and in-depth information, it is important for the researcher
to know the best times to observe and meet with individual insiders, as well
as whom she/he should interview. Extended time in the field and active
participation in the group’s functions increases the researcher’s ability to
judge these things. For example, Chatman stated that she attended many so-
cial functions at Garden Towers, including “card games and parties” (1991,
p. 284). In addition, the sampling categories, such as those listed by West-
brook (as cited in Powell & Connaway, 2004; see also, Labaree, 2002), may
be of some help to researchers. They include maximum variety sampling
in order to make the sample as heterogeneous as possible. The researcher
can also seek out insiders who “exemplify characteristics of interest” (called
extreme case sampling), as well as those who have considerable experience
in the group (called intensity sampling) because these people can help
the researcher better understand the environment (Powell & Connaway,
2004, p. 190). Finally, the researcher may want to use snowball sampling as
a way to link with others in a group. Snowball sampling is a good method
to use because insiders who have been referred by a friend may be more
willing to talk with the researcher. Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) identified
some of the problems associated with snowball sampling that have received
little attention in the literature. They dispelled the myth that snowballing
is self-propelling and that once started it maintains its own momentum.
Rather, the researcher “must actively and deliberately develop and control
the sample’s initiation, progress, and termination” (p. 143). The problems
they identified include the following:
 baker/observation 183

• Finding respondents and starting referral chains

• Verifying the eligibility of potential respondents
• Engaging respondents as research assistants
• Controlling the types of chains and number of cases in any chain
• Pacing and monitoring referral chains and data quality (p. 144)
Biernacki and Waldorf explained that the major problem with snowball
sampling is that it is network dependent. There are two issues to consider.
The first is whether the social networks formed because of the phenomenon
being study and, if so, “what types of networks” have developed. Second,
if the phenomenon under investigation is a “private matter,” then “the
problem becomes the extent to which the method will reveal the possible
variations that might be extant in the population” (pp. 160–161). Thus,
there is the need for the researcher to maintain “control over the referral
chains” (p. 155). Other problems include “ferreting out respondents who
fit the research criteria” (p. 145) and dealing with what they called “false
starts,” that is, the people to whom the researcher is referred turn out not
to have the exact criteria for inclusion in the study (p. 149). Finally, the
researcher may also need to verify participants’ stories through outside
sources. Although these problems can be overcome, this sampling tech-
nique requires some additional preparation and increased vigilance by the
researcher to ensure that the participants meet the criteria of the study and
are representative of the entire group.
Data Collection Techniques
The most common type of data collection, according to Polit and Hun-
gler (1987), are logs and field notes. While the former are used to record
daily conversations or events, field notes are “much broader, more analytic,
and more interpretive” (p. 271). The researcher may choose to write, or
dictate into a tape recorder, her/his field notes, which can be categorized
as observational, method, theory, and personal (Chatman, 1992; Polit &
Hungler, 1987). Observational notes detail what the researcher actually
saw, while method notes include strategies that were “employed or that
might be employed” in future observations (Chatman, 1992, p. 15). Polit
and Hungler described personal notes as the researcher’s “own feelings
during the research process” and theoretical notes as “interpretative at-
tempts to attach meaning to observations” (1987, pp. 272–273). Spradley
(1980) called notes taken during an event the condensed version, while
the expanded version is what a researcher writes after each field session.
Since the key to a successful observational study is the quality of the data
collected in logs and field notes (Polit & Hungler, 1987), the researcher
should, according to Spradley, adhere to three principles. First, “identify
the language used for each fieldnote entry” (Spradley, 1980, p. 66); in
other words, identify the speaker and use “parentheses, quotation marks,
or brackets” in order to have a record that “reflects the same differences
184 library trends/summer 2006

in languages usages as the actual field situation” (p. 66). The second prin-
ciple is to make a verbatim record of what a person says and be able to
distinguish “native terms” and “observer terms” (p. 67). Third, Spradley
discussed the importance of using “concrete language” when describing
observations (p. 68). Researchers should not generalize, condense, or ab-
breviate the details but rather “expand, fill out, enlarge, and give as much
specific detail as possible” (p. 68).
In observation, the researcher uses all of her/his senses to gather in-
formation about the phenomena under study (Adler & Adler, 1994). A
variety of material should also be used to enhance sensual observations.
Audio-recorders can be used to tape interviews. Video-recorders or cam-
eras can be used to record the activities of the insiders because, according
to Collier and Collier (1986), cameras are an “instrumental extension of
our senses” (p. 7) that may help researchers to “see more and with greater
accuracy” (p. 5). In her multimethod study of hobby cooks that included
“secondary research, interviews . . . and the unobtrusive analysis of sites,”
Hartel took 125 photographs to “capture the titles of books or file tabs with
subject headings” (2003, p. 235). Other material such as minutes of meet-
ings, memoranda, letters, magazines, or newspaper articles can also expand
one’s understanding of the study group. Spradley (1980) also mentioned
making maps to record observations. Given and Leckie “mapped and pho-
tographed the visual space on all floors” of both libraries they studied “to
document the location of furniture and equipment” in order to create the
“seating sweeps checklist” (2003, p. 375).

Ethical Issues in Observation

One of the major factors associated with observational studies is ethics.
While observation is generally seen as the least intrusive data collection
method, it can also be an abuse of an individual’s privacy (Adler & Adler,
1994; Jorgensen, 1989; Chatman, 1992). Jorgensen argued, however, that
unlike scientific research, “participant observation does not have human
subjects” (p. 28; emphasis in original) because the people with whom the
researcher interacts are not subject to any experiment. While acknowl-
edging that researchers are responsible for their actions, he stated “the
researcher is not necessarily obligated to inform people of research inten-
tions, or even protect them from possible harmful consequences” (p. 28).
In today’s research environment, the institution review boards (IRBs) of
most institutions would not agree with his views. As Adler and Adler (1994)
pointed out, universities that receive government funding have IRBs that
guide research on human participants. Their policies have “outlawed dis-
guised research” (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 389), which may explain why the
complete observer and observer-as-participant roles, as well as covert roles
in complete participation, are not being used, or are frowned upon, by
researchers. In addition, without sufficient justification by the researcher,
 baker/observation 185

IRBs may withhold permission to photograph, videotape, or audio-tape

individuals without their informed consent.
In observational research, the complexity of fieldwork in which the
researcher is engaged “make[s] it difficult, if not impossible, to adopt a
single set of standards,” according to Spradley (1980, p. 20). He suggested
researchers follow the guidelines of the American Anthropological Asso-
ciation, which include (1) study participants come first; (2) their rights,
interests, and sensitivities should be safeguarded by the researcher; (3)
participants have the right to know the aims of the researcher; (4) the
privacy of the participants must be protected; (5) the participant should
not be exploited or harmed in any way; and (6) reports should be made
available not only to sponsors but also to the participants and the general
public (Spradley, 1980, pp. 21–25).
Chatman (1992), in her book on retired women living in Garden Towers,
discussed two different types of ethical dilemmas an observer can encounter.
One is “guilty knowledge, in which the investigator is privy to confidential
information, and [the other is] dirty hands, or a situation in which the
researcher is able to correct or reveal some wrongdoing but chooses not
to do so” (p. 18). Guilty knowledge, for Chatman, resulted from a confi-
dential discussion she had with a woman who wanted to commit suicide.
Chatman stated that she withheld the information from the staff and later
questioned her decision: “My decision to remain silent ultimately must be
attributable to my sense that her death was not harming others. She wanted
the right to die and she asked that I not tell anyone. This is a haunting part
of my field experience and I still wonder if I did the right thing” (p. 20). To
demonstrate dirty hands, Chatman revealed why she chose not to tell the
authorities about the mistreatment of a resident. First, she did not want “to
risk being seen by other residents as a person who ran to the authorities,
particularly since being invited to their apartment was a trusting social act”
(p. 18). Her second reason related to the norms of scholarship:
telling the authorities about that single incident did not outweigh the
benefits of being silent. In other words, the first reason is related to
the norms of scientific inquiry. Using this guideline, the participant
observer realizes that he or she is between two different cultures: the
world of persons under study and the scientific community. In order for
the investigator to meet the requirements of the scientific community,
a degree of objectivity in reporting data is required. (p. 18)

Validity and Reliability

As is the case with all research, researchers must address the issues of
validity and reliability. In his comprehensive article on validity in qualita-
tive research, Johnson (1997) defines validity as research that is “plausible,
credible, trustworthy, and, therefore, defensible” and posits a number of
strategies researchers can use to promote validity (p. 282). One threat to
186 library trends/summer 2006

validity is researcher bias that may result from selective observation, selective
recording of information, or the subjective interpretation of situations. To
address bias, researchers can use multiple observers, actively engage in criti-
cal self-reflection (reflexivity), or look for negative cases “that disconfirm
[the researcher’s] expectations and explanations” (Johnson, 1997 p. 284;
Adler & Adler, 1994). In addition, Chatman used “additional methods of
inquiry” (1992, p. 13), which, in her study, included an interview guide.
Johnson categorized validity as descriptive, interpretive, and theoretical
and suggested strategies to promote each type. Descriptive validity “refers to
the factual accuracy of the account as reported by the researchers” (1997,
p. 284). He suggested “investigator triangulation” or the use of more than
one investigator to collect and analyze the data (p. 283). Interpretive valid-
ity involves “accuracy in reporting the facts” or “accurately portraying the
meaning attached by participants to what is being studied” (p. 285; emphasis
in original). Strategies to improve interpretive validity include participant
feedback and the use of “low inference descriptors” (that is, direct quota-
tions) (p. 283; see also, Adler & Adler, 1994). Theoretical validity refers
to “the degree that a theoretical explanation developed from a research
study fits the data and, therefore, is credible and defensible” (p. 286). To
promote theoretical validity, Johnson suggested that the researcher spend
more time in the field. In addition, she/he can also use what Johnson called
“pattern matching” (p. 283), a process that involves “predicting a series of
results that form a ‘pattern’ and then determining the degree to which
the actual results fit the predicted pattern” (p. 283). Theory triangulation
would allow the researcher to examine and explain the phenomenon from
different perspectives. Investigator triangulation and peer review could also
help improve theoretical validity.
For Chatman (1992), validity in observational studies concerns whether
the researcher is given a true picture of the phenomenon under investiga-
tion. She mentioned three types of validity: face, criterion, and construct.
Face validity involves whether the observations make sense and fit into an
“expected or plausible frame of reference” (p. 12). Criterion validity refers
to the accuracy of findings and can be addressed by using more than one data
collection technique. Chatman not only took notes but also used an interview
guide (see also Adler & Adler, 1994). Finally, similar to theoretical validity
is what Chatman called construct validity, which “refers to the analysis stage
of field work” when the researcher determines how well the phenomenon
studied fits with the conceptual framework guiding the study (p. 14).
Qualitative research is often criticized for lacking reliability. While many
qualitative researchers may not be interested in generalizing their results, they
must address the reality of their findings. To do so, Adler and Adler suggested
that researchers should conduct their observations “systematically and repeat-
edly over varying conditions,” that is, varying the time and the place in order
to “ensure the widest range of observational consistency” (1994, p. 381).
 baker/observation 187

Johnson (1997) discussed generalizability (external validity) from two

perspectives. In qualitative studies, participants and the setting are not
randomly selected. Furthermore, many qualitative researchers are more
interested in studying “what is unique about a certain group of people, or a
certain event” (p. 289). These two factors make it difficult to generalize from
the sample to the population. He noted, however, that some researchers
“argue that rough generalizations can be made from qualitative research”
(p. 290). To do so, the group studied must be similar to the group about
which one wants to generalize. Johnson (1997) suggested supplying the
following information to help readers know when they can generalize:
• The number and kinds of people in the study
• How they were selected to be in the study
• Contextual information
• The nature of the researcher’s relationship with the participants
• Information about any informants who provided information
• The methods of data collection used
• The data analysis techniques used (p. 290)
All this information will allow the reader not only to “make an informed
decision about to whom the results may be generalized” but also to decide
whether she/he would want to duplicate the study with other insiders (p.
290).

Conclusion
The literature on observation reveals how complex, challenging, and
creative this research method is. Observational research differs from other
methods in that it requires the researcher to have more specialized train-
ing on how to observe, what and how to record the data, how to enter the
field and leave it, and how to remain detached and involved at the same
time. The fact that the researcher may have to assume one or more roles
is unique to observational studies. There are, however, some similarities to
other research methods such as the need to plan the overall project, review
the literature, and determine who will be studied and when and where (in
what locations) the observations will take place. Finally, the use of one’s
senses, as well as other data collection techniques, make observation a
more holistic type of research that allows the researcher to gain a better
understanding of insiders from their own perspective. While LIS researchers
are designing studies using the observation method, few have assumed the
complete participant or complete membership roles. These roles might be
interesting and challenging ones to assume in our efforts to understand an
insider’s view of the role of information in her/his everyday life.
188 library trends/summer 2006

References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research: Vol. 6. Qualitative research methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participation observation. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Baker, L. M. (2004). The information needs of female police officers involved in undercover
prostitution work. Information Research, 10(1), paper 209. Retrieved February 26, 2006,
from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-1/paper209.html.
Baker, L. M., Case, P., & Policicchio, D. L. (2003). General health problems of inner-city sex
workers: A pilot study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 67–71.
Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1970). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison. In
W. J. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with the social world (pp.
133–142). Chicago: Markham.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.
Carey, R. F. (2003). Information and narrative: A study of a self-help support group. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Carey, R. F., McKechnie, L. E. F., & McKenzie, P. J. (2001). Gaining access to everyday life
information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 23, 319–334.
Chatman, E. A. (1984). Field research: Methodological themes. Library & Information Science
Research, 6(4), 425–438.
Chatman, E. A. (1990). Alienation theory: Application of a conceptual framework to a study
of information among janitors. RQ, 29(3), 355–367.
Chatman, E. A. (1991). Channels to a larger social world: Older women staying in contact
with the great society. Library & Information Science Research, 13, 281–300.
Chatman, E. A. (1992). The information world of retired women. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Collier, J., Jr., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albu-
querque: University of New Mexico Press.
Davis, P. M. (2004). Information-seeking behavior of chemists: A transaction log analysis of
referral URLs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 55(4),
326–332.
Forsythe, D. E. (1998). Using ethnography to investigate life scientists’ information needs.
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(3), 402–409.
Given, L. M., & Leckie, G. J. (2003). “Sweeping” the library: Mapping the social activity space
of the public library. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 365–385.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glazier, J. (1985). Structured observation: How it works. College & Research Library News, 46(3),
105–108.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223.
Gorman, G. E., & Clayton, P. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional (2nd
ed.). London: Facet.
Hartel, J. (2003). The serious leisure frontier in library and information science: Hobby
domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 228–238.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education,
118(2), 282–292.
Labaree, R. V. (2002). The risk of “going observationalist”: Negotiating the hidden dilemmas
of being an insider participant observer. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 97–122.
McKechnie, L. (E. F.) (2000). Ethnographic observation of preschool children. Library &
Information Science Research, 22(1), 61–76.
 baker/observation 189

McKechnie, L. (E. F.), Baker, L. M., Greenwood, M., & Julien, H. (2002). Research method
trends in human information literature. New Review of Information Behavior Research, 3,
113–125.
Moukdad, H., & Large, A. (2001). Users’ perceptions of the Web as revealed by transaction
log analysis. Online Information Review, 25(6), 349–358.
Pearsall, M. (1970). Participant observation as role and method in behavioral research. In
W. J. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with the social world (pp.
340–352). Chicago: Markham.
Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1987). Nursing research: Principles and methods (3rd ed.). Phila-
delphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Powell, R. R., & Connaway, L. S. (2004). Basic research methods for librarians (4th ed.) Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Radford, M. L. (1998). Approach or avoidance? The role of nonverbal communication in
the academic library user’s decision to initiate a reference encounter. Library Trends,
46(4), 699–717.
Sandstrom, A. R., & Sandstrom, P. E. (1995). The use and misuse of anthropological methods
in library and information science research. Library Quarterly, 65(2), 161–199.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, S. M. (2003). Remote observation strategies for usability testing. Information Tech-
nology & Libraries, 22(1), 22–31.
Williamson, K. (2000). Research methods for students and professionals: Information management and
systems. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Charles Sturt University, Center for Information Studies.

Lynda M. Baker, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Library and Information

Science Program at Wayne State University. She teaches courses on research meth-
ods, health sciences librarianship, and reference. Her research area is in the broad
category of information needs and information-seeking behavior, with an emphasis
on health-related issues. She has published articles on physician-patient communica-
tion, readability of consumer health material, and the information needs of people
with multiple sclerosis. She has also co-written a book for librarians entitled Consumer
Health Information for Public Librarians. More recently, her research focus has changed
to address the health-related information needs of female, street-level sex workers.