Do you see what I see?

The Adler and Adler chapter "Observational Techniques" was the most systematic analysis I've read on naturalistic observation as a source of qualitative data. Last semester I took an Adult Education course in Qualitative Research Methodology, and we read a couple of articles as well as a portion of the text on field observation as a research methodology, and we even did an field observation to write up. But this article outlined very clearly the issues, stages, types, and paradigms with some really subtle distinctions--more than I ever realized existed!

Two thoughts kept coming to me as I read and reflected. The first was the impossibility of truly objective observation and note-taking. When I did my field observation and write-up last semester, it didn't take me very long to recognize the subtle and un-subtle ways that I was interpreting and coloring my observations. In the first place, I was choosing what I observed. No one can see everything even in a small and very focused setting. When I was very attentive to one part of the setting, I wasn't noticing what else was happening that might be influencing or coloring the people I was observing. And when I made notes, I realized that even unconsciously I was interpreting what I saw through my own lens of bias, anticipation, or experience. Based on what details or words I used to characterize the actions or environment, I was creating my own version of the experience, possibly very different from another observer's report. The more I tried to dissociate myself, the more I became aware of subjectivity. It was almost paralyzing.

The other idea that kept surfacing as I read and reflected was the complexity of the ethical issues. Does the naturalistic observer feel like an undercover investigator? a voyeur? I'm sure that in various kinds of sociological settings, being able to slip into an environment on the pretense of being a participant (disguised research?) and be privy to candid conversations might be very insightful. Being an actual participant, it seems, would be less objective and more unreliable because the actual participant would be taking in the experience through his or her own lens and personal investment in the experience. Then it would almost become that odd variation, auto-observation. Certainly those experiences would be interesting, but do they have the objectivity and reliability and generalizability that one would like research to have?

So the experience of reading and reflecting seemed to raise more questions for me than it answered--and maybe that's actually a good thing.