interesting and thorough

Broad ideas:
This article is so descriptive about the different approaches to observation that it left me spinning a little bit, not knowing which direction I should go. All I really want to say is wow, but I’ll elaborate. Observation is so familiar that it is essentially how we all learn “the kind of ‘common sense’ or ‘cultural knowledge’ that Johnson (1975, p. 21) has argued lies at the base of all human knowledge” (Adler 377). It is very “natural” for us to observe people, to describe what we see, and to generalize; however, I don’t really like the term “naturalistic” for qualitative research. Quantitative research seems to support a law-based view of reality equally well.

Methods Issues:
And while I’m quibbling over vocabulary, what of these terms, dramaturgical and ethnographical (not to mention the usual redundant ‘al’ endings)? Does anyone really focus only on people as individual actors outside of the systems in which they act, or would that be a misrepresentation of dramaturgical observation? I know when I have observed classrooms in the past that I have scrambled to evaluate individuals as they do things that I deem significant, and in the downtime, I try to describe the setting and structures that govern the environment. Goffman seems to only care about social interactions, and this gives me the idea that dramaturgical perspective seems like it may be valuable to answering only certain questions in composition—maybe those about writing as a performance or peer responses.

The spectrum ranging from detached observer to interactive or full-participant observers was worth reading as well. What interested me here was the comment about “practitioners’ attitudes shifting toward greater involvement ... in their settings” (379). I commented, “WOW,” in my PDF document when I read that the Adler kiddos posed as druggies—what a trip. I felt like I was watching a crime drama or documentary on TV with gang infiltration. Too bad it’s often unethical, or even impossible because of authenticity, to become a full member of the group a researcher observes.

I really liked the comments on the various forms that observation artifacts take. Videos, audio recordings, notes on structured sheets with graphic depictions of the setting, and Denzin’s mandated features (380) all need to be considered when entering observations. Regarding the advice on p. 381, observers would be a little naive to think that beginning with a descriptive approach and moving to more “focused observations” will greatly improve objectivity, but at least it will lend some credibility to the researcher’s methods. A more challenging idea, “theoretical saturation ... when the generic features of their new findings consistently replicate earlier ones” (381). This seems like a difficult proof to establish if one is seeking “verification.”

So....Verisimilitude? vraisemblance? Writing skill is crucial here, but here’s a tangential question: Doesn't our reading of fiction affect our expectations for verisimilitude in writing? We read “realistic,” or “believable,” or “catalogued” details in fiction and expect (and meet expectations for) similar details in observations.

Problems:
Of course we should try to have diversity in our teams of observers, but it needs to be said. I wonder if they privileged gender diversity’s importance over diversity in race or age because somehow it’s more politically correct to say that gender difference is natural, rather than socially constructed. This brings me to another type of diversity—that of membership. Could we add authentic meta-observation or “auto-observation” as a late stage of observation so that we move from the outside with description down to an focused, insider style of observation?

Last comment:
I liked the idea that observers can be discoverers of new social situations, often naming their discoveries as they identify new roles. I don’t call plan to call anyone the “inserter,” “voyeur,” or “waiter” in my own observations, but I like naming stuff.