Voyeurism at its finest!

Who does not observe others' actions, behaviors, etc., unconsciously or consciously, when in a public setting? What Adler and Alder set out to do, along with convincing their audience that naturalistic observation is a fine research technique, is to label what we tend to do naturally, and, of course, to differentiate between the casual, non-systematic and non-purposive observer and one who does it for the purposes of justifiable research. Interestingly, I found myself able to identify with or make analogies to my own life experiences to many (not ALL) of the scenarios presented by Adler and Alder, but typically only in the casual sense. I've been that parent in the school taking peripheral membership and have witnessed some shocking behaviors and scenarios. As a pre-student teacher, I had to observe schools, classrooms, teachers, and student behavior/participation, noting in detail "interactions, routines, rituals, temporal elements, interpretations, and social organizations" (380). At the time we were required to turn in our notes; I suppose they were to assure the professor that we were fully engaged. But after reading Adler and Alder, what would have been interesting, as well as validating, would have been for all of us to share and analyze our observations. In my former life as a legal secretary and paralegal, I had the opportunity to observe scenarios similar to Maynard (387) as I transcribed tapes of various types of discussions, meetings, and legal proceedings. Although I was not present in the room as the dialogues were taking place, I could still get a sense of the subtext infused throughout. Taking part in depositions and reading the transcripts later were particularly interesting, as the stenographer would try to capture sounds and hesitations that didn't necessarily or easily translate into words. And, I have observed different types of courtroom proceedings, from support court to a personal injury case. Still, though, I was just a casual observer. And, like me, I'm sure many have seen those television shows where people wear "fat suits" to immerse themselves in "'every day reality--feel it, touch it, hear it, and see it--in order to understand it'" as Adler and Adler discuss Verstehen, referring to the works of Kotarba & Fontana (387). These "reseachers" are inevitably shocked at what they observe, at what they eventually feel.

Although without a system or means to record my observations, as an amateur ethnomethodoligist and with purposeful intentions, I have often observed conversations as discussed by Adler and Adler with respect to the research of Schegloff and McHoul (386). I have been an observer and I have been a participant observer (or is that observer participant--I just can't seem to distinguish between the two!). Fascinating stuff, but I must admit, I found myself guilty of those conversational oddities that I found so annoying and distracting in others.

Now onto Creepy McCreepster, Laud Humphrey, making an appearance on page 385. I initially noted his research (if that's what you want to call it, although I'm not sure how beneficial it is to know this stuff) to be creepy (my exact words in the margin)and wondered how he was able to get those license plate numbers magically turned into names and addresses. I was then pleasantly surprised to have my own thoughts reflected in the varied responses to Humprhey's research and the subsequent discussion of the ethics of this type of research. Not that I think the bathroom behavior was acceptable, but what right did Humphrey have to obtain identifying information and make personal visits for interviews, etc.? Even Humphrey's rationale did not justify his actions: well, someone's gotta do it and it might as well be me instead of the police! Yeah, right.