Covert participant observations.. are they too sneaky ?
by Michael
Covert participant observations.. are they too sneaky ?
Participant observations are very interactive on the part of a researcher, as they fully immerse themselves into the activities that are being researched. However, the way in which the data is gathered from these experiments are ethically questionable, as the people being observed have not been previously asked whether or not they want to participate in the research. The data is greatly resourceful to psychology in to the understanding of human behaviour
This type of observation is generally used in situations where a researcher may possibly effect the participants’ actions by merely being there. This method is used in situations when an overt researcher cannot record the behaviour, such as in a gang environment. By observing the behaviour in a naturalistic setting, it allows researchers to note down true behaviour in the form of qualitative data. By the participants being unaware of the researcher, there are no experimenter effects and so the research has high ecological validity. So this type of research is invaluable as it gives an in depth view on certain social activity that could not be recorded in lab experiments, or those with overt researchers.
However, with this type of research there are some questions of ethics as well as other difficulties. Firstly, the main problem is the fact that the participants do not know they are taking part. Many would say that the research results are not to be used, as they have not been obtained through ethical methods. In addition to this, the method is also very time consuming and needs a lot of dedication from the researcher as it may also be dangerous for the researcher, depending on what they are observing.
So to conclude, this method of research is sneaky as the participants are not aware that they are taking part in a study and that their actions are being recorded and being analysed. However, the results that this method of research produce are greatly valuable, as the data collected shows a real world account of what happens in the experimental situation that is being studied. So I believe that this type of research is a great resource of information for psychology to examine human actions.
Reference:
Research Methods for behaviour, 3rd edition, Frederick J Gravetter, Lori-Ann B. Forzano.
PSUCF0 
I loved this post 🙂 and i completely agree with you, although they are useful as you get so much qualitative data and no experimenter effects, there are many negatives to using this method of research. For example, as you said, it might be dangerous for the researcher depending on what they are doing, also i think that you can not completely eliminate the researcher effects. If for example, the researcher is looking at group behaviour, they have to be intergrated into that group so they are going to be fully aware of a new member even if they dont know they are there for research. also, i think there are many ethical issues such as informed consent. There is also an issue here of inter-rater reliability. This is where you get multiple researchers to improve reliability of data collection and obviously in this situation it is going to be hard to get one researcher there let alone multiple, making reliability low.
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… […]
Totally agree with your points on using covert participants, I for one question it ethically. There is something not quite right about using someone for data without telling them, however it could be argued that the value of the qualitative data that can be subsequently harvested from this goes a long way to some sort of justification.
I suppose the main reason for being so sneaky is to avoid the Hawthorne Effect, in which people act different when they know they are being watched to ensure that the data is ‘pure’. If you are aware someone is acting different then that data is pretty much useless, so sometimes covert observations are a necessary evil.
As well as being ‘too sneaky’ there are also many other strengths and weaknesses that need to be considered in order to evaluate this particular research method.
Covert participant observation has several advantages over more traditional methods of research used within psychology such as questionnaires and interviews as well as overt observations. Covert observations allow researchers to gain access within groups that would not allow themselves to be studied. For example, the research of A Glasgow Gang Observed*, in which, a schoolmaster went undercover posing as a gang member with the help of one of his pupils to study the violent behaviour of the teenagers in a gang in Glasgow. Obviously, gang members would not lend themselves to research exploring gang behaviour.
The issue of observer effects and evaluation apprehension are avoided as individuals are not ware they are subjects within research therefore this method has a high level of internal validity. Finally, by becoming a member of the specific group being studied, the researcher can have direct and personal experience of the incidents that occur within the group and therefore gain much more detailed accounts of the factors that motivate
such behavior.
However, the observer faces many problems in their ability to record data as they cannot be seen to openly record the group’s actions. There is potential difficulty taking part in behaviours and observing others at the same time. Therefore it should be noted that the reader has to take it on the trust that the researcher is actually reporting true accounts of what they saw however, this weakens the validity and has issues in terms of reliability. A common problem that researchers face when wanting to use this method is that it is difficult to gain access to groups in order to study them, it was a relatively rare situation that a student would help a headmaster go undercover.
*http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/socthink/glasgowgang.html
I enjoyed your well reasoned argument on the matter. I do believe that covert observations in public areas should be entirely acceptable ethically. The UK posses 20% of the worlds security cameras, whilst we have a minute fraction of the worlds population. We’re observed on a daily basis, whilst constantly being caught on some form of camera. Why not use these observations for scientific good. The law dictates an individual is within their right to video record any public area in which a person may typically expect to be observed. So lets continue covert observations and increase covert recording.
Another weakness that must be considered with covert analysis is the potential for the participant to say they don’t want their data being used in the data-set. In this case a lot of time, effort and investment has already gone into collecting the information, which will then be lost on the basis of the individual not wanting to be a participant. This then again brings up the issue of ethics as if they don’t want to be part of the study, they probably didn’t want to be observed and monitored without their consent either. Plus can you guarantee that it is always covert as if the person realises they are being observed (due to perhaps a difference in the environment to usual) they may show social desirability meaning you are not obtaining valid data. Though this can be overcome with the use of video, this brings the issue of ethics as you are videoing someone without consent. The omission of informed consent has been reasoned as being a positive for covert analysis as (Herrera, 2003):
1) It eliminates ”apprehension, nervousness, or even criminal prosecution” for the participant
2) It has large potential gain for society
However others counter this stating it ”arouses greater concern about informed consent as researcher’s have the privilege in bypassing it” (Herrera, 2003). Though this is not technically true as although they ”bypass” it in the beginning they must still gain it at the end of the investigation in order to be able to use the data. Overall I think covert analyses are very sneaky like you said and can be quite costly if people wish their data to be removed after you have collected it, but they have the potential to be beneficial when done right as they can provide a more true image of how people actually behave.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15260029
This is interesting, I should say though that I think some things in science are necessary, even deception. I went to a little lecture at the weekend for my volunteer which was delivered by a consultant neurologist. He said something regarding ethics, by using the story of Pandora’s box. People often say not to open Pandora’s box in fear of unleashing harm, however, the consultant made the point that purely by human virtue, we have already opened that box, so we cannot say it is entirely inhuman. As long as there is no physical harm, one could argue, then a utilitarian approach could be taken to allow the majority of people to be benefitted from the research.
This blog was very thought out, and I thought your balance in the argument was great. Like you said covert observations involves the researcher participating fully without informing members of the social group of his/her presence and therefore the research is carried out secretly or covertly.
It’s advantages are obvious as you get an isight into some social groups that wouldn’t be accessible otherwise. And the fact that is takes part in the natural environment increase the chances that the groups’ behavior is ‘real’. Covert observations also rule out the ‘observer effect’ that can be caused in overt observations.
However this kind of observation is very controversial as the researcher can become involved in criminal or dangerous activities. The level of deceit and lying that has to be involved is seen as unethical. Also, the extreme stress and pressure the researcher can experience is also seen as unethical.
However, as the researcher collects the data as a participant, there could be a chance that he’s being subjective when recording data. So he might only note the behaviors that coincide with his/her hypothesis.
All in all very good blog, and covert observations are extremely effective as you get the ‘real’ and ‘untouched’ data fresh from the natural setting.
[…] 7. https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… […]
The problem with covert observation is that it can it can cause ethical issues for both the researcher and participant (Li, 2006 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-1/li.pdf) it may involve the researcher having to be involved in anti-social activities or being put in a dangerous position. Not only that, but it has been shown that a covert observer sympathises more with their participants (Scwartz, 1955 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2772027) this may make the reliability on some covert observation much more unreliable than we’d like to believe.
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
I completely agree that covert participant observations have great advantages of gaining true insight, yet are pretty unethical what with lack of informed consent and deceipt. However, some state that this deceipt is justifiably ethical, as witout it, we wouldn’t be able to gain valid results (Lauder 2003).
However, covert participant observations can often be invalid and unreliable. This is due to many of the researchers not being able to take notes until they are alone. This may leave a large delay in between events and recording data, which may cause something to be forgotten or altered slightly, thus rendering the findings inaccurate.
Your blog was set out really well, and I like that you argued both sides. Maybe you could include a couple of examples next time? I really enjoyed reading your blog!
Click to access Reading%20for%20Participant%20Observation.pdf
Sometimes covert participant observation can be dangerous. The study ‘getting on the doors and staying there’ by David Calvey (2000) involved him going undercover as a bouncer in Manchester to observe the doormen environment. He had to withdraw from the study after some time due to risk of being uncovered, and the dangerous social group he came to know. However, without covert participant observation researchers would not be able to gain such valuable insights as they have done through this method of research. If the benefits of the research outweigh the risk of the researcher observing covertly, I am all for this method!
I disagree that covert observations are too sneaky, I am mean if you think about it its just like being watched on CCTV, people can see us all the time everywhere we go, like big brother. I believe as long the people who are being studied are debriefed after and agree for the data to be used then there shouldn’t be a problem with it. By not telling the participant that they are in fact a participant then you remove problems that would occur in controlled and informed study such as demand characteristics and social desirability effects.
Found this little video telling you about covert ethnography and why its good 🙂
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… […]
I think that this is a really good method for collecting data, due to the very natural environment. It comes with the obvious ethical issue, this can be overcome by getting participants to agree to the data you achieved from observing them being used. This raises issues with timing, (what if they have vanished) and also, they may find it very creepy and stalkerish that you were ‘observing’ them. So maybe in that situation, its a little sneaky. But overall, its one of the best ways we can achieve reliable, and accurate data, so shouldn’t be sniffed at.
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… […]
[…] https://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/covert-participant-observations-are-they-too-sneaky/#comment-… […]