Participating observation

L' participating observation (known as also method of the observer taking part - in English participant-to observe ) - is a method of study ethnological like sociological introduced by Bronislaw Malinowski at the beginning of the 20th century.

According to Alain Touraine, it would be “the comprehension of the other in the division of a common condition” .

Method

It consists in studying a population by completing a work of ground to the direct contact of the individuals and by sharing their lifestyle. It is a question of studying a company with nearest to it even while being made accept by its members and while taking part in the activities of group.

A revolutionary technique

The introduction of the participating observation constitutes a rupture with the evolutionary design at the time dominant. Indeed, the evolutionists are in favor of an anthropological work of living room more than of ground. They study accounts of voyages of explorers often vague where the difference with the Other is often accentuated, transforming it into being supernatural, hybrid or animal. On the contrary, the partisans of the participating observation privilege the field study, apprehending reality without deformation.

The arrival of this technique of observation poses also the first steps of the cultural Relativisme. Participating observation induced the idea of comprehension of another Culture and not the simple judgment of this one from a Western point of view.

Toughening of Malinowski

In the context of omnipresence of the evolutionism in the anthropological mediums, Malinowski is brought to radicalize its positions:

the ethnologist must itself carry out the work of ground without passing by an intermediary
the training of the language of the studied populations constitutes for him a minimum
It intends to cut western world in its field studies
It wants “to thus demolish its own culture”
Its objective is “to penetrate the mentality of the natives”

In sociology, research according to this approach…

… and theoretical elements of the participating observation

Putting the question of material of the observation, François Simiand gives to the documents the value indices: “the social phenomena can be seized by the way of a true observation, made by the author of research, immediate observation sometimes, more often of mediate observations (i.e. effects or traces of the phenomenon), but either, in any case, by the indirect way, i.e. via the author of the document” . It is the historical method which is rather causes some there. But the author points finger the most direct possible collection of information on the institution. This mode of apprehension of the reality, little snuffed by the researchers for various reasons, must be done with a minimum of precautions. Several studies can be used as starting point to expose the solutions to the problems encountered by the participating observation.

In factory

There is first of all the question of the sociology of intervention according to the expression of Karl Marx: “to know reality, it should be transformed” . The sociology of intervention is the kind of corollary methodological of the institutional Analyze. Remi Hess distinguishes four statutes for the internal sociologist: a) if it is paid by the establishment to lead the intervention, b) the sociologist is one of the members of the institution and it is recognized for the action that it implements, c) it is the institution itself which implements the intervention like “collective analyst”, d) the speaker is an important social unit (trade union in a company for example).

In this case, the principal component of sociological work is based on a strong participation in the point to modify the medium. The observation passes in the second plan and is nothing any more but one tool since the analysis gives itself for objective the change. This form of research goes beyond what occupies us: participating observation.

According to Jean Peneff, “one calls participating observation machines the fact of it, for a sociologist, to take part, as an employee, with the production in the company to draw from it information and documentation nearest to the facts and the concrete labor. This participation generally proceeds over a long period (three months at one year (…)) so as to be integrated in the collective of work, to familiarize themselves with the specific form of the activity and to control on a great number of cases the released analyzes” . There are there the first ingredients of the participating observation: integration with a production process, a certain duration and a certain “familiarisation” with the medium to obtain the information “closest to the facts”. The author limits his analysis to the industrial context, however one can easily transpose or extend his definition to other mediums. The “specific” term used by Peneff finally gives (can be without its knowledge) the dimension single of the meeting investigator/surveyed according to such or such particular context. One can advance the term of receipt in the apprehension of the ground adapted for each case which arises. The participating observation however obeys a certain number of principles which one can describe as minimum in order to not disturb the medium.

“Roethlisberger, after its experiment with the Electric Western, gives some councils to the observer: not to let suppose that it has an authority, therefore to abstain from giving orders or councils, or imposing themselves in the conversation; to take the least possible party, while not having the air of opportunist, not to force them, nor to appear too much concerned about what is done; to have the natural air, to comply with the rules of the group, not to make conspicuous” . Not to do this, not to do that, such are the negative regulations of the researcher in this extract. This text however more clearly poses the extent of the difficulty of the participating observation: where to be located compared to inquired? And finally, that does it remain since one is too far away from the actor? The aspect reverses would be a too important identification with the ground and generating perverse effects of the left type taken. The fear of Roethlisberger lies in particular in the Effet Hawthorne.

In fact, as each research has something of single, the principal question relates to the happy medium of the report/ratio to the object of analysis. The report of research will expose the specific attitude of the investigator so that the “checking” or scientific criticism can possibly apply.

In the street and the districts

What is called the “School of Chicago” of the decades 1920-1930, created the idea of human ecology. It was a question of describing the man in his environment. At this point in time the city was regarded as a laboratory. Thus, the human behavior is analyzed compared to industrial environment, geographical and urban (Robert Ezra Park). The expansion of the city creates social organizations and disorganizations (Ernest W. Burgess). The communities are studied according to processes identified by vegetable and animal ecology (Mr. Roderick, D. MacKenzie). Louis Wirth makes city a social phenomenon. The method of collection of information most frequently used is the biography. “To analyze social reality, it is initially, for Thomas, to seize the way in which the individuals perceive and “define” the situation which they live at a given time. The sociological explanation must hold account at the same time values, rules and social facts external with the individuals, and other share of the personal attitudes which are the subjective counterpart of these values. statutory values and individual attitudes combine to direct the action of each person via a certain number of desires that only social environment can satisfy (desire of personal experiences, of recognition by others, power, safety). ”

An author is often included in what took the name of School of Chicago: William Foote Whyte. If its thesis were presented to Chicago, if its object of analysis is located in the streets of the city, it is defended to belong to it (it would be rather the École of Columbia and one locates a very personal method: to run itself in the object of analysis, which in fact “a kind of marginal of the tradition of Chicago” . In a district of Italian immigrants of Boston with, while remaining the intellectual, there takes part directly in the activities of the gangs until using of their language or, he fits in social works of the district.

On six pages approximately, “the training of the participating observation” is described by Whyte in the Postface of its work. Provided with any particular receipt, in 1937, it builds little by little its method of investigation compared to people of the places: “At the beginning, I advanced a rather complicated explanation. I studied the history of Cornerville - but under a new angle. Instead of going from last at the present, I sought to have a thorough knowledge of the current conditions to go back then to the past. At the time, I was rather content with this explanation, but that did not seem to convince large world. I was useful myself about it on two occasions and, each time, my speech caused a constrained silence. Nobody could what say, and me not more than the others. ” Thereafter, it writes to have found “a true collaborator of my research”: Doc.

It is the latter which explains to him which was to be its attitude after an experiment which had badly put it at ease: “the following day, Doc. explained me the lesson of the previous evening. “Go ahead gently, Bill, with all your “which”, “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”. If you installations of the questions of this kind, it are enough that you trail with them and you will end up having the answers without same needing to put the questions. ” I noted that it was true. Only while remaining sat and while listening, I had the answers to questions which I would not have even imagined to put if I had sought to inform me only on the basis of talks” . Its integration with the district being done at a good rate/rhythm, at a given time, it raised the question of a too marked immersion (which materialized in particular in the use of the insults and turnings of languages other than that of the university gun) during an incident. The question of the language has its importance. The translators of the book of Whyte were confronted so that, the researcher who consulted rough materials of the study, Suzie Guth, qualified “self-censorship of the author, as well of the language as of certain subjects, like the girls, the sex, the female adventures” ; indeed, “Lewd jokes and words obscenes, swearwords and blasphemies compose the code of virility between the guy of the street and guy of the racket” . It thus seems that Whyte also took retreat with respect to the university community as to propose its “translation” of the medium in which he lived.

One day, Doc. said to him: “You belong to the landscape of the street, like this reverberator” . Little by little, Whyte gives itself some ways of behaving: to make themselves pleasant and render service but without influencing the group. When one wants to entrust to him the post of secretary of club of the Italian community, its first reflex is to refuse but it realizes that it could, under pretext of take of the notes for the statement, to profit to withdraw meticulous information on the course of the meetings. It notes that to rather grant its favors to a friend than with another close relation, creates a tension in the relation. The question of taking party in certain circumstances obligatorily made him problem. In addition, it raises the question of the classification of the notes. With chronological, he prefers the set of themes or class according to the groups observed. It was necessary for him to set up a rudimentary index with a summary of the “call reports”.

Thus, Whyte reports “as if we were there” the various phases of confrontation with its ground. It approaches there what Madeleine Grawitz calls “the observation-participation” : the degree of participation and the investigator-inquired ratio, the systematization of the observation and treatment first of collected material. It is in another paragraph (with the meeting of Cornerville) that it treats duration: “(…) I obtained a research grant of the Company of the researchers of Harvard. (…) three years of resources to entirely cover a subject my choice” . There are thus there the principal elements which make it possible to characterize the participating observation. In the case of Whyte, it is not a question to be identified but take part in the daily activities long enough by maintaining a certain distance with the medium. The particular fact of this research is the installation of a real research team by the “recruitment” of observant advisers resulting from the studied medium: “It thus contributed to develop qualities of observer among its two privileged interlocutors. It will name this step later “seeks by participating action”” .

The participating observation “ventures creative”

In participating Observation and sociological theory , Jacques Coenen-Huther brings back six studies on varied topics: an iron-foundry, a kibbutz, a hospital, Russia with the daily newspaper, a club of mountaineer and observations in urban environment. This work recalls experiments of participating observation over approximately fifteen years without neglecting a critical analysis in this way of tackling the subjects. The explicit theoretical will gives value to this type of method of research. Preferably at the end of sociological enigma, since there is not mystery for everyone (the actor speaks, him, obviously), Coenen-Huther prefers L `expression of “sociological diagnosis” which “generally holds in the formulation and the reformulation of facts whose actors - some of them in any case - already became aware” . In its work, it carries out the bond in the participating observation and the sociological theory by announcing design certain of sociology: “This one perhaps very briefly characterized by three terms: generalization, cumulativity, existential relevance” . In fact, Coenen-Huther refuses an originality denying the traditional ones (cumulativity), gives to the monograph a broader range allowing drafts of generalization and wants to register the discoveries in the life of the every day.

Of the six studies presented, it retains, redécouvre or illustrates a particular feature of the sociological theory. He notices that the sociological activity often consists in “formulating diagnoses”. He points out “the idea that, in each case, a dominant impression is essential on the observer and contributes to structure its perceptions with the manner of the “operative event” which guided Tocqueville” , i.e. he reformulates and looks further into the concept of assumption of research or question starting. He makes rimer this “impression dominant” with the crucial role which he allots to “the otherness and the aptitude for the off-centring” of Piaget. He defines also the “specific contribution of sociology”: “to offer category of intelligibility”. The background of which he does not want to separate himself, it is the continuation of the development of a general theory of the social relations such as Merton recommended it. One needs a certain degree of abstraction for “to constitute a generalized grammar of the social relations starting from a small number of fundamental concepts” . In chapter IV, it assigns with typology the description of “organizing principles of the social relations” .

For Coenen-Huther, the participating observation is a minor kind among the techniques of research in sociology. Hospitalized, its accidental observations do not remain less relevant about it for a “sociological diagnosis”. In the same way, “the fortuitous occasion”, the tail, allow him the location “of abstract car-organization”. Its pleasing work to reflect on all the facts and events with which we are mixed daily: waiting in stopper automobile or before consultation of doctor, how “one travels by” the bus, the behavior of the front students, during and after a course, which occurs in a market, on the pedestrian place of a big city or a village,… but however while avoiding making an ethnography without more general range of it.

The direct knowledge of industrial work,…

… French historical elements and difficulties

In its article, Jean Peneff proposes, while taking as a starting point J. - M. Chapoulie, “an assessment of work which, in France, used the participating observation (…)” . It announces that this form of research is used little but that an interest appears again in this connection. This mode of observation would be related to a context socio-policy. It distinguishes from the sociologists those which seek a “direct approach of the situations of work” (worker priests) and the militants Maoists (“benches”), the social search criterion being defined by the publication of works and articles. Finally, it limits its assessment to ten sociologists: Simone Weil, Jacqueline Michelle Aumont, Christiane Peyre, Jacqueline Frisch-Gautier, Alain Touraine, Jacques Dofny, Renaud Sainsaulieu, Robert Linhart, Philippe Bernoux, Dominique Mound and Jean Saglio.

“It was indeed about observation-participating. Three researchers were made engage in two companies: the first of mechanics where were two researchers, one on a line of machining, the other on an assembly line; the other company was a research center of chemical industry”.

The women in factory or with work in the immediate future characterize the participating observation after war to the surroundings of 1956. It would act for these researchers of “curiosity or nostalgia of a universe (…) which they known in their childhood” . Perhaps the catholic mystic of the test by monotony or the tender with the machine is used as reference to move away some. The accession with sociology (CNRS) by (afterwards) the observations of ground also the abandonment of these last devotes. The shift the “marginal ones with the factory” in the ambient male ouvrierism allowed a refinement of the observations. The desire of knowledge is symbolized by Alain Touraine, normalien, which invests in “the experiment of manual work” . The author who would make the “transition between the researchers from the first generation (where the participating observation is at the same time a mission and a desire of knowledge) and those of the second where it is a biographical accident” are Jacques Dofny. Its singularity relates as well to the number of experiments of participating observation and publications as its activity within the Center of Sociological Studies and the American Sociological Association to the sides of his/her friends Erving Goffman and William Foote Whyte. In the Seventies, the publications, because of the “dubious statute of the observation in French sociology”, had not changed the ways of seeing in sociology of work.

The difficulties inherent in the participating observation are progressively approached presentation of the authors. It is mainly, according to Jean Peneff, about the slowness of the progression of the research task, because of an impossible fence in “the constant deepening of the results” , the call or temptation of the union action in the companies to make evolve/move the “conditions of exploited” that the observer divides. The important investment of the individual in this form of research devotes “a relative failure”.

The participating observation is generally only one accident of career, a biographical singularity, leaning for manual work. Jean Peneff is astonished, on the other hand, that the communist intellectuals, the Marxist researchers did not seize this method. The sociologists did not pose, at the professional level, “the question of the direct knowledge of industrial work” and the obvious teaching interest was not exploited for the students. Jean Peneff however notes a revival limited to other grounds with reduced styles (semi participation, shorter duration,…). He explains this disaffection by the institutionalization of sociology between 1950 and 1960 and the need for fast results for precise orders. Thus the preference for “given of second hand already made up or towards the sources quickly mobilizable” supplanted the slow steps of ethnographic type.

Beyond the component elements of the participating observation and difficulties which are inherent for him, the article of Jean Peneff gives the dimension real, at the same time rich in itself and very limited from the point of view of sociological research, of this method in the discipline. It assigns with the participating observation the place which returns to him in the knowledge of knowledge (mainly in France). Finally this article gives a minimum framework and at the same time founder in our way of approaching the object of research.

The choice of the texts above exposed makes it possible to define a mode (minor or rich according to the authors) to approach certain objects of study. Definition and difficulties, insertion in the sociological theory could be illustrated by other authors. However, we have here the principal elements which characterize the participating observation. Of a word, Alain Touraine defines it, in comment of Street corner society: “the comprehension of the other in the division of a common condition” . It is necessary to bring back this definition to the difficulties related to the participating observation: duration, the implication of the observer compared to its object of study, the writing and more theoretical analysis.

Random links: