Participant Observation: Field Access and Research Dynamics

Understanding Participant Observation Nuances

However, there are nuances. Systematic observation (excluding verbal interaction) is easy to perform in open spaces. It is also relatively smooth when the researcher is introduced as a participant but primarily functions as an observer (e.g., journalists).

The researcher undergoes a progressive process, starting from initial integration into the observed group. Initially, they are inevitably guided by their pre-existing theoretical assumptions (etic approach). This continues until they grasp the group's own interpretation of reality, which the group uses to classify, arrange, and organize their experiences (emic approach).

It is crucial to gain an insider's perspective on the field and systematize the 'stranger' status. Achieving the latter allows the observer to adopt the specific viewpoint of the observed, stressing, in their daily lives, 'those characteristics that Simmel developed for the stranger: one must dialectically merge commitment and distance... By participating, the researcher authenticates their theoretical premise and, moreover, treats the research subject—the other—not as an object but as a dialogical partner.'

Dynamic Participant Observation

Gaining Access to the Field

Participant observation often requires the investigator to act in various scenarios, necessitating diverse strategies for field access. The researcher's social and professional skills, along with common sense, are important for presenting the work effectively and fruitfully for research objectives.

To avoid irreparable mistakes, the researcher should utilize theoretical knowledge, literature reviews, and initial interactions or negotiations with potential participants and the spatial context. This helps in selecting sites and defining a relatively safe entry role.

The choice of scenario and access tactics are related. Scenarios or spaces can be classified as follows:

Open Scenarios

These generally do not require initial negotiation with those observed. Participating in the subjects' activities offers great potential for observer registration due to the fluidity and naturalness of contacts, without needing to openly state the researcher's intentions.

Closed Scenarios

These can be categorized by their degree of structure or formality. They require a prior negotiation process with the subjects to gain acceptance or at least tolerance. Researcher integration usually occurs gradually.

Formal Institutions and Organizations

These represent a special case within closed settings. Having a mediator is often imperative due to pervasive secrecy and suspicion. In municipal, state, or central government institutions, the gatekeeper plays a fundamental role, responsible for introducing the researcher into the organization. An advantage is that subordinates often follow the gatekeeper's lead, unless there is clear reluctance.

Conversely, the researcher must carefully assess the information provided to these gatekeepers. While a full explanation of the ultimate research goals should be avoided, the researcher must be cautious, revealing only enough detail to facilitate access and omitting objectives that might arouse suspicion. It can be convenient to distract the gatekeeper towards less confrontational ends, such as organizational effectiveness or efficiency.

The Key Informant

The key informant's relevance stems from their position within the observation setting or their knowledge of information or people crucial to the investigation.

Following Corbetta, a distinction must be made:

Institutional Informants

These informants may be loyal to the organization. Information they provide must be contextualized carefully, as it can carry interpretive biases.