Robert Bogdan and Steven J.

Taylor Introduction to Qualitative Research Method A Phenomenological A Sciences

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975

roach to the Social

!"APT#R $%&R
Partici ant %bservation '%R(I)* 'IT" +ATA In the preceding chapters, we descri ed the process y which the participant o ser!er locates a setting, enters the "ield, and gathers data# In this chapter, we descri e so$e o" the ways in which the o ser!er can egin to analy%e his or her data in the post&"ieldwork stage o" the research# 'ere we deal with the $echanics o" analysis# ()r p)rpose is to o""er g)idelines which we ha!e )sed and which yo) $ay "ind help")l# When we speak o" *data analysis* we $ean the techni+)es yo) can )se to $ake sense o)t o" and to learn "ro$ the h)ndreds, or e!en tho)sands, o" pages o" recorded state$ents and eha!ior in yo)r "ield notes#1 ,ore speci"ically, "data analysis" refers to a process which entails an effort to formally identify themes and to construct hypotheses (ideas) as they are suggested by data and an attempt to demonstrate support for those themes and hypotheses#- .y hypotheses we $ean nothing $ore than prepositional state$ents that are either si$ple /*attendants distr)st pro"essionals at the instit)tion*0 or co$ple1 /*attendants $isinterpret residents2 eha!ior eca)se they lack e$pathy "or the residents*0# 3he p)rpose o" hypotheses, as we )se the$, is to sensiti%e one to the nat)re o" eha!ior in a setting and o" social interaction in general: to help one )nderstand pheno$enon that were not pre!io)sly )nderstood# 4nlike practitioners o" $ost other $ethodologies, the participant o ser!er seeks $erely to de$onstrate the pla)si ility o" his or her hypotheses and not to *test* or to *pro!e* the$# 3he latter ter$s ha!e $ore $eaning in the conte1t o" +)antitati!e research $odels where hypotheses are "or$)lated and e1a$ined according to certain "or$al or statistical proced)res# 5nd while the o ser!er can per"or$ s)ch proced)res on data, the scores o tained will neither pro!e hypotheses nor greatly increase )nderstanding# 6 5ltho)gh data analysis is o"ten a ti$e&cons)$ing and painstaking process, the partic)lar techni+)es to e "ollowed and the a$o)nt o" ti$e spent depend )pon the +)antity o" "ield notes and the research goals# In those instances in which the research is ai$ed at only a c)rsory )nderstanding, data analysis need not e intensi!e# So$e researchers, "or e1a$ple, "ind it s)ita le "or their p)rposes to +)ickly read thro)gh their data, $ake note o" apparent the$es, and select e1e$plary +)otations to ill)strate these the$es when they report their st)dies# In $ost instances, howe!er, the researcher will spend weeks, or e!en $onths, going o!er his or her data in a syste$atic atte$pt to )nderstand and interpret it# So$e researchers de!ote as $)ch ti$e to data analysis as they do to data collection# '"#) S"%&,+ T"# A)A,-SIS START. In a sense, data analysis is an ongoing process in participant observation research # ( ser!ers note i$portant the$es and "or$)late hypotheses thro)gho)t their st)dies# 3hey p)rs)e the road +)estions and areas o" interest that were on their $inds when they entered the "ield# 7 5s the research progresses, o ser!ers re"ine certain hypotheses and discard others y holding the$ )p to e1perience# 3hey $ay introd)ce leading +)estions that will enco)rage s) 8ects to talk a o)t areas related to hypotheses# (r they $ay ask speci"ic and direct +)estions once they ha!e gained the con"idence o" s) 8ects# In the 8o training progra$ st)dy, the o ser!er had an early h)nch that $en trainees clearly di""erentiated *wo$en2s "actory work* "ro$ *$en2s "actory work#* 3he h)nch ca$e a"ter one o" the sta"" personnel had reported the "ollowing to the o ser!er: *when the $en saw wo$en doing the work 9soldering: on the asse$ ly line, they didn2t want any part o" it#* Since this se1 di""erentiation wo)ld ha!e i$portant

i$plications "or the potential s)ccess o" the progra$ and "or the $eanings o" work, the researcher p)rs)ed his h)nch on later !isits to the setting# 'e "o)nd that, altho)gh $en and wo$en di""ered in the types o" work they !al)ed, $en did not re8ect certain work as *wo$en2s work#* ;or e1a$ple, they e1pressed little pride in doing physical la or and openly a!oided 8o s that were dangero)s or *too hard#* 3he o ser!er dropped his earlier hypothesis and t)rned to the p)rs)it o" others# While the participant o ser!er e1plores the$es and hypotheses thro)gho)t the co)rse o" her or his st)dy, it is during the post-fieldwork stage of the research that he or she concentrates most on the analysis and interpretation of data# 5t this ti$e, when all o" the e!idence is in, so to speak, she or he re"ines hypotheses and e1a$ines the conditions )nder which they hold tr)e# (nce o ser!ers ha!e collected what they consider to e s)""icient data to )nderstand those aspects o" settings in which they are2 interested, they lea!e the "ield to engage in a period o" intensi!e analysis# (" co)rse, $any o ser!ers need a $onth or so to read, conte$plate, or rest e"ore they tackle the di""ic)lt task o" data analysis# ,oreo!er, practical considerations, s)ch as the a$o)nt o" ti$e it takes to transcri e taped "ield notes, $ay "orce the researcher to postpone analysis# We $ention this rather $)ndane point eca)se it is all too o"ten "orgotten# So$e o ser!ers esta lish )nrealistic sched)les "or the co$pletion o" their research and )nderesti$ate the ti$e and energy a participant o ser!ation st)dy de$ands# 5t the concl)sion o" their "ieldwork, they "ind the$sel!es swa$ped with other o ligations that they ha!e neglected# I n any case, the observer would usually be wise to begin analysis soon after he or she has left the field# 5t this ti$e the data are "resh and e1citing# 5nd i" he or she wishes to ret)rn to the setting to pick )p loose pieces and to clari"y any points, this can e done while rapport is intact and in"or$ants #tie accessi le# 3he researcher $ay e!en solicit the co$$ents o" key in"or$ants d)ring data analysis as a check on the !alidity o" her or his work#5 3here are, nonetheless, instances in which the o ser!er sho)ld postpone analysis# Since personal attach$ents and iases o"ten de!elop d)ring the co)rse o" the research, the o ser!er o"ten needs a chance to create so$e distance etween her& or hi$sel" and the setting in order to see the data "ro$ a wider perspecti!e# <ertain things are easier to recogni%e and to treat o 8ecti!ely a"ter a period o" ti$e has elapsed# 'owe!er, this is not a concern "or $ost new o ser!ers, who generally cond)ct rather li$ited st)dies and are not deeply in!ol!ed in the setting# +IS!%/#RI)* T"#M#S A)+ $%RM&,ATI)* "-P%T"#S#S 3he researcher will already ha!e de!eloped so$e clear ideas and hypotheses in regard to the $eaning o" his or her data y the ti$e he or she concl)des his or her o ser!ations# In the intensi!e analysis stage o" the research he or she re"ines his or her ideas and hypotheses, and searches the data "or new ones# So$e hypotheses will e $odi"ied# (thers will e s) s)$ed )nder roader ones# Since certain the$es re$ain hidden "ro$ the researcher and certain hypotheses e$erge only when the data are !iewed in a certain $anner, the participant observer must examine data in as many ways as possible in order to )nderstand the general signi"icance o" a setting# 5ltho)gh there is no precise "or$)la which will ena le the researcher to constr)ct hypotheses and to recogni%e the$es, the "ollowing s)ggestions sho)ld e help")l# 1# Read your field notes# <ollect all o" yo)r data /"ield notes, ( ser!er2s <o$$ents, and other $aterials0 and read thro)gh the$ care")lly# 5l$ost e!erything is potentially i$portant, depending )pon the researcher2s p)rpose# See$ingly $inor details $ay pro!ide a cl)e to )nderstanding roader aspects o" the setting# ;or e1a$ple, the o ser!er at the state instit)tion noticed that $any attendants had relati!es who worked as attendants on other wards# 3his cas)al o ser!ation led to the hypothesis that attendants2 perspecti!es on their 8o s, their s)per!isors, and the residents )nder their charge were s)pported and rein"orced in o""&the&8o sit)ations as well as on&the&8o ones# Write notes to yo)rsel" recording the$es and hypotheses as yo) read thro)gh yo)r data# Yo) sho)ld also e alert to topics that yo)r s) 8ects either intentionally or )nintentionally a!oid# In a st)dy o" a *delin+)ent gang,* one wo)ld e1pect yo)ths to talk a o)t the $oral or legal i$plications o" their acts# 3he "act that yo)ths did not disc)ss these i$plications wo)ld e a "r)it")l line o" in+)iry# 5s an added check, have someone else read over all of your data# 5n o)tside reader can so$eti$es letter capt)re those s) tle aspects o" the setting that el)de the in!ol!ed o ser!er# -# Code important conversation topics# Yo) will "ind that certain topics occ)r and reocc)r in the con!ersations o" yo)r s) 8ects# =ach o" these topics sho)ld e noted and coded# Yo) are th)s eginning to

asse$ le e!erything that was said a o)t an i$portant aspect o" the setting# In the state instit)tion st)dy, the researcher coded s)ch con!ersation topics as *attendants2 training,* *pay,* *progra$$ing "or residents,* *cleaning the ward,* and *s)per!isors#* Note that at this point in ti$e the coding categories are relati!ely o 8ecti!e and )na$ ig)o)s: people either said so$ething a o)t training, "or e1a$ple, or they didn2t# (nce yo) ha!e read thro)gh yo)r data and gained a sense o" which topics are i$portant, yo) sho)ld assign a n)$ er, letter, or other sy$ ol to each o" these topics# >)plicate yo)r "ield notes and code this copy y p)tting the n)$ er corresponding to each topic ne1t to the rele!ant paragraphs in the $argin o" yo)r notes# 3his task will e "acilitated i", as $entioned earlier, yo) ha!e "re+)ently "or$ed new paragraphs when yo) recorded yo)r data# <)t the d)plicate y paragraphs and place the$ into $anila "olders according to coded topic category# Yo) can $ake additional copies o" the paragraphs or sentences that pertain to $ore than one coding category# In any case, the original copy o" the notes sho)ld e le"t )nc)t# 5nd each paragraph that is c)t "ro$ a copy sho)ld e identi"ied with the page n)$ er o" the "ield notes "ro$ which it was taken# 3his will ena le yo) to cons)lt the original copy o" the notes "or the conte1t o" the paragraph or the stage o" the "ieldwork in which it was recorded# 5"ter the coding process has een co$pleted, the data sho)ld e read, sorted, and e1a$ined "or patterns# Yo) are likely to learn that the$es which were once o sc)re will e clearly ill)$inated# 6# Construct typologies# 3ypologies, or classi"ication sche$es, can e )se")l aids in "or$ing hypotheses and disco!ering the$es# ?ead o!er yo)r data# ,ake note o" how yo)r s) 8ects classi"y people and eha!ior and o" the di""erences etween and a$ong s) 8ects that allow the$ to e classi"ied# 3he researcher in the state instit)tion st)dy in the analysis stage o" his research constr)cted se!eral typologies that led to the generation o" i$portant hypotheses# (ne typology concerned attendants2 perspecti!es on di""erent residents# ?esidents were !iewed as either *dopes,* *pets,* *workers,* or * astards* /tro) le$akers0# 3he o ser!er went on to relate this classi"ication to the di""erences in treat$ent recei!ed y di""erent residents# 5nd this led to hypotheses a o)t attendants2 roader perspecti!es on their work# 5nother typology related to the length o" ti$e each attendant had worked at the instit)tion, which, in t)rn, was co$pared, a$ong other things, to the respecti!e attendant2s e!eryday eha!ior# 3he o ser!er concl)ded that there was little relationship etween the two and was th)s a le to discard the co$$onsense distinction etween *old&line* and *new&line* workers in s)ch settings# Since the p)rpose o" typologies, as descri ed here, is $erely to sensiti%e yo) to s) tle aspects o" the setting that yo) $ay ha!e otherwise o!erlooked, they need not e rigid or precise# 4se the$ "reely# =1a$ine yo)r data in a !ariety o" ways# 7# Read the literature pertinent to your interests and your research setting # 5"ter and perhaps d)ring the intensi!e o ser!ation stage o" the research, the o ser!er cons)lts the pro"essional literat)re# 'e or she co$pares "indings reported in the literat)re with what is eginning to appear in his or her data and looks "or )nanswered +)estions which the st)dy $ight address# 5nd when she or he "inally egins to write papers or articles he or she relates it to what has een written in the past# 3he researcher also )tili%es the concepts, $odels, and paradig$s o" others# In the research cond)cted at the state instit)tion, the o ser!er $ade "re+)ent )se o" ideas "o)nd in the literat)re on de!iance, total instit)tions, work, and $ental illness and retardation in addition to that on general theoretical iss)es# 3hese ideas helped hi$ to "or$)late hypotheses and to p)t things in perspecti!e# ;inally, what one sees, hypothesi%es, and s) se+)ently reports depends )pon one2s theoretical ass)$ptions# 3heory pro!ides an e1planatory or interpreti!e "ra$ework that ena les the researcher to $ake sense o)t o" the $orass o" data and to relate data to other e!ents and settings# ;or this reason, it is i$portant "or the researcher to e1pose her or hi$sel" to di""erent theoretical perspecti!es d)ring the intensi!e analysis stage o" the research# In <hapter 1 we rie"ly descri ed and $entioned the i$portance o" sy$ olic interactionis$ and ethno$ethodology#& In order to gi!e yo) a clearer idea o" how yo) $ight )se these perspecti!es in yo)r own st)dies, we wo)ld now like to o""er a series o" ill)strati!e +)estions that yo) can apply to yo)r data# While yo) sho)ld )se these to e1plore how people see their world, don2t p)sh yo)r data into the "ra$eworks that the +)estions s)ggest# 4se the$ i", and only i", they apply to yo)r data and coincide with yo)r interests# ;ollowing the sy$ olic interactionist perspecti!e, one wo)ld e concerned with how s) 8ects de"ine the sit)ations in which they "ind the$sel!es# ,ore speci"ically, one wo)ld ask the "ollowing +)estions:

*'ow do !ario)s s) 8ects de"ine their settings, the !ario)s aspects o" these settings, and the$sel!es@* 3his +)estion wo)ld e directed toward indi!id)al de"initions or perspecti!es and gro)p de"initions or shared perspecti!es and co)ld lead to a typology o" s) 8ects ased on how they !iew their world# *What is the process y which de"initions de!elop and change@* (ne wo)ld e1plore actors2 ackgro)nds and positions, o 8ects /incl)ding other people0 present in a setting, and co$$)nications etween actors# *What is the relationship etween the !ario)s de"initions held y di""erent s) 8ects@* 3his +)estion wo)ld allow one to e1a$ine the asis o" consens)s or con"lict in a setting# *What is the relationship etween actors2 perspecti!es and their eha!ior@* 3he ethno$ethodologist, as yo) $ay recall, is interested in how $eanings are acco$plished in speci"ic sit)ations# 3he ethno$ethodologist wo)ld th)s ask +)estions o" the "ollowing nat)re: *What are the a stract $eanings o" di""erent actions@* (ne wo)ld e1a$ine how people think and speak a o)t actions apart "ro$ the sit)ations in which those actions occ)r# *What are the speci"ic $eanings o" di""erent actions in speci"ic sit)ations@* *What are the co$$onsense ass)$ptions held y actors@* Yo) wo)ld e1plore what people take "or granted in their e!eryday li!es# *'ow do actors acco)nt "or, or e1plain, their actions@* (ne wo)ld try to see how people apply a stract $eanings in a$ ig)o)s sit)ations# In short, how do people $ake their actions appear orderly, rational, and in accordance with the r)les@ 3hese are, o" co)rse, only two o" the $any possi le theoretical perspecti!es one $ight )se to interpret one2s "indings# 4se the perspecti!e or approach $ost co$pati le with yo)r interests and theoretical ass)$ptions# '%R(I)* 'IT" "-P%T"#S#S 5"ter the researcher has "or$)lated hypotheses, he or she t)rns to an analysis o" the e1tent to which they are s)pported y data and the conditions )nder which they hold tr)e# In the co)rse o" this process, he or she $odi"ies or con!erges certain hypotheses and discards or de!elops others# 3he o ser!er constr)cts a new coding sche$e once she or he has "or$)lated asic hypotheses# 'e or she assigns a n)$ er to each hypothesis and codes and sorts his or her data /state$ents, eha!ior, ( ser!er2s <o$$ents, and written doc)$ents0 in the $anner descri ed a o!e# 3he e1act n)$ er o" hypotheses the researcher seeks to analy%e will o" co)rse, depend )pon the +)ality and +)antity o" the data and his or her own interests and goals# 3he o ser!er in the 8o training progra$ st)dy coded his data into o!er 15A categories# 3he researcher at the state instit)tion, on the other hand, analy%ed his data according to appro1i$ately 5A coding categories# 3his coding sche$e incl)ded s)ch hypotheses as *attendants distr)st pro"essionals at the instit)tion*B *attendants disco)nt IC as an indicator o" intelligence*B and *cleanliness and order, $ini$i%ing work, and controlling residents2 eha!ior are attendants2 do$inant concerns in their work#* Note that so$e o" the researcher2s hypotheses $ay s) s)$e others# (ne co)ld arg)e, "or e1a$ple, that attendants2 distr)st o" IC ste$s "ro$ their distr)st o" pro"essionals# 3he o ser!er2s coding categories, then, will not necessarily e $)t)ally e1cl)si!e# Showing the relationship etween hypotheses in order to achie!e an integrated pict)re or $odel is yo)r )lti$ate goal# 4nlike $any other researchers who enlist *hired hands* to code their data, participant observers typically code and analyze their own data "or se!eral reasons#D In the "irst place, hypothesis creation is a ne!erending process in participant o ser!ation research# 5s o ser!ers code their data they gain an e!en deeper )nderstanding o" the setting they ha!e researched# In the second place, participant o ser!ers $)st call )pon their own e1perience and 8)dg$ent to $ake sense o)t o" data which is a$ ig)o)s and s) 8ect to !aried interpretations# <oding, then, entails "ar $ore than the ro)tine assign$ent o" n)$ ers to *3r)eE;alse,* *5greeE >isagree* responses on a s)r!ey +)estionnaire# 5nd while o ser!ers the$sel!es will "ace a$ ig)ity when they atte$pt to analy%e data, they can e aware o" and take into acco)nt this a$ ig)ity when they report their "indings# In any case, the participant observer should have some sense of the criteria he or she will use to code certain statements and behavior as supportive or nonsupportive of some hypotheses and not of others # 'e or she will $ake )se o" s)ch criteria and co$$onsense ass)$ptions anyway, 7 and speci"ying the$ $akes the$ consistent and open to his or her scr)tiny and that o" others# Fet )s take the hypothesis

*attendants disco)nt IC as an indicator o" intelligence#* 3he researcher in the state instit)tion st)dy accepted data o" the "ollowing nat)re as s)pporti!e o" this hypothesis: direct state$ents /*Yo) can2t tr)st IC,*B *IC don2t $ean shit#*0B sarcastic rhetorical +)estions /*5nd yo) $ean to tell $e that his IC is )nder -A@*0B and dog$atic state$ents $ade in re"erence to how to )nderstand residents2 eha!ior /*Yo) can2t )nderstand 2e$ )nless yo)2re )p here all the ti$e#*0# <on!ersely, state$ents and eha!ior o" the "ollowing nat)re were coded as nons)pporti!e: direct state$ents /*Yo) can always know what they2ll do i" yo) know their IC#*0B e1planations o" residents2 eha!ior ased on IC /*(h, the reason he does that is that his IC is only -A#*0B e1planations o" attendants2 eha!ior toward residents ased on IC /*We can do that to hi$ 2c)% his IC is only 15#*0B and atte$pts to ascertain residents2 IC e"ore taking certain actions /*I don2t know i" trying to teach hi$ anything will do any good# Fet $e check his IC#*0# ( ser!ers will not, o" co)rse, know which criteria are rele!ant )ntil they ha!e eco$e s)""iciently "a$iliar with the contents o" their "ield notes# 5nd, in so$e instances, so$e criteria will e deter$ined a"ter they ha!e already eg)n to code their data# What is )lti$ately i$portant is "or researchers to e a le to )nderstand their rationale "or ha!ing coded certain data in one way and not another at the concl)sion o" the analysis stage o" their st)dies# (n the "ollowing pages, we will disc)ss so$e o" the ways in which participant o ser!ers can analy%e and increase their )nderstanding o" their data# 5ccept the$ "or what they are: help")l de!ices# 4se the$ i" and when they are appropriate and "eel "ree to create yo)r own# 1# o the data support the hypothesis! (nce the o ser!er has coded and sorted the data y hypothesis he or she sho)ld e1a$ine the e1tent to which the ite$s in each coded category s)pport the respecti!e hypothesis# 3his process entails nothing $ore than $aking a distinction etween and co$parison o" s)pporti!e /positi!e0 and nons)pporti!e /negati!e0 ite$s# (ne wo)ld, o" co)rse, e1pect to "ind a relati!ely greater n)$ er o" s)pporti!e ite$s than nons)pporti!e ite$s# Yet the e1istence o" non&s)pporti!e ite$s is not in and o" itsel" s)""icient ca)se to discard an hypothesis# G In !iew o" the "act that coding proced)res and criteria are y nat)re i$precise and i$pressionistic, it is not )nreasona le to learn that so$e ite$s contradict others# ,oreo!er, people are o"ten inconsistent in what they say and what they do as they $o!e "ro$ one sit)ation to another# In any case, the o ser!er sho)ld care")lly scr)tini%e all nons)pporti!e ite$s# 'e or she $ay "ind that what appears to e a contradiction is not one at all# 3he researcher at the state instit)tion "or$)lated one hypothesis that in e""ect stated that attendants !iewed residents as total inco$petents# 'e s) se+)ently "o)nd that this !iew was only e1pressed in certain circ)$stances: when the attendants so)ght to acco)nt "or the lack o" progra$$ing they o""ered residents# 3his reali%ation led to the generation o" an alternati!e hypothesis, one that paid proper attention to the sit)ational nat)re o" attendants2 perspecti!es# While certain researchers ha!e de!eloped statistical operations that the o ser!er can )se on data, the o ser!er $)st always depend )pon his or her indi!id)al 8)dg$ent and a ility to acco)nt "or the e1istence o" inconsistencies in order to concl)de that a speci"ic hypothesis is s)pported y the data# Herhaps the only !alid ad!ice to o""er is that yo) sho)ld e a le to state yo)r degree o" con"idence in each hypothesis when yo) write )p yo)r "indings# 5nd in the e!ent that yo) ha!e little con"idence in a partic)lar hypothesis don2t e a"raid to discard it co$pletely# -# "olicited or unsolicited statements! 5ltho)gh o ser!ers sho)ld allow their s) 8ects to !oice their own concerns, they $)st in the co)rse o" their st)dies pro e certain areas and ask certain +)estions in order to o tain in"or$ation# .y doing so, they will in so$e instances alert s) 8ects to their position and elicit what they think they want to hear or what will p)t the$ in a "a!ora le light# In others they will o tain answers to +)estions which are not on s) 8ects2 $inds and which are irrele!ant to their act)al concerns# 3here"ore, it is i$portant that the o ser!er scr)tini%e and co$pare solicited state$ents, responses to +)estions or re$arks, with )nsolicited, or !ol)nteered, state$ents#9 5"ter the ite$s in each coded category ha!e een sorted according to whether or not they s)pport the respecti!e hypothesis, they sho)ld e sorted according to whether or not they were solicited# 1A (" co)rse, so$e ite$s, s)ch as descriptions o" eha!ior, will not e rele!ant and can e p)t aside# >i""erent proportions o" solicited to )nsolicited state$ents will re+)ire di""erent interpretations# (ne $ight ha!e to $odi"y an hypothesis i" all o" the s)pporti!e ite$s had een solicited or i" solicited and )nsolicited state$ents contradicted each other# While solicited and )nsolicited state$ents sho)ld e treated di""erently, they are e+)ally !al)a le# 3hey lend insight into how people !iew things di""erent sit)ations#

Yo) sho)ld also e1a$ine yo)r data "or the di""erent kinds o" +)estions in relation to a speci"ic topic that e!oked di""erent responses# Yo) $ay "ind that one type o" +)estion elicited one type o" answer and that another type o" +)estion elicited so$ething di""erent# 6# #bserver$s influence on the setting# ?esearchers cannot help )t in"l)ence the settings they o ser!e#11 =specially d)ring the "irst days in the "ield s) 8ects are arti"icial in $any o" their actions# 3hey re$ain ca)tio)s in their words and deeds and $ay e!en try to *p)t the o ser!er on#* In the state instit)tion st)dy, "or e1a$ple, one attendant ad$itted the "ollowing to the o ser!er at the concl)sion o" his "irst day o" o ser!ation:
Yea, we didn2t do a lot o" things today that we )s)ally do# Fike i" yo) wasn2t here we wo)lda snitched so$e "ood at dinner and $ay e hit a co)ple o" 2e$ aro)nd# See, e"ore we didn2t know yo) was an ok g)y#

Fater in the st)dy another attendant reported the "ollowing to the o ser!er:
We )s)ally know when so$eone2s co$in2&an ho)r or so e"orehand# 3hey let )s know when so$eone2s co$in2 so we can p)t so$e clothes on 2e$& $ake s)re they2re not are&assed or 8erkin2 o"" when so$eone co$es )p here# I had so$e !isitors )p here today# # # &# 3hey asked $e a )nch o" +)estions# I answered e$, )t I wasn2t gonna o!erdo it# Yo) know@ I wasn2t gonna tell 2e$ e!erything#

Heople, it wo)ld see$, atte$pt to present the$sel!es well e"ore strangers# 5nd as new "aces eco$e "a$iliar ones, e!eryone2s eha!ior changes# When analy%ing data, the researcher $)st consider the e""ect his or her presence had on the setting# Was the at$osphere arti"icial when &he or she "irst entered the "ield@ >id it ret)rn to nor$al at so$e point in ti$e@ 'ow did her or his eha!ior and the s) 8ects2 perception change their eha!ior@ Yo) sho)ld, i" yo) can, list the stages o" yo)r research in ter$s o" the degree to which yo) were accepted y s) 8ects#1- ;or e1a$ple, the o ser!er at the state instit)tion noted "o)r te$poral stages according to his rapport with and acceptance y the attendants: /10 ()tsider: treated ca)tio)slyB /-0 ;re+)ent Iisitor: attendants spoke "reely, )t re$ained g)arded in $)ch o" their eha!iorB /60 <as)al Harticipant: attendants spoke and acted "reelyB and /70 5ccepted Harticipant: accepted y attendants and identi"ied as *one o" their own#* While s)ch sche$es are ad$ittedly arti"icial and dependent )pon the o ser!er2s selecti!e perception, they can e )sed to pro!ide an added check on data# (nce yo) ha!e disting)ished these stages in yo)r own st)dy, yo) can sort the ite$s in each coded category according to the stage o" the research at which they were recorded# 3he nat)re o" yo)r data is likely to ha!e changed as yo) $o!ed "ro$ one stage to another# Yo) $ay e!en e a le to concl)de that contradictory state$ents can e e1plained y yo)r in"l)ence on the setting# 5gain, practically all data, no $atter how *arti"icial,* are !al)a le# What is i$portant is to e a le to interpret and )nderstand the$ in conte1t# 7# %n the presence of whom! J)st as the o ser!er in"l)ences what a s) 8ect $ay say or do, so too do other participants o" the setting# Yo) sho)ld e alert to the di""erences etween what s) 8ects say and do when they are alone and when they are in the presence o" others# 16 =ach category sho)ld e sorted according to this aspect# (ne $ight "ind, "or e1a$ple, that teachers e1press di""erent tho)ghts on the !al)e o" a)dio!is)al e+)ip$ent in the presence o" school ad$inistrators or *instr)ctional technologists* than in the presence o" other teachers# (r one $ight "ind that they say one thing when alone and +)ite another when they are with others# 5# irect statement or indirect inference! ( ser!ers code ite$s that oth directly and indirectly s)pport or contradict their hypotheses# 3hey wo)ld e wise to care")lly analy%e and s)$$ari%e oth the direct and indirect e!idence in the intensi!e analysis stage o" their research# In regard to the hypothesis *control is a do$inant concern a$ong attendants,* the o ser!er in the state instit)tion st)dy coded ite$s that were direct /*Yo) can2t gi!e the$ e!erything they want or yo) won2t e a le to control the$#*0 and indirect /residents "orced to sit +)ietly thro)gho)t the day0# I" he had "o)nd that direct state$ents s)pported the hypothesis )t that indirect state$ents and eha!ior did not, he wo)ld ha!e a !ariety o" options open to hi$# 'e co)ld discard the hypothesisB he co)ld concl)de that attendants say one thing and do anotherB or he co)ld decide to ree!al)ate the criteria he )sed to code his data# ;or e1a$ple, he $ight consider the possi ility that certain o ser!ations were related to so$ething other than control or

that when attendants speak o" *control* they $ean so$ething other than what the o ser!er )nderstands y that word# (ne wo)ld certainly hope that the hypotheses wo)ld e s)pported in a !ariety o" ways# When that s)pport is not there, the o ser!er $)st go o!er his or her data in depth again in an atte$pt to seek a new )nderstanding# D# &ho said and did what! 3he o ser!er will so$eti$es $ake generali%ations a o)t all s) 8ects on the asis o" what one or a "ew o" the$ said or did# ;or e1a$ple, a *key in"or$ant* $ay speak so $)ch a o)t a certain topic that it appears thro)gho)t the notes despite the "act that no one else addressed it# ;or this reason, the researcher sho)ld pay special attention to the so)rce o" the data on which he or she ases concl)sions# Sort the data "or each hypothesis according to indi!id)al s) 8ects or sets o" s) 8ects i" yo) ha!e o ser!ed di""erent gro)ps or in di""erent settings# I" yo) learn that all s) 8ects e1press a certain perspecti!e or do things the sa$e way, "ine# I" not, yo) can spec)late on the reasons why so$e are di""erent or at least +)ali"y yo)r "indings with *so$e o" the s) 8ects* or *$ost o" the s) 8ects#* 7# &ere the sub'ects telling the truth! 3he participant o ser!er is o"ten "aced with the possi ility that his or her s) 8ects $ay not ha!e told the tr)th when they related their "eelings or reported past incidents# 17 'e or she $ay "ind that s) 8ects contradict the$sel!es "ro$ one day to the ne1t# In the research cond)cted at the state instit)tion, "or e1a$ple, an attendant co)ld on one occasion state, *3hese here are all low grades,* and on another, *Yea, they2re d)$ like a "o1#* Yet the "act that people do not always *tell the tr)th* does not $ean that their intention is to lie, i" y lying we $ean conscio)s deception# 5s pre!io)sly e$phasi%ed, people are inconsistent# 3heir perspecti!es, "eelings, and elie"s change as they $o!e "ro$ one sit)ation to another# =!en *o 8ecti!e* incidents are percei!ed selecti!ely# 3h)s, >ean and Whyte note, "(he informant$s statement represents merely the perception of the informant) filtered and modified by his cognitive and emotional reactions and reported through his personal verbal usages*"15 5ccept as a ")nda$ental pre$ise the concept that there is no tr)th, only perspecti!es and deceptions# (nce yo) ha!e identi"ied a decepti!e state$ent as s)ch y an int)iti!e process that entails an e1a$ination o" a s) 8ect2s $oti!ations, yo) sho)ld separate that state$ent "ro$ the rest o" yo)r data and analy%e it as an additional key "or )nderstanding what is i$portant in the eyes o" yo)r s) 8ects# When it is clear that there has een a deli erate atte$pt to decei!e, it is also clear that the s) 8ect $atter o" that deception is i$portant in a way that other s) 8ect $atter is not# %BS#R/#R BIAS 5n iss)e that is o"ten raised in regard to participant o ser!ation research is whether the researcher has allowed his or her own iases to color the "indings# 1D 3o an e1tent, the o ser!er cannot a!oid ias# Since data, incl)ding that collected y +)antitati!e $ethods, are ne!er sel"&e1planatory, the researcher $)st necessarily draw )pon his or her own knowledge and e1perience to $ake sense o)t o" what he or she has recorded# 5ltho)gh a certain a$o)nt o" ias is )na!oida le, there are se!eral ways in which the researcher can $ini$i%e its e""ects# So$e researchers $aintain a record o" oth their own iases and the processes y which they reach their concl)sions thro)gho)t the co)rse o" their st)dies# 3his record ena les the$ to disco)nt their "indings: to )nderstand the$ in conte1t#17 Stronger sa"eg)ards $ay e "o)nd in the )se o" tea$s o" o ser!ers to cond)ct research or in the )se o" colleag)es to read and co$$ent on "ield notes and research reports# In any case, the researcher sho)ld ask her& or hi$sel" a series o" +)estions as he or she concl)des the st)dy# 'as he or she presented likea le s) 8ects in a "a!ora le light and )nlika le s) 8ects in an )n"a!ora le one@ 'as she or he o!eridenti"ied with the s) 8ects2 !iew o" the world@ 1G (r has he or she s$)gly dis$issed s) 8ects2 perspecti!es witho)t "irst ha!ing )nderstood the$@ In short, an )nderstanding o" one2s data re+)ires so$e )nderstanding o" one2s perspecti!es, logic, and ass)$ptions# J J J

3he preceding three chapters ha!e een concerned with the three stages o" participant o ser!ation research: pre&"ield work, work in the "ield, and working with data# We ha!e tried to e1pose the reader to the

pro le$s and pro$ises o" participant o ser!ation# 'ope")lly, we ha!e instilled in the reader, and especially the no!ice, an e1cite$ent "or this type o" research and a desire to *go to the people#* In the re$ainder o" Hart (ne, we "oc)s o)r attention on other +)alitati!e research $ethods# 3he ne1t chapter looks at personal doc)$ents and )nstr)ct)red inter!iewing# 3hose who are speci"ically interested in participant o ser!ation are enco)raged to skip to Hart 3wo, and partic)larly to <hapter 7, which deals with the presentation o" "indings, e"ore $o!ing to <hapters 5 and D# ;ollowing this order will a!oid a reak in contin)ity and allow the reader to "ollow the research process "ro$ the initial conception o" a participant o ser!ation pro8ect to the "inal research report# )%T#S 1# ;or acco)nts o" how di""erent researchers ha!e analy%ed their data, see ;red >a!is, *Stories and sociology,* 4r an Fi"e and <)lt)re 6 /(cto er0: 61A&61D, 1977B Jac+)eline H# Wise$an, *3he research we ,* 4r an Fi"e and <)lt)re 6 /(cto er0: 617&6-G, 1977B Sherri <a!an, *Seeing social str)ct)re in a r)ral setting,* 4r an Fi"e and <)lt)re 6 /(cto er0: 6-9&67D, 1977B and J)li)s 5# ?oth, *3)rning ad!ersity to acco)nt,* 4r an Fi"e and <)lt)re 6 /(cto er0: 677&6D1, 1977# -# See .arney Klaser and 5nselrn Stra)ss, 3he >isco!ery o" Kro)nded 3heory: Strategies "or C)alitati!e ?esearch /<hicago: 5ldine, 19D70# 5lso see .arney Klaser, *3he constant co$parati!e $ethod o" +)alitati!e analysis,* Social Hro le$s, LII: 76D&775, 19D5# 6# See 5# <irco)rel, ,ethod and ,eas)re$ent in Sociology /New York: ;ree Hress, 19D70# 7# See .lanche Keer, *;irst days in the "ield,* in Hhilip 'a$$ond /=d#0, Sociologists at Work /New York: .asic .ooks, 19D70# 5# See Willia$ ;oote Whyte, Street <orner Society /<hicago: 4ni!ersity o" <hicago Hress, 1955, -nd ed#0# D# J)li)s ?oth, *'ired hand research,* 3he 5$erican Sociologist /5)g)st0: pp# 19A&19D, 19DD# 'arold Kar"inkel, St)dies in =thno$ethodology /=nglewood <li""s, N# J#: Hrentice&'all, 19D70, pp# 1G&-7, o""ers $any insights into general pro le$s in!ol!ed in coding proced)res# 7# See 'oward S# .ecker et al#, ,aking the Krade: 3he 5cade$ic Side o" <ollege Fi"e /New York: Wiley, 19DG0, pp# 1-1&1-G# G# Not all +)alitati!e $ethodologists wo)ld agree with this state$ent# ;or e1a$ple, see the disc)ssion o" *5nalytic Ind)ction* y ;lorian Mnaniecki, 3he ,ethod o" Sociology /New York: ;arrar and ?inehart, 19670B W# S# ?o inson, *3he logical str)ct)re o" analytic ind)ction,* 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LII: G1-&G1G, 1951B 5l"red ?# Findes$ith, S# Nirson Wein erg, and W# S# ?o inson, *3wo co$$ents and re8oinder to 23he logical str)ct)re o" analytic ind)ction,2 * 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LIII: 79-&797, 195-B and ?alph '# 3)rner, *3he +)est "or )ni!ersals in sociological research,* 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LIIII: DA7&D11, 1956# 9# See 'oward S# .ecker, *Hro le$s o" in"erence and proo" in participant o ser!ation,* 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LLIII: D5-&DDA, 195GB and 'oward S# .ecker et al#, .oys in White /<hicago: 4ni!ersity o" <hicago Hress, 19D10# We ha!e drawn hea!ily "ro$ the "ine work o" .ecker and his colleag)es in this section# 5lso see Keorge J# ,c<all, *>ata +)ality control in participant o ser!ation,* in Keorge J# ,c<all and J# F# Si$$ons, Iss)es in Harticipant ( ser!ation: 5 3e1t and ?eader /?eading, ,ass#: 5ddison&Wesley, 19D90, pp# 1-G &171# 1A# ;or clari"ication, yo) $ay want to s)$$ari%e yo)r data in ta le "or$# 11# See <hris 5rgyris, *>iagnosing de"enses against the o)tsider,* Jo)rnal o" Social Iss)es, IIII: -7&67, 195-B ,orris S# and <harlotte Kreen Schwart%, *Hro le$s in participant o ser!ation,* 5$erican 8o)rnal o" Sociology, l#L: 676&657, 1955B and 5rth)r1 J# Iidich, *Harticipant o ser!ation and the collection and interpretation o" data,* 5$erican Jo)rnal o" Sociology, FL: 657&6DA, 1955# 1-# See ?o ert Janes, *5 note on phases o" the co$$)nity role o" the participant o ser!er,* 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LLII: 77D&75A, 19D1B and Se!eryn 3# .r)yn, 3he ')$an Herspecti!e in Sociology: 3he ,ethodology o" Harticipant ( ser!ation /=nglewood <li""s, N# J#: Hrentice&'all, 19DD0, pp# -AD&-A7# 16# See .ecker, *Hro le$s o" in"erence and proo",* and .ecker et al#, .oys in White# 3here is $assi!e e!idence that the setting and the presence o" di""erent people $ake !ast di""erences in what people say and do# See Irwin >e)tscher, What We SayEWhat We >o /Klen!iew, 111#: Scott, ;ores$an, 19760#

17# See John H# >ean and Willia$ ;oote Whyte, * 2'ow do yo) know i" the in"or$ant is telling the tr)th,2 * ')$an (rgani%ation, LIII no# -: 67&6G, 195G# 5lso see ,c<all and Si$$ons, Harticipant ( ser!ation, pp# 117&115, "or a s)$$ary o" Iidich and .ens$an2s points# 15# >ean and Whyte, *'ow do yo) know,* p# 67# 1D# See Iidich, *Harticipant o ser!ation#* 17# >e)tscher, What We Say, pp# 5&D# 1G# See S# ,# ,iller, *3he participant o ser!er and 2o!er&rapport,2 * 5$erican Sociological ?e!iew, LIII: 97&99, 195-B 'er ert J# <ans, 3he 4r an Iillagers /New York: ;ree Hress, 19D-0, pp# 66D&67DB .r)yn, ')$an Herspecti!e, pp# --9&-6AB and ,c<all, *>ata +)ality control,* pp# 16-&166#