Examine the reasons why some sociologists choose not to use overt observation when conducting research

There are several types of observation to distinguish between. Firstly, non-participation observation where the researcher simply observes the group or event without taking part in it, for example, using a two-way mirror to observe children playing with toys. There is also participant observation where the researcher actually takes part in the event or the everyday life of the group while observing it. Secondly there is overt observation, in which the researcher makes their true identity known to those being studied and the sociologists is open about what they are doing. On the other hand, there is covert observation in which the study is carried out under cover. The researcher’s real identity and purpose are kept concealed from the group being studied. The researcher takes on a false identity and role, usually posing as a genuine member of the group.

Sociologists face two main issues when conducting a participant observation study; getting in, staying in and getting out of the group being studied and whether to use covert or overt observation. To do a study, the sociologists needs to first gain entry to a group and some groups are easier to enter than others, for example, joining a football crowd is likely to be easier than joining a criminal gang. Making the initial contact with the group may depend on personal skills, having the right connections or even by pure chance. Ned Polsky (1971), who was a good pool player himself, found his skill useful in gaining entry to the world of the poolroom hustler. James Patrick (1973) was able to join a Glasgow gang because he looked quite young and knew one of its members from having taught him in an approved school. Eileen Fairhurst (1977) found herself hospitalised by back trouble and used the opportunity to conduct a study on being a patient.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both overt and covert observation. With overt observation, there are several advantages, but these advantages are mainly the avoidance of ethical issues such as obtaining information through deceit and it allows the researcher to openly ask naive questions and take notes. However, overt observation has two major disadvantages being that a group may refuse the researcher permission to observe them, or may prevent them from seeing everything. For example, two of the Amsterdam police officers that Punch had carried out his research with later told him, ‘When you were with us, we only let you see what we wanted you to see’. It also risks creating the Hawthorne Effect, where those who know they are being observed begin to behave differently as a result. These two factors severely undermine the validity of the data.

Because of these disadvantages, some sociologists choose to carry out covert observation. However. the use of covert observation raises several practical and ethical issues. The main practical advantage of covert observation is that it reduces the risk of altering people’s behaviour, and sometimes it is the only way to obtain valid information. This is particularly true where people are engaged in activities that they would rather keep secret. As Laud Humphreys (1970), who studied gay men’s sexual encounters in public toilets, notes: ‘There is only one way to watch highly discreditable behaviour and that is to pretend to be in the same boat with those engaging in it.’ If they knew they were being observed, they would change or conceal their behaviour and so the main advantage of observation - that is preserves the naturalness of people’s behaviour - would be lost.

On the other hand, covert participant observation can pose practical problems. It requires the researcher to keep up an act, and may call for detailed knowledge of the group’s way of life even before joining it. There is always a risk of one’s cover being blown by even a trivial mistake. Patrick was almost found out when he bought his suit with cash instead of credit and when he fastened the middle button of his jacket rather than the top one - things the gang would have never done. This is likely to bring the research to an abrupt end and may, in the case of some criminal groups, lead to physical harm. The sociologist also cannot usually take notes openly and must rely on memory and the opportunity to write them in secret. Both Leon Festinger et al (1956), studying a religious sect that had predicted the imminent end of the world, and Jason Ditton (1977), studying theft among bread delivery men, had to use toilets as a place for recording their observations. In Ditton’s case, this eventually aroused suspicion. The researcher also is unable to ask potentially important questions.

Covert participant observation also raises serious ethical issues for researchers. For example, with covert observation, it is impossible to gain informed consent from people without the researcher revealing their true identity and purpose. The researcher may also have to participate in immoral or illegal activities as part of their role.

In conclusion, although there many advantages and disadvantages to both covert and overt observation, when possible, the advantages of covert observation outweigh the disadvantages as the information obtained during the study is much more likely to be valid and reliable.