Journal of the Market Research Society, Jan 1993 v35 n1 p63(14)
Participant observation and the pursuit of truth: methodological and ethical
considerations. (includes reply) Marla Royne Stafford; Thomas F. Stafford.
Abstract: The methodological and moral issues concerning empirical data generated
from participant observation methods are analyzed to determine how accuracy and
reliability of results can be improved. Participant observation accounts for the activity
taking place plus systematic and random interference which would vary depending on
whether observation is covert or overt. As social scientists have previosly indicated,
observation affects the activity, thus covert operations may yield the more accurate
results. Covert operations can be used together with video recording devices to record the
process to enhance the accuracy of observation processes.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT Market Research Society (UK) 1993
Introduction
As qualitative research continues to gain popularity among consumer researchers,
participant observation emerges as a method of interest. Participant observation is ideally
suited for gaining an insider's perspective, while allowing the researcher to observe
surroundings and behaviour. As with any qualitative method, one must be concerned with
ensuring that the observations are truly representative of the individual or group being
studied. Further, are there 'better' ways of coming closer to that exact representation of
the specific phenomenon which, for lack of a better word, is herein called truth? Of equal
concern, in attempting to employ the most appropriate tactics, what ethical considerations
might arise? In short, how does one balance maintaining methodological precision with
ethical standards?
While this paper specifically investigates one particular method of qualitative research,
the viewpoint advanced is that a mixture of traditional quantitative measurement
philosophy with qualitative data-gathering methodology might result in more rigorous
qualitative research approaches which can still provide the richness of observation
without giving up the quest toward underlying 'truth.' The specific concern here is for the
value of information gathered in participant observation studies.
In recognising that one cannot, as a practical matter, separate the researcher's subjective
influences and interpretations from the attempt at objective interpretation of observations,
some have proposed philosophies that admit the subjectivity of the scientific process
(Hirschman 1986; Peter & Olson 1983; Lincoln & Guba 1985). However, according to
Kirk & Miller (1986), objectivity (as partitioned into its component attributes of
reliability and validity) is the essential basis of all good science, be it quantitative or
qualitative. Without objectivity, the only basis for accepting research findings would be
on the authority of the individual author of the research. Thus, it seems important to find
a way to introduce subjective agreement between participant observers into qualitative
research approaches. Doing so would introduce greater degrees of reliability to a research
paradigm that has traditionally favoured richness at the expense of reliability (Deshpande
1983).
Qualitatively-orientated philosophers suggest that objectivity has been sought but not
achieved. Qualitative research, in general, (Calder 1977) and, specifically, participant
observation (Bouchard 1976), are subject to inherent threats to validity. On the one hand,
since reliability and validity are so interrelated, increasing the former might also improve
the latter (Peter 1981). On the other hand, it is suggested that the inherent characteristics
of qualitative research are not conducive to reliability. While one might be able to
replicate data, interpretations of those data might differ. Sykes (1990) proposes an
exacting documentation process for observational naturalistic research, reasoning that
detailed documentation would enable other researchers to 'replicate' the findings of
particular studies, thereby solving, if only in part, the reliability problem.
It seems that there might be some advantage to be gained by integrating certain
approaches to 'truth' with some quantitative measurement philosophies for increasing
rigour in research. The goal here would be to increase the understanding of the
observations made in qualitative research, especially participant observation. To that end,
the purposes of this paper are to discuss: (1) the empirical concerns for the assessment of
'truth' in participant observation; (2) the various trade-offs, in terms of ethics and 'truth
value,' involved in the differing levels of participant observation; and (3) the use of
recording devices in participant observation as an aid to more accurately assessing 'truth'
and the ethical issues that arise from their use.
Participant observation and the 'truth' of findings
Whilst traditional quantitative, research perspectives tend to favour measurement quality,
or what Deshpande (1983) terms reliability, and qualitative approaches tend to favour
richness of data, which is analogous to validity (Deshpande 1983), the norms for good
science also dictate that social science research should exhibit both qualities (Kirk &
Miller 1986; Hunt 1984).
However, if one accepts the suggestion to mix methods from both qualitative and
quantitative paradigms (Bouchard 1976; Deshpande 1983), then it appears that one of the
most useful concepts that could be brought to qualitative methodology is that of
measurement theory, as outlined by Churchill (1979). In relating his paradigm for better
measures of marketing constructs, Churchill offers the following conceptualisation of the
components of observation:
!X.sub.O^ = !X.sub.T^ + !X.sub.S^ + !X.sub.R^
The meaning of this model is simple: what we observe is a combination of the 'true'
phenomenon actually taking place, plus a combination of systematic and random
interference (ie, error) with our attempts to observe the phenomenon. The significance of
this basic conceptualisation of the process of measurement is in the deliberate and
specific recognition of interfering factors. This view is not incompatible with the
qualitative approach. While those who advocate qualitative methods might argue with the
ultimate nature of 'truth,' they, too, concede that errors are inherent in observations (Hunt
1984).
By the recognition of inherent error, one is forced specifically to recognise the factors
which intrude upon observational accuracy, rather than ignoring them and hoping that
they will simply go away. Some qualitative scientists, in proposing that truth is
situational and contextual, could fall into the trap of thinking that one can never begin to
understand a specific phenomenon at a more basic, 'true' level. In addition, it is possible
that by relying on subjective interpretation alone, and ignoring the inherent nature of
error, qualitative scientists could be greatly increasing the !X.sub.s^ (systematic error or
bias) component of measurement in their studies. This could happen when researchers
allow personal beliefs and individual biases to intrude upon what should rightly be a
purely objective process of data gathering and interpretation.
Very simply, with qualitative methods such as participant observation, it is impossible on
a practical level to separate the gathering of data from their interpretation. As such, the
danger of bias exists without sufficient checks on interpretation. What value does biased
observation have if scientists fail to recognise and attempt to account for that bias? Is this
'truth'? Probably not, even if consensus can be built around the biased observations.
As previously noted, reliability is a weak element in qualitative research; it is a trade-off
for the richness of data obtained. In participant observation, the observer becomes the
instrument. The ability of the observer consistently to observe and interpret phenomena,
or to agree with other observers about those phenomena, is the key to better levels of
reliability in participant observation, and through this, a better understanding of the
phenomena being studied. Truth may depend on the situation or context, but this does not
necessarily mean that a better understanding or a more accurate approximation of 'the
truth' cannot be shared by several similarly trained observers of the same specific
phenomenon. Jorgensen (1989) indicates that the use of multiple observers together with
the ability to independently replicate the study and verify procedures can increase
'dependability' and 'trustworthiness' of participant observation. Similarly, Sykes (1990)
observes that 'consultative validity' can be achieved by involving other investigators in
the interpretation of observational findings. Similarly trained scientists should arrive at
equivalent interpretations and thereby increase one's confidence in the 'truth' of what they
have seen.
It is worth considering the possibility that methods which can aid in the 'replication' of
qualitative observations and interpretations of phenomena can contribute greatly to the
'truth value' of research findings in participant observation. With the introduction of
greater levels of reliability through the process of independent verification, one
component in the Churchill (1979) model for better measures is bolstered: reliability in
measurement decreases random error, subsequently increasing the accuracy of the
observation. An increase in the reliability of observational interpretations also increases
validity, bringing one closer to an understanding of the 'true' phenomena of study.
There might also be specific methods one can consider for control of Churchill's other
error component. Systematic variation relates to bias factors introduced either by the
subjects' reactions to the presence of the researcher or the researcher's interpretation of
the phenomenon under study. These issues are equally important and will be addressed
below.
Overt vs covert participant observation
Overall, participant observation allows for two major categories of research: overt and
covert. When the researcher openly requests permission to observe a situation, and plans
to make his or her identity, objectives, and intentions known, the research is considered
overt. Overt research is generally considered ethically acceptable, but it is also considered
obtrusive, leading to two problems: (1) the researcher may be refused access, causing
subsequent research attempts to be denied; or (2) even if access is granted, subjects may
react to the researcher's presence. As the latter is of most concern here, discussion will
centre on this issue.
The effects of observation on subjects
Numerous social scientists have recognised that a primary problem in overt research is
'reactivity,' or subjects' reactions to the knowledge that they are being observed
(Bouchard 1976; Kidder, Judd & Smith 1986; Neale & Liebert 1980; Schuler 1982;
Kazdin 1982). Neale & Liebert (1980) assert that the act of observation itself may
produce changes in the phenomenon being studied and that this problem is hardly unique
in social science research. They state:
"the presence of such reactions may render the obtained results unrepresentative of the
natural situation in which the investigator is ultimately interested....any such situation
may be referred to as a reactive arrangement." (Neale & Liebert 1980, p 44)
The effects of reaction to observation are particularly well-illustrated by the Hawthorne
Studies. During the late 1920s and early 1930s, employees at the Hawthorne plant of the
Western Electric Company were observed in a study examining worker productivity.
Various treatments were introduced into working conditions (eg lighting changes, work
hour changes). No matter which treatment was employed, worker productivity increased
(Neale & Liebert 1980). Even the control groups, who received no treatment at all,
experienced an increase in productivity (Griffin 1987). This increase in performance due
to one's knowledge of being observed became known as the Hawthorne Effect.
This reaction effect can occur when any aspect of the investigation causes the subject to
act upon what he or she believes is expected or desired of him or her. In short, bias may
result if the true purpose of the research is discovered or if it becomes known that
researchers are making observations. This bias corresponds to the systematic error
identified in Churchill's (1979) model of the components of observation.
Kazdin (1982) states that direct observation has its own source of bias, and Robson &
Wardle (1988) report that a comparison of two groups -- one observed and one not
observed -- resulted in the observed group responding with answers that were shallower,
more compromised, more moderate and more superficial. In short, less 'truthful' answers
were obtained.
Neale & Liebert (1980) suggest that the researcher create a situation where subjects are
involved in everyday activities and are not aware that they are participants in a scientific
investigation. Schuler (1982) proposes complete participation, where the researcher
assumes a fictitious identity.
Such concerns with overt research techniques build a persuasive argument for the
utilisation of covert techniques, where the researcher becomes an 'insider.' In this case,
the true identity of the researcher remains concealed, and subjects believe the individual
to be a new member of their group. Since group members are unaware of being observed,
data generated by such methods are not contaminated by respondent reaction (Bouchard
1976). As a result, the truth value of the observations is greatly increased.
Ethical considerations
While covert techniques may lead to greater precision and greater truth value in
qualitative research, there are ethical concerns, particularly over the deceptive nature of
such approaches. As a result, many researchers question their use.
Deception in the use of covert techniques may take two forms: (1) the subjects being
studied are not informed of the research; and (2) because they are unaware of the
research, subjects are not asked for the traditionally required 'informed consent.' For these
reasons, some researchers maintain that covert strategies violate the rights of human
subjects, particularly the right to informed consent. However, since the notion of
informed consent was developed after the Nuremberg trials of war criminals charged with
carrying out extreme medical experiments during World War II, some researchers argue
that such consent is not applicable in observational research where the intent of the
researcher is not harmful (Bulmer 1982).
On the other hand, if deception is finally disclosed, future research in that setting or
environment may not be practical. Once the trust has been violated, it is usually
impossible to reinstate it. Furthermore, the reputation of colleagues in the field may be
placed at risk when such deceptive tactics are revealed. According to Homan & Bulmer
(1982), concerns over deception, violation of trust, and the possibility of damage to the
reputation of the discipline as a result of the use of these tactics is not limited to covert
methodology; they are probable hazards in overt investigations as well.
In advocating covert techniques, some researchers indicate that their use is essential to
acquiring truthful information (cf, Jorgensen 1989). Douglas (1976) believes that most
human research would be virtually meaningless if participant observers were required to
reveal their intentions and argues that covert research is a necessary, useful and revealing
method. Jorgensen (1989) notes that the limited access which accompanies more overt
tactics generally results in less valid and less reliable findings. For this reason, some
participant observers defend covert strategies, reasoning that there are important aspects
of human existence that cannot be known except from the inside. Denzin (Denzin &
Erikson 1982) argues that revealing the purpose of the investigation is unnecessary, and
informed consent need not be sought. He states that social scientists:
"have the right to make observations of anyone in any setting to the extent that he (sic)
does so with scientific intent and purpose. Any method that moves us toward
advancement of knowledge in science without unnecessary harm to subjects is justifiable.
The method must not damage credibility or reputation of the subject, and the researcher
must take pains to maintain the integrity and anonymity of the subjects." (Denzin &
Erikson 1982, p143)
Hodges (1988) outlines the conditions under which deception is acceptable. Though his
work was directed toward journalists, one can easily liken the work of participant
observers with that of reporters, since both are trying to explain a set of events. The first
condition is that the information sought must be of overriding public importance.
Secondly, there should be no reasonable likelihood that comparably accurate and reliable
information could be obtained as efficiently through conventional investigative
techniques. And thirdly, the proposed deception must not place innocent people at serious
risk.
The question of whether a particular research project is of overriding public importance is
admittedly subjective, but most researchers would certainly maintain the (subjective)
importance of their own work. With regard to the second requirement, the additional use
of covert documentation provides for more accurate (thus, more reliable and ultimately
more valid) information that can be obtained through participant observation, alone.
Thirdly, most ethical social scientists do not wish to harm subjects (Bulmer 1982;
Jorgensen 1989).
In marketing research, additional protection is provided by at least two professional codes
of ethics which strictly prohibit researchers from placing any individual at risk for
purposes of advancing the discipline; these ethical codes are published by the American
Marketing Association (1991) and The Market Research Society (1992). Of the two
organisations, only The Market Research Society has something substantial to say
specifically on participant observation. For example, covert participant observation
should only take place without participants' permission when they are in a situation where
they might reasonably expect to be seen or heard (Code of Conduct, Rule A14, The
Market Research Society, 1992). Standard and more general prohibitions against the
unauthorised release or misuse of data are provided by the American Marketing
Association and are echoed by The Market Research Society in Rule A2, which specifies
that outside access to research data be limited to cases of data processing and validity
checks.
Levels of participant observation: methodological give and take
While the two general types of participant observation include the polar views of overt
versus covert, one can look further and examine the various types or levels of
observation. These four levels range along a continuum of complete participant,
participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant and complete observer (Babbie 1986;
Bouchard 1976; Jorgensen 1989). Of these four, three are considered overt techniques,
and one, complete participation, is covert.
As mentioned above, a researcher employs complete participation by surreptitiously
becoming a member of the group under study. Although complete participation is
potentially the most deceptive level of participation, it has already been noted that such
research is generally pursued based on the belief that the data will be of greater value. If a
researcher remains a member of the group for an extended period of time, more accurate
and valuable information can be obtained (Bouchard 1976; Hirschman 1986). Not only
will subjects continue to exist and interact normally, but the researcher will be able to
achieve a deeper understanding of the meaning of the phenomena being studied. For
example, a consumer researcher studying buyer/seller relationships in a retail setting may
accept a position as a salesperson in order to become integrated into the group. Through
actual participation, the researcher can become part of the process and consequently,
achieve a deeper understanding of the buyer/seller relationship. In a similar vein, an
advertising agency developing a beer campaign might send an agency employee out to a
local pub to become friends with the patrons. By becoming a member of the group, the
employee can learn about aspects of beer consumption that he, otherwise, might never be
exposed to.
In the role of participant-as-observer, the researcher is able to admit the investigative role
(alleviating the problem of deception), while still maintaining membership in the group.
At this level, the researcher participates fully in all activities of the group. However,
subjects are completely aware of being under observation, so the danger exists that they
may shift their attention to the research project itself rather than focusing on their natural
behaviour; thus, the processes studied may not be typical (Babbie 1986). Such might be
the case in focus group research where a moderator is present with the group.
In the role of observer-as-participant, the researcher identifies himself and attempts to
interact with the group. He does not, however, participate in group activities, and he
relies mostly on informants. Such a method was utilised by Belk, Sherry & Wallendorf
(1988) in their naturalistic investigation of consumer behaviour at a swap meet. Here, the
researchers used overt observation as a means of understanding exchange at a unique
retail outlet.
Although observer as participant raises no ethical debate, little social interaction
transpires, because it is only through participation that the researcher is able to observe
and experience the meanings and interactions of people (Jorgensen 1989). In short, the
effect of a low level outsider on respondents is difficult to evaluate (Bouchard 1976).
How, then, can one truly assess the 'truth' of findings from such an approach?
The approaches of participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant do offer an
important advantage: the researcher is able to assume a 'stranger' role and ask questions
from a position of ignorance, a benefit not available when employing covert strategies
(Homan & Bulmer 1982). Nevertheless, the researcher may find subjects attempting to
answer 'correctly' or 'acceptably,' which can cause bias in their answers. One can, again,
question the 'truth' of these responses.
Complete observation, though included in most discussions of participant observation, is
simply watching or observing from a distance. The researcher is isolated completely from
the phenomena, allowed no direct contact or interplay. For example, complete
observation can be used for monitoring purchase behaviour in retail stores. Two
advantages of such an approach are a lack of ethical conflicts because observation is
occurring in a public place (Hirschman 1986), and few respondent reactions to the
research since an unobtrusive measure is being utilised. However, information obtained
from this approach lacks richness and details (Hirschman 1986; Babbie 1986) and has the
potential for misunderstanding and inaccuracy (Jorgensen 1989). Finally, although public
observation may be ethically sanctioned, subjects remain unaware that they are being
observed. So, the issue of informed consent arises once again, though without the
mitigating value that the quality of participant observation data might bring. The
requirements, discussed earlier, for informed consent or the 'reasonable expectation'
exception of Rule A15 (The Market Research Society Code of Conduct) are worth
remembering in this context.
Difficulty exists in attaining a balance between truth-value and ethics. If complete
participation is employed, truth and interpretive understanding may be achieved, but the
researcher might face ethical restrictions. This will of course depend on the
circumstances (recall again the 'reasonable expectation' requirements). Should
participant-as-observer be selected, the researcher may not face an ethical dilemma, but
reactions and bias may be generated, and deep understanding may not be achieved. In
observing as a participant, the researcher maybe relieved of ethical concerns, but might
fail to achieve shared meanings or a full understanding of the phenomenon of study.
Finally, as a complete observer, simple facts may be discerned, but no rich interpretation
may be realised.
If qualitative researchers are seeking to maximise 'truth value' in observational data, they
must not be afraid to consider the same rigorous precepts of traditional scientific inquiry.
If choosing the method that will provide the 'truest' assessment of the phenomenon in
question means selecting a covert strategy, naturalists must not be afraid of utilising this
method when the research problem demands it.
Recording devices: alternatives for record keeping
If one does justify the use of covert methods and selects this option in participant
observation, the subsequent issue of accurate documentation arises. Observations must be
recorded as quickly as possible and with the greatest possible detail (Jorgensen 1989) to
attain the desired level of 'truth.' If timely documentation is impossible, one questions
how much of the data can actually be remembered and transcribed later. Here, the
question of reliability in qualitative research arises again. And in this situation, the
random effects of memory decay might be analogous to random error.
Traditionally, pencil and paper have been used to record observations and interpretations.
However, in both overt and covert strategies, pencil and paper instruments become an
impediment. If the researcher assumes an insider role, group members might question his
or her visible note-taking, leading to suspicion and a lack of trust. For overt researchers,
subjects might become uncomfortable with the idea that their personal thoughts are being
transferred to a permanent record. It is possible that subjects will once again fail to
respond 'truthfully' for fear of reprisal or potential embarrassment.
An alternative to paper and pencil instruments is recording technology. Researchers have
long practiced the audio and video recording of focus group encounters as an aid to
documentation and interpretation of findings. The use of 'hidden camera' techniques in
the production of testimonial advertisements for consumer goods is also fairly familiar.
Now, audio and video recording devices are also generally advocated for use in field
research. Indeed, some researchers believe they are invaluable for this type of research, as
such equipment produces an accurate and detailed record (Albrecht 1985; Jorgensen
1989), which can serve as an aid to memory. Such was the case with Pennington's (1968)
research on the nature of the transaction between home appliance sellers and buyers.
Since the transaction was the unit of analysis, a complete and accurate record of the entire
interaction between buyer and seller was necessary. For this reason, the researcher
equipped the salespersons with a hidden miniature microphone to record the entire
transaction.
Tapes can also help to increase 'truth value' by increasing the accuracy and the ability to
draw generalisations from interpretative data. As discussed earlier, one part of systematic
error may arise from the researcher's interpretation of the phenomenon. With a permanent
record, the researcher's interpretation can be confirmed by other investigators who have
the opportunity to view/hear the record. This allows for the opportunity to identify, and
thereby, control or eliminate systematic error. For example, Olshavsky (1973) undertook
additional analysis of the buyer/seller transactional recordings produced by Pennington
(1968) in his study of retail appliance sales.
A lasting record also introduces consensus building techniques into participant
observation, increasing reliability through observer agreement over the phenomena and
interpretations. By controlling random and systematic sources of error in participant
observation, one can get closer to that desired truth. Therefore, the use of recording
devices as an enhancement to traditional memory and note-taking approaches to
documentation should help to achieve these ends.
When overt measures are employed, however, tape recorders and audio-visual equipment
often become obtrusive (Albrecht 1985; Jorgensen 1989). For example, one might
question the veracity of findings in research studies such as the ones by Stoneman &
Brody (1983) and Anderson et al (1986), where television viewing behaviour was
documented by video recording over time in the home. While the results of the studies
are certainly valuable and interesting, there is concern that the obvious presence of
scientific recording devices may have impacted subject behaviour. Similarly, Hill's
(1992) study on homelessness and consumer behaviour similar utilised tape recordings in
a situation where the researcher openly became the interviewer. Belk, Sherry &
Wallendorf (1988) offer yet another example involving overt recording wherein the
researchers actively integrated the video camera into the overt observer-as-participant
format of the research. Here, the researchers were present primarily as observers rather
than as complete participant observers, and as one example of possible subject reaction,
they noted that subjects would approach the researchers at the camera and ask to be
recorded. This reminds one of the rather contrived and exhibitionistic behaviour that
often occurs in the presence of live crowd-action news camera coverage.
In other words, just as one can expect subjects to react to the use of obtrusive measures,
subject reactions can also be expected to occur when recording devices are employed
(Albrecht 1985). These reactions can often act to contaminate the quality of the behaviour
under study. It is, therefore, suggested that the most accurate assessment of truth can be
obtained through surreptitious recording as an interpretational check (by providing a
record for others to interpret for consensus purposes), and as a source of documentation
to aid the participant observer in verifying his or her own subjective memory of the
events.
Ethical considerations
Just as covert surveillance is highly controversial, so is the use of concealed recorders.
Bouchard (1975) and Jorgensen (1989) acknowledge that the existence of smaller, minicassette recorders make them suitable for such work. Hodges (1988) and Albrecht (1985)
also recognise the need for recording devices with the latter pointing out:
"video methods not only capture the behavior representing social structures, but also
express the diversity and idiosyncracies of behavior...research becomes an interactive
process full of surprises when recording behavior with a camera. Videotape and film
bring sociologists back to the immediate observation of a rich puzzling world of human
behavior where unexpected and serendipitous acts are common. When moving pictures
are taken of people engaged in social activities, background behavior, the larger context,
and behavioral sequences are recorded as well." (Albrecht, 1985, p. 330-331.)
A unique perspective regarding documentation is offered by Cote & Foxman (1986), who
both participated in the Consumer Behavior Odyssey, a two-week journey across the
United States by consumer behaviourists employing qualitative methods. Prior to the
journey, it had been decided that recording without subjects' consent would be unethical
(Cote & Foxman 1986).
In response to that decision and in the evaluation of field notes from the qualitative
excursion, Cote & Foxman (1986) argue that ethical concerns arise no matter what type
of recording mechanism is used. In this view, both human and machine, alike, can be
considered recording devices, so the substantive issue becomes the documentation, with
or without permission. This puts an entirely different perspective on the argument, since
few researchers would prohibit scientific documentation of observations, covert or
otherwise.
There is little guidance on covert recording from professional societies on either side of
the Atlantic. Robson (1991) notes difficulties in interpreting The Market Research
Society code in several areas, including videotaping. However, the MRS explicitly
extends its 'reasonable expectation' ruling to audio or vide recordings taken without the
knowledge or consent of subjects in participant studies.
Rule A14 (The Market Research Society Code of Conduct 1992) specifically makes
provision for recording to take place "in a situation where he/she could reasonably expect
to be heard or seen," or "could reasonably expect" "recording to occur." The
determination of what exactly constitutes reasonable expectation for recording rightly
belongs to the Society, but in the absence of any clearer statement of what 'expectation of
recording' might mean, one could perhaps rely on the simpler 'expectation of being heard
or seen' provision, particularly in light of Cote & Foxman's (1986) distinction between
documentation and recording.
In this sense, one might conclude that subjects' behaviour which takes place in public,
semi-public, or other than personal and private settings (ie in front of witnesses) might be
acceptably and ethically recorded for analytical purposes. Such was the case with the
Pennington (1968), who utilised surreptitious recordings of selling interactions. This was
done to have verbatim records of the encounter for later in-depth analysis. Similarly, one
could argue that Belk, Sherry & Wallendorfs (1988) swap meet study would meet the
public setting requirement and would have benefited from covert recording.
However, The Market Research Society does prohibit access to data or identifying
information by parties other than those involved in processing those data, or those
involved in checking validity of the data (Rule A2). General and standard requirements
for the protection and security of data also would apply. Thus, Olshavsky's (1973) further
analysis of Pennington's (1968) recorded observational data would be an example of
acceptable use.
Legal considerations
If a researcher should choose to utilise surreptitious recording, he or she must clearly be
within the boundaries of the relevant laws. Both the American Marketing Association and
The Market Research Society indicate that their Codes of Conduct do not take
precedence over local laws. Laws vary from country to country and state to state;
consequently an analysis of the legalities of covert participation and surreptitious
recording is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say, however, that at least one
country (the United States) possesses a Federal Wiretap Statute which requires that only
one party to a wire or oral conversation must give consent for a recording to be made of
that conversation as long as the communication is not intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution (Francois 1990).
As of 1990, this law is upheld by all but 13 states, which require consent from both
parties (Francois 1990). On the other hand, Francois notes that eavesdropping -- the act of
a third party recording a conversation of others without their knowledge -- is expressly
forbidden in the US. Again, laws must be consulted.
Certainly, if surreptitious recording is illegal in the location where the research is being
conducted, it, obviously, is not an option. If, however, the one-party consent law is
observed, researchers might at least consider this option as an alternative method of
documentation to increase the reliability and, ultimately, the truth value, of the data
obtained.
On a practical level, another issue revolves around the status of activity performed in
public. For example, in American department stores one may expect with some certainty
to be recorded in any area where one can be seen by other members of the public, and
even in some areas where one would not expect it, such as dressing rooms. Of course,
this recording is done by store security to prevent shoplifting, but the substantive issue
remains: recording without the explicit permission of those being recorded does take
place. In this sense, people generally do not do anything in public that they would not
want others to see.
Conclusions
It is evident that ethical support for covert research and surreptitious recording is
available. Examination of two codes of ethics reveals that the use of such practices is not
prohibited. Although the decision to utilise such tactics is clearly left in the hands of the
individual researcher, the techniques are available, may present minimal ethical
paradoxes, and stand to enhance greatly the value of participant observation studies.
These practices can provide an avenue to increased agreement between observers on
interpretations of phenomena, as well as a highly accurate documentation method in
participant observation. As Gabriel (1990) notes, valid results are achieved not by the
method itself, but how well it is used.
The problem of replicating observational conclusions may be solved through the use of
recording technology for independent checks on interpretation. Following this course
should enhance the truth value of research by aiding in the control of the error
components that exist in measurement theory. Use of methodological tools such as covert
participant observation are all the more valuable to the discipline when it can be
demonstrated that observational interpretations are, in fact, replicable, and that
interpretational and subject reaction biases have, indeed, been identified, offset, or
otherwise acknowledged and accounted for. By recognising that the intrusion of random
and systematic interference is not a problem unique to, nor limited to, quantitative
measurement, qualitative researchers might then begin to consider which techniques and
methods can best help them increase the truth value of their research findings.
Since the prime objective of consumer-orientated research is to maximise understanding
of consumer behaviour, the use of covert techniques becomes a viable option. While a
primary justification for the use of such techniques is found in the increased veracity of
findings that will result, more pragmatic justification may be found in Hodges' (1988)
three criteria, all of which seem reasonable and prudent. Marketing researchers who opt
for covert methods should abide by such recommendations to ensure ethical standards.
Clearly, each case must be evaluated in terms of its own objectives.
While audio/video documentation of focus groups is already a common practice, the
course suggested herein is for the use of recording technology to document consumer
behaviour in realistic, true-to-life settings, such as retail stores, swap meets, etc, much in
the manner of Pennington (1968), Olshavsky (1973) and Belk, Sherry & Wallendorf
(1988). Although not a traditional research venue, the study of compulsive and
maladaptive consumer behaviour (cf O'Guinn & Faber 1989) can also be facilitated
through the use of security camera footage. For example, security footage would be
useful in the study of shoplifting behaviour, which, maladaptive though it may be, is still
an act of consumer behaviour. A similar example relates to the study of consumer
behaviour in banks, where video security recording is a standard practice; cameras are
already in place and patrons are recorded as a matter of course. The question here is
whether the use of footage from these cameras for purposes other than security is
appropriate or not. Given the legal and ethical considerations concerning the expectation
of being recorded, as discussed above, the output of these cameras could perhaps be
considered a valuable source of data for consumer researchers.
Another area where recording of patronage behaviour might be applied is in electronics
stores, where it is often common practice to place live video cameras in store windows to
show passers-by live pictures of themselves as both a demonstration tool and as a clever
attention-getting device. Normally, such video displays are not recorded; however, it
might be useful to have the feeds of such cameras recorded for purposes of scientifically
evaluating patronage behaviour in response to these commonly-used promotional
attention-getting and demonstration devices.
This paper does not advocate surreptitious research tactics at all times. It does, however,
argue that if the research objectives are tenable, if subjects are protected from harm, and
if advancement of the discipline will result, how can one fail to at least consider the
observational strategy that brings one closest to that optimal truth?
References
ALBRECHT, G L (1985). Videotape safaris: entering the field with a camera. Qualitative
Sociology 8, Winter, 325-43.
AMA CODE OF ETHICS (1991). American Marketing Association.
ANDERSON, D R; LORCH, E P; FIELD, D E; COLLINS, P A & NATHAN, J G
(1986). Television viewing at home: age trends in visual attention and time with TV.
Child Development 57, 1024-33.
BABBIE, E (1986). The Practice of Social Research, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
BELK, R W; SHERRY, J F Jr & WALLENDORF, W (1988). A naturalistic inquiry into
buyer and seller behavior at a swap meet. Journal of Consumer Research 14, March, 44970.
BOUCHARD, T J Jr (1976). Field research methods: interviewing, questionnaires,
participant observation, systematic observation, unobtrusive measures: in Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
BULMER, M (1982). The merits and demerits of covert participant observation, in Social
Research Ethics. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc.
CALDER, B (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research.
Journal of Marketing Research 14, August, 353-364.
CHURCHILL, G A Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing/constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, February, 64-73.
COTE, J A & FOXMAN, E R (1986). A positivist's reactions to a naturalistic inquiry
experience: in Advances in Consumer Research 14, Association for Consumer Research.
DENZIN, N K & ERIKSON, K (1982). On the ethics of disguised observation: an
exchange. In Social Research Ethics. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc.
DESHPANDE, R (1983). 'Paradigms lost': On theory and method in research in
marketing. Journal of Marketing 47, Fall, 101-111.
DOUGLAS, J D (1976). Investigative Social Research. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage
Publications
FRANCOIS, W E (1990). Mass Media Law and Regulation, 5th ed, Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press.
GABRIEL, C (1990). The validity of qualitative market research. Journal of the Market
Research Society 32, 4, 507-518.
GRIFFIN, R W (1987). Management, 2nd. ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
HILL, R P (1992). Homeless women, special possessions, and the meaning of 'home': an
ethnographic case study. Journal of Consumer Research 18, December, 298-310.
HIRSCHMAN, E (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method
and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research 23, August, 237-249.
HODGES, L W (1988). Undercover, masquerading, surreptitious taping. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics 3, Fall, 26-36.
HOMAN, R & BULMER, M (1982). On the merits of covert methods: a dialogue. In
Social Research Ethics. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc.
HUNT, S D (1984). Should marketing adopt relativism? 1984 AMA Winter Educator's
Conference: Scientific Method in Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
JORGENSEN, D L (1989). Participant Observation, A Methodology for Human Studies.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
KAZDIN, A E (1982). Observer effects: reactivity of direct observation. In Choosing
Observers to Study Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
KIDDER, L H, JUDD, C M & SMITH, E R (1986) Research Methods in Social
Relations, 5th. ed. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
KIRK, J & MILLER M L (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
LINCOLN, Y S & GUBA, E G (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
MRS CODE OF CONDUCT (1992). The Market Research Society.
NEALE, J M & LIEBERT, R M (1980). Science and Behavior, 2nd. ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
O'GUINN, T C & FABER, R J (1989). Compulsive buying: a phenomenological
exploration. Journal of Consumer Research 16, September, 147-57.
OLSHAVSKY, R W (1973). Customer-salesman interaction in appliance retailing.
Journal of Marketing Research 10, May, 208-12.
PENNINGTON, A L (1968). Customer-salesman bargaining behavior in retail
transactions. Journal of Marketing Research 5, August, 255-62.
PETER, J P (1981). Construct validity: a review of psychometric basics and recent
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 18, May, 133-45.
PETER, J P & OLSON, J C (1983). Is science marketing? Journal of Marketing 47, Fall,
111-123.
ROBSON, S (1991). Ethics: informed consent or misinformed compliance? Journal of
the Market Research Society 33, 1, 19-28.
ROBSON, S & WARDLE, J (1988). Who's watching whom? A study of the effects of
observers on group discussions. Journal of the Market Research Society 30, 3, 333-359.
SCHULER, H (1982) Ethical Problems in Psychological Research New York: Academic
Press.
STONEMAN, Z & BRODY, G H (1983). Family interactions during three programs.
Journal of Family Issues 4, June, 349-65.
SYKES, W (1990). Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: a review of the
literature. Journal of the Market Research Society 32, 3, 289-328.