Quutetiy Joumal of AIvaeorch and Corn mentaw Volume IX. N u m b r 1 Bell Stats University Muncie; Indl&na4Me

GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY r$yys .--re?@ =--&-

At, & I t . d - ,' i r *d

A Quarterlv Journal of Research and Commentarv Volume IX. Number 1 Januarv l98(

Department of Geography and Geology Ball State University Muncie, lndiana4730t

Commentary

3 Douglas L. Robertson, Participant Observation and Geographical Research

Articles

/ 13 Daniel T. Halperin, The Jari Project: Large-Scale Land and

Labor Utilization in the Amazon

22 S. J. Riley, Implications of Current Models of Runoff Production to Soil Conservation Practice

Review

39 Wilbert Gesler, Concern in Medical Geography

The Geographical Survey is published in January, April, July, and October by Ball State University, Muncie, lndiana 47036. Annual subscription price is $10 for libraries, $8 for individuals, and $4 for students. Publication office is the Department of Geography and Geology, Ball State University, Muncie, lndiana 47306. Second-class postage paid at Muncie, lndiana 47306.

O Ball State University 1980

Commentary

Douglas L. Robertson Marylhurst Education Center

Participant Observation and Geographical Research

Whatever definition of human geography we subscribe to, ultimately we will find ourselves examining and attempting to explain geographical ar- rangements of man and his products. Yet such spatial arrangements are the outcome of locational behaviors which are in their turn the products of human locational decisions. . . . To explain the spatial arrangements which we encounter in human geography, then, we need assumptions, postulates and deductions regarding how human beings decide and consequently behave with respect to the environment.

-Kevin Cox (1974, 21)

. . . in the larger view we know that attitudes and beliefs cannot be ex- cluded . . . because man is, in fact, the ecological dominant and his behavior needs to be understood in depth, not merely mapped.

-Yi-Fu Tuan (1974, 21)

Although speaking from different perspectives, Tuan and Cox make the same point: the geographer must ultimately plumb the human actor to explain the cultural landscape. The cogency of this point is amply demonstrated by the last two decades' rapid growth of behavioral, perceptual, and humanistic geography. Increasingly, geographers focus their attention on the man in the manlland rela- tionship (Downs and Stea, 1973, 1977; Moore and Golledge, 1976; Porteous, 1977; Saarinen, 1976; Buttimer, 1976; Entrikin, 1976; Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1976, 1977).

One noteworthy method for studying the human actor, especially in situ, is participant observation. Not only does it possess a well-developed literature (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975; Mc- Call and Simmons, 1969; Schatzman and Strauss, 1973), and a demonstrated usefulness (examples of special interest to urban1 social geographers include Gans, 1962; Howell, 1973; Lewis, 1959, 1965, 1969; Liebow, 1967; Stack, 1974; Whyte, 1955; Young and Willmott, 1962), but also it grafts readily onto an accepted geographical field tradition. J. K. Wright clearly reflected geography's traditional use of an informal version of participant

I wish to thank David Robinson, David Sopher, Ralph Sanders, John Agnew, Robert Bogdan, and Phyllis Thompson for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Funds for a portion of the work were provided by Watson and Cressey- James Fellowships, Department of Geography, Syracuse University.

Geographical Survey 3

observation when he described the geographer's method of probing psychological "terrae incognitae":

By talking sympathetically with a few intelligent folk on the ground, by consulting the files of local newspapers and other publications and by a little adept use of intuition we may, under most circumstances, gain all that is required for our purposes (Wright, 1947).

Notwithstanding this informal use, however, most geographers re- main rather naive regarding the rigorous application of participant observation.

In rigorous participant observation, notes must be assiduously recorded in a systematic fashion; a sophisticated knowledge of intra- and inter-personal processes and relationships must be ap- plied; one's imagination must be strenuously engaged in order to achieve empathic understanding; listening must be sensitive and creative; data must be constantly cross-validated; time and space must be carefully sampled; both informants and oneself must be constantly pushed-without overstepping-to achieve the deepest possible understanding of situations; everything must be ag- gressively evaluated as data; analysis and the formulation of new hypotheses must be conscientiously interlaced with data collec- tion; and so on. Systematic participant observation is far from a casual or peripheral enterprise which yields only supplementary "anecdotal data." It is both exhaustive and exhausting. However, the rewards are great.

My purpose here is simply to increase the geographer's awareness of participant observation and to advocate the method's use in geographical research. The discussion will briefly introduce participant observation, outline and comment on its advantages and disadvantages, and present several examples of the method's geographical application.

Participant Observation

To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty. It is by being alive to difficulty that one can avoid it.

-Lao Tzu, c. 6th century B.C. (1963, 133)

What distinguishes participant observation and all qualitative methods from other methodologies is that the participant observer's questions are framed in general terms. . . . To enter a setting with a set of hypotheses is to impose preconceptions and perhaps misconceptions on the setting.

-Robert Bogdan and Steven J. Taylor (1975, 26-27)

An ancient wisdom lies at the heart of participant observation: at every instant be an open gate. The history of participant observation involves the attempts of social scientists to combine scientific

4 Geographical Survey

rigor with humanistic sensitivity and openness. This is, of course, no simple matter. However, in the last century, anthropology and sociology have successfully developed a field method that ap- proaches this ideal.

Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century, what we now call participant observation became accepted in both sociology and anthropology, although for some reason sociology accepted the technique more slowly (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 3-4). The method has enjoyed relatively consistent popularity in anthropology and now serves as the discipline's principal field technique.

In sociology, participant observation's popularity has vacillated somewhat (Bogdan and Taylor, 1974, 3-4). The qualitative orientation of the early twentieth-century Chicago School of sociologists helped to produce a period from 1920 to 1940 during which "students of society" relied heavily on participant observa- tion and other qualitative techniques. Then, during the 1940s and 1950s, the tide of positivism and quantitative methods over- whelmed the ostensibly less nomothetic qualitative methods. The 1960s and 1970s have witnessed a resurgence of participant obser- vation, due in part to methodological analysts such as Glaser and Strauss, who have demonstrated the potential of qualitative methods for generating theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

The literature advises us not to view participant observation as a single technique but rather, as McCall and Simmons put it, as "a type of research enterprise, a style of combining several methods toward a particular end" (McCall and Simmons, 1969, 3). These methods often include: 1) direct participation; 2) informant inter- viewing; 3) respondent interviewing;* 4) simple observation;** and 5) document analysis (McCall and Simmons, 1969, 26).

Although participant observation frequently benefits from sim- ple observation (such as systematic counting), and from document analysis (such as examining newspapers, censuses, and letters), the method's essential ingredient comprises the researcher's various roles as a direct participant and interviewer. The

"'Respondents" and "informants" differ according to the information they con- vey to the researcher. An informant serves as a "surrogate observer" who recounts events in the field which, for whatever reason, the researcher did not observe, whereas a respondent relates his own behavior and perspective to the researcher. In- formant interviewing puts the person interviewed in the role of a "substitute scientist-observer," whereas respondent interviewing casts him in "the role of himself, reporting only his own behavior and thoughts" (McCall and Simmons, 1969, 4).

"I have substituted "simple observation" for McCall and Simmons' phrase "direct observation" because it seems more expressive of the type of observation that involves minimal researcher interaction.

Geographical Survey 5

sociologists Bogdan and Taylor emphasize this aspect of partici- pant observation in their working definition of the method:

[Participant observation] is used here to refer to research characterized by a period of intense social interaction between the researcher and the subjects, in the milieu of the latter. During this period, data are unob- trusively and systematically collected (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 5);

as do sociologists Becker and Geer:

By participant observation we mean that method in which the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, either openly in the role of researcher or covertly in some disguised role, observing things that happen, listening to what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time (Becker and Geer, 1969, 322).

Anthropologists may survey the material culture in a community study-counting radios, articles of clothing, cooking utensils, and religious artifacts-but like natural sociologists, in order to make sense of their tallies, they rely primarily on information garnered through their field interactions (such as Lewis, 1970).

The participant observer directs himself primarily toward understanding the field setting from the various perspectives of the setting's human actors; empathetic understanding is the goal (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975; McCall and Simmons, 1969; Schatzman and Strauss, 1973). Empathy may be defined as:

. . . the self-conscious effort to share and accurately comprehend the presumed consciousness of another person, including his thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and muscular tensions, as well as their causes (Wispe, 1968; also see Katz, 1963; Bennett, 1972, 3, 61, 109; Stotland et al., 1978, 7-8, 11-13, 16).

Katz divides the empathic process into four phases: 1) iden- tification-the projection of one's creative imagination (not some aspect of oneself, as in Freudian projection) into the experience of another person; 2) incorporation-the internalization of this imagin- ing; 3) reverberation-the interplay between one's own experience and the facsimile of the other person's experience (this is what gives real life to the latter); and 4) detachment-the rational assess- ment of the empathic experience (Katz, 1963). Obviously, one's suc- cess at empathy is aided by an openness to others, sensitive obser- vation, a good imagination, a wealth of experience, and the ability for self analysis. Although some people are naturally better at em- pathy than others, empathic skills can be learned and improved through disciplined practice. For many mental health professionals, empathy is an assiduously developed clinical tool.

No infallible verification method exists for empathic under- standing. However, a wide variety of cross-checks is possible. One can question the other person at the time; check the empathic understanding with later experiences with that person; compare the

6 Geographical Survey

empathic understanding of a similar person; ask a colleague for his or her understanding; or try to predict an individual's future behavior based on the empathic understanding and compare the prediction with what actually happens. Cross-checking is essential in partici- pant observation, and the longer one stays in the field, the greater the opportunities. This is one reason why considerable field contact is sometimes included in a definition of participant observation (Becker and Geer, 1969, 322).

Advantages and Disadvantages

Like any field method, participant observation has its strengths and weaknesses. Criticisms of participant observation commonly in- clude: 1) that it can incorporate distortion due to researcher impact on the field setting (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12); 2) that because the researcher uses his own judgment to select samples, and because the researcher functions as the primary data collection in- strument, participant observation is vulnerable to researcher bias (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12); 3) that participant observation does not prove assertions-i.e., demonstrate assertions statistically- because of its small purposive samples and lack of standardized data-i.e., quantitative data (Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 20-22; Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12; Gans, 1962, 347-350); and 4) that without ethical care, publication of participant observation's in- timate data can seriously damage the lives of those studied (Becker, 1969; Rainwater and Pittman, 1969).

The first criticism, concerning researcher impact, applies to all field methods where the researcher, or his data collection instru- ment, actually interacts with the people being studied. This in- cludes surveying, questionnaire interviewing, unstructured inter- viewing, and various types of observation. Only nonreactive methods have immunity (Webb et al., 1966). Of all the methods in which the researcher enters the field setting, participant observa- tion probably allows the researcher the greatest flexibility in recognizing and adjusting for his impact (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12-13; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 22).

The second criticism, concerning researcher bias, also applies to many field methods in addition to participant observation. When a researcher chooses a particular scaling technique for a survey in- strument, or even when he initially selects the survey as the ap- propriate instrument, he introduces his bias as to the nature of the field setting. Participant observation allows constant checking and adjusting of one's notions of the field setting, rather than locking them in until the study's completion (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12, 26-27; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 22-23).

Geographical Survey 7

The third criticism, that participant observation does not statistically verify its conclusions, presumes that all aspects of social living can be quantified. This is untenable, of course. Many aspects of everyday life-probably the most important, such as beliefs, meanings, values, and emotions-strongly resist quan- tification. To understand participant observation's use of small samples (that is, concentration on a few or one field setting, and on a relatively small number of significant individuals), one must recognize that the method aspires to a more complex and direct understanding than numbers yield, and that the time and rapport re- quired to attain this understanding often limits sample sizes (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 22-23).

The fourth criticism, damage from publication of intimate data, should give pause to every participant observer. It need not paralyze him, however. It should simply require that he think through his ethical system, and then play fair as he defines fairness (Rainwater and Pittman, 1969; Becker, 1969; Foster, 1969, 173-179; Society for Applied Anthropology, 1963-1964, 237). A great deal of good can result from intimacy, as well as enormous harm. Clearly, the mere threat of harm should not confine research to superficiality.

Participant observation has a number of important advantages. In brief summary, they include the following: 1) participant observa- tion produces data that express the complexities of everyday life, thereby helping to avoid oversimplification and irrelevancies and facilitating the consideration of variables that resist quantification (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975,13; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969,22-23; Gans, 1962,347-348, 350); 2) participant observation yields intimate, or empathic understanding of individual and group perspectives (Dean and Whyte, 1969; Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 5, 8-11; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 23); 3) it allows the researcher the flex- ibility to assess and control for his or her impact on the field setting (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 12; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 22); 4) through its flexibility, and its simultaneous data collection and analysis, participant observation allows the researcher to make im- portant conceptual and methodological adjustments in the field (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975, 26-27; Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 22-23); and 5) participant observation has the potential for covert research (Dean, Eichhorn, and Dean, 1969, 23).

Participant Observation and Geography

Underlying what I am trying to say is the conviction that [the discipline] . . . is first of all knowledge gained by observation, that one orders by reflection and reinspection the things one has been looking at, and that from what one has experienced by intimate sight come comparison and synthesis.

8 Geographical Survey

The more energy that goes into recording predetermined categories, the less likelihood there is of exploration.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The [categories are] . . . apt to become master of the observer, depress- ing and limiting his observations to predetermined routine. Routine may bring the euphoria of daily accomplishment as filling in blank area; but the more energy that goes into recording the less is left for the interplay of observation and reflection.

Oddly enough, these are not the thoughts of a natural sociologist or an anthropologist but, rather, of a geographer named Carl Sauer (1963, 400, 402). Although Sauer certainly was not speaking for all geographers, the idea of going into the field with a general theme and exploring freely for a multi-faceted, detailed, and direct under- standing is an old tradition in geography (for perspective, see Hart- shorne, 1959; James, 1972). It is to this tradition that participant observation appeals.

Geographers frequently make casual use of participant obser- vation, as almost any human geography that involves fieldwork will illustrate. However, because the method has rarely served as the geographer's principal field technique, knowledge of it in the discipline as a rigorous enterprise remains rather superficial.

This is unfortunate since participant observation adapts readily to geographical research. To apply it, the geographer needs simply explore his traditional environmental themes within the complex, everyday context of individual lives and social settings.

For example, to study human circulation patterns in the city, the participant observer would select representative individuals and study them in depth. One would travel with them on their daily rounds; construct a detailed record of their travel patterns; par- ticipate with them in a variety of circumstances in order to obtain perspective on their various behaviors; and probe constantly for per- tinent meanings, values, and attitudes. In the end, one would pro- duce case studies that would yield rich analytic description and understanding. The degree to which valid generalizations could be developed would depend on how representative the subjects were. Sometimes the representativeness could be demonstrated; some- times it could not. Whatever the case, thoughtful, detailed in- vestigations would almost always contribute productive hypotheses regarding a general problem.

Locational analysis, another common geographical problem, could entail a similar treatment. The participant observer would focus on the individual decision makers, once again selecting representative subjects. If the interest were in the location of new housing tracts, then one might gain access to a carefully selected land development corporation and study its decision makers first

Geographical Survey 9

hand, in context. By collecting a variety of data under a variety of cir- cumstances, one would explore a broad spectrum of issues, such as the relative importance of environmental considerations in such decisions, the environmental perceptions of an important category of decision makers, the relationship between environmental at- titudes and environmental decisions, the extent to which such loca- tional decisions appear to follow a standardized procedure and are therefore predictable, and so forth. Once again, one would produce for a specific case a description and explanation which, if that case be well selected, would translate into important general hypotheses.

The geographer could also apply participant observation to the study of specific small-scale locations such as parks, plazas, or neighborhoods. One could anchor oneself in a place and participate with the various people who appear there, as well as explore outside the location in order to put it in the perspective of a superordinate spatial system. One would describe and explain with some intimacy the human components of that location: who appears there, when, what they do there, why, and so on. Again, at the very least, the research would produce a detailed case study, and at best, in- sightful generalizations.

Conclusion

Rigorous participant observation is not difficult to apply in geography, nor is it alien to geographical tradition. Increasing use of the method would establish in geography an important alter- native to the present quantitative, literary, and philosophical ap- proaches to the human actor.

In particular, participant observation would provide a field method for the growing number of human geographers with a phenomenological or experiential perspective. They have no field method at present. Speculative work in this area could then taper off, and anxiously awaited field studies could begin to accumulate.

Using participant observation is nothing radically new or dar- ing. It is simply the appropriate application of a proven field method now that we have the need.

References Cited

Becker, H. S. "Problems in the Publication of Field Studies," in G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.) Issues in Participant Observation (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1969), 260-275.

Becker, H. S., and B. Geer. "Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Com- parison," in G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.) Issues i n Participant Observa- tion (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), 322-331.

10 Geographical Survey

Bennett, M. J. "Empathic Perception: The Operation of Self-Awareness in Human Perception" (Unpublished Master's thesis, San Francisco State College, 1972).

Bogdan, R., and S. J. Taylor. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Phenomenological Approach to the Social Sciences (New York: Wiley, 1975).

Buttimer, A. "Grasping the Dynamism of Lifeworld," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66 (1976), 277-292.

Cox, K. "The Behavioral Revolution in Geography: Definition and Evaluation," Geographical Perspectives, Vol. 33 (1974), 41-50.

Dean, J. P., R. L. Eichhorn, and L. R. Dean. "Limitations and Advantages of Unstruc- tured Methods," in G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.) lssues in Participant Observation (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), 19-24.

Dean, J. P., and W . F. Whyte. "How Do You Know i f the Respondent is Telling the Truth?" in G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.) lssues in Participant Observa- tion (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), 105-1 14.

Downs, R. M., and D. Stea (eds.). Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior (Chicago: Aldine, 1973).

Downs, R. M., and D. Stea. Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping (New York: Harper and Row, 1977).

Entrikin, J. N. "Contemporary Humanism in Geography," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66 (1976), 615-632.

Foster, G. M. Applied Anthropology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969). Gans, H. J. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans

(New York: The Free Press, 1962). Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine, 1967). Hartshorne, R. Perspective on the Nature of Geography (Chicago: Rand McNally,

1959). Howell, J. T . Hard Living on Clay Street: Portraits of Blue Collar Families (Garden

City: AnchorlDoubleday, 1973). James, P. E. All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas (Indianapolis:

OdysseylBobbs-Merrill, 1972). Katz, R. Empathy, Its Nature and Uses (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963). Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching. Trans. by D. C. Lau (Baltimore: Penguin, 1963). Lewis, 0. Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty (New York:

Basic Books, 1959). Lewis, 0. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty (New York:

Random House, 1965). Lewis, 0. The Children of Sanchez: Autobiography of a Mexican Family (New York:

Vintage Books, 1969). Lewis, 0 . "The Possessions of the Poor," in Anthropological Essays (New York:

Random House, 1970), 441-460. Liebow, E. Tally's Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men (Boston: Little, Brown,

1967). McCall, G. J., and J. L. Simmons (eds.). lssues in Participant Observation: A Text and

Reader (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969). Moore, G. T., and R. Golledge (eds.). Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research,

and Methods (Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, 1976). Porteous, J . Environment and Behavior: Planning and Everyday Urban Life (Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977). Rainwater, L., and D. J . Pittman. "Ethical Problems in Studying a Politically Sensitive

and Deviant Community," in G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.) lssues in Par- ticipant Observation (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), 276-287.

Relph, E. C. Place and Placelessness (London: Pion, 1976). Saarinen, T. F. Environmental Planning, Perception and Behavior (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 1976).

Geographical Survey 11

Sauer, C. 0. "The Education of a Geographer," in J . Leighly (ed.) Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer (Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press, 1963), 389-404.

Schatzman, L., and A. Strauss. Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973).

Society for Applied Anthropology. "Statement on Ethics of the Society for Applied Anthropology," Human Organization, Vol. 22 (1963-1964), 237.

Stack, C. B. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

Stotland, E., et al. Empathy, Fantasy and Helping (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978). Tuan, Y-F. Topophilia: A Study of Environrnen tal Perception, Attitudes and Values

(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974). Tuan, Y-F. "Humanistic Geography," Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, Vol. 66 (1976), 266-276. Tuan, Y-F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 1977). Webb, E. J., et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social

Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing, 1966). Whyte, W. F . Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum, 2nd ed.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955). Wispe, L. G. "Sympathy and Empathy," International Encyclopedia of SocialScience

(1968). Wright, J. K . "Terrae Incognitae: The Place of Imagination in Geography," Annals of

the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 37 (1947), 1-15. Young, M., and P. Willmott. Family and Kinship in East London, 2nd ed. (Baltimore:

Penguin, 1962).

12 Geographical Survey