Direct participant observation

Tuson, 2003; Spradley, 1980). DeWalt and DeWalt (2002) contend that participant observation may be useful in answering descriptive research questions, to generate or test

40

hypotheses or to build theory. In addition, participant observation can be defined as a process whereby a researcher establishes rapport with, and gains entry into a given community;

thereafter blending into the community as far as possible so that its members begin to act naturally, so that the researcher is given an opportunity to record field notes and generate data (Bailey, 2007; Bernard, 1994). Moreover several authors agree that when employing

fieldwork observation as a data collection tool, the researcher as observer must make known his or her role and level of involvement in the scenario under observation (Kawulich, 2005;

Li, 2008; Sanger, 2003). As such, I, as the researcher, assumed the role of an overt (direct), passive (having no involvement in activities or on-goings of the participants) observer.

Direct participant observation allowed for verbal and non-verbal behaviour; expressions, appearance and physical characteristics; and gestures of the participants to be captured through observational field notes (Kawulich, 2005). Moreover, in accordance with the prescriptions on effective field note-taking by Mack et al. (2005) and Kawulich (2005), among others; rich and detailed field notes were captured in relation to the physical setting of the participants’ classrooms (design and layout) and other venues where teacher interactions took place (Bernard, 2006; Simpson & Tuson, 2003; Spradley, 1980).

Of particular importance with regard to employing direct participant observation to collect data, is that by virtue of its dynamic and complex nature, IM as a construct when being

studied is susceptible to falling victim to itself. To elaborate, several authors agree that generally individuals, research participants in particular, are likely to display socially desirable behaviours when they are aware they being observed (Kawlich, 2005; Silverman, 2011; Simpson & Tuson, 2003). This renders the task of empirical researchers’ investigating the IM phenomenon substantially more challenging in terms of ensuring that the data

collected is trustworthy, authentic, valid and reliable. Bernard (1994) further concedes that participant observation requires a fair amount of impression management and deception on

41

the side of the researcher. With this concern in mind a deceptive research strategy was employed in order to facilitate the collection of data through direct participant observation.

Before unpacking precisely what the deception strategy entailed, it must be stated upfront that it was conducted in strict accordance with the prescripts contained in Annexure 12 on ethical use of deception in psychological research (subsection 93), included in the Health Professions Act 56 of 1974 (Government Gazette, 2006, p. 43), which mirrors the American

Psychological Association ethical research guidelines. In the APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Fried, 2012, p. 61) asserts that a researcher may employ deception under the following conditions:

(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s

significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective non-deceptive alternative procedures are not feasible;

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress;

(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data.

Bearing the above stipulations in mind, the basis for the employment of deception with regard to the collection of data by means of direct participant observation was considered justified for three foundational reasons. Firstly, as mentioned earlier in this subsection, this was due to the belief that, had the participants who were observed been aware upfront, that I would be observing their IM behaviours, they would be conscious of managing impressions

42

in my presence and they may have over- or under-exaggerated their behaviours, or displayed more socially desirable conduct. Secondly, by not utilising what I would personally describe as partial deception (since the deception was merely non-disclosure about the research topic and construct to participants upfront) as part of the data collection technique, the authenticity and credibility of the data gathered in respect of the behaviours observed may have been further compromised (since there is still no guarantee that my presence had no effect on their behaviour whatsoever). Therefore, employing deception through non-disclosure was

considered to be more of an effort to preserve authentic behaviour by reducing the

participants’ conscious need to regulate their conduct, and was thus believed to be a way of ultimately enhancing the scientific rigour and trustworthiness of the data. Thirdly, upon thorough exploration of other possible data collection methods together with my supervisor and in consultation with other subject matter experts within the field of qualitative industrial psychology research, no feasible alternative could be established. In addition, the deception employed in this manner was comprehensively evaluated for risks in advance and once it was determined that the participants would still be protected from any physical and psychological harm, a decision to proceed with the partial deception was taken. Furthermore, upon

obtaining informed gatekeeper consent from the school headmaster, the nature and extent of the use of deception was explicitly explained to him, for which he comfortably granted permission.

Moreover, the above stipulations for conducting research using deception were addressed in several ways. In line with the ethical consideration of non-maleficence, all measures to ensure the physical and psychological well-being of the participants were strictly adhered to.

The usage of the observational field note data gathered by means of partially deceptive measures (non-disclosure) was subject to obtaining informed consent from the observed participants, following a thorough debriefing session. Moreover, confidentiality and

43

anonymity of the participants was guaranteed, through the use of pseudonyms, destruction of raw data (after analysis and reporting) and non-traceability. Additionally, interviews were conducted outside of school hours in private, access-restricted venues, of which other staff members, learners and parents were unaware.

Furthermore, the last stipulation (c, above) was strictly adhered to. Following the week of observation, the researcher conducted one-on-one debriefing sessions with each participant educator to disclose the true nature of the observation, allowing each teacher to review and amend (if so requested) the observation data report relating to him or her. After the debriefing ended, I requested informed consent from each educator participant to utilise the data

collected through observation of him or her, and participants were informed of their right to refuse the use of the observational data collected.

In summary, I employed the use of deception in research for the direct participant

observation method of data collection. This was achieved by entering the classroom and staff meeting venues as a neutral observer. There was no upfront disclosure of information to the educators concerning the type of research being conducted, the nature of the observations, the particular topic of interest and focus, or the disciplinary field to which the student researcher belonged. The true nature of my researcher role and research aims was only privy to the headmaster, who concealed the information until all the debriefing sessions and interviews were completed. As such, I gave both a verbal and written guarantee to the school headmaster that all possible measures to ensure the protection of the educators’ human rights, privacy and dignity would be strictly implemented during the week of observation. Each educator was

44

observed for five hours in total²; this consisted of two classroom visits which were two-hour lessons each, and a one-hour staff meeting. During all observation sessions, I strategically placed myself in areas of the venue which assisted in minimising my presence, and once the lessons or meeting started I refrained from any verbal interaction, as well as making eye contact with the participants.