Why observation method

Want to learn more about the Fuel Cycle platform? Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information. Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies.

It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. Share on facebook. Share on twitter. Share on linkedin. Share on email. The answer? Observational research.

What is Observational Research? When should a market researcher use observational research? You need to understand the how or what of a research question.

The topic is new, and you need robust data to explain consumer behavior. When behavior in a natural setting is vital to your research question. When behavior in a controlled setting is critical to your research question. When you need more information about a specific research question to formulate a more complete and accurate survey. What are the three types of observational research? Controlled observation Controlled observations are typically a structured observation that takes place in a psych lab.

Advantages and limitations of controlled observation The advantages of controlled observation include: You can make an observation schedule for your sampling, and have other market researchers use the same codes if they replicate the study. This helps test for reliability. The coded data is easy to analyze and quantify.

Limitations of a controlled observation include: It may be challenging to determine the validity of the study if participants know they are being watched. A little training can make a person perfect, to observe his surroundings. Observation is one of the main bases of formulating hypothesis. By observing a phenomenon continuously, the researcher may get well acquainted with the observed. He came to know about their habits, likes, dislikes, problems, perception, different activities and so many other things.

All these help him a lot to form a hypothesis on them. Any researcher, therefore, has to be a good observer. In other methods like interview, questionnaire etc. So these are indirect methods and here the investigator does not have any means to examine the accuracy of the data supplied by them. But in observation the observer can directly check the accuracy from the observed.

He can apply various devices to test the reliability of their behaviour. So very often the data collected through observation is more reliable than these collected through interview or questionnaire. Observation is a common method used in all sciences, whether physical or social. So it has greater universality of practice.

As a common method, it is very easily followed and accepted. Observation can deal with phenomena which are not capable of giving verbal information about their behaviour, feeling and activities simply for the reason that they cannot speak e. Observation is indispensable for studies on infants who can neither understand the quarries of the researcher nor express themselves clearly. In the case of animals observation is the only way out.

For deaf and dumb persons, for serious cases of abnormality or mad persons, for non-cooperative persons, for too shy persons and for persons who do not understand the language of researcher, observation will be the only appropriate tool. Observation does not require the willingness of the people to provide various information about them.

Often some respondents do not like to speak about themselves to an outsider. Some people do not have time or required skill to provide important information to the researcher.

Although observation cannot always overcome such problems, still relatively speaking it requires less active co-operation and willingness of respondents. Observation is ever possible without the knowledge of the respondents. There are many personal behaviours or secret activities which are not open for observation.

For example, no couple will allow the researcher to observe their sexual activities. In most of the cases people do not allow the outsider to study their activities. Such problems arise because of the uncertainty of the event.

Many social events are very much uncertain in nature. It is a difficult task on the part of the researcher to determine their time and place. The event may take place in the absence of the observer. On the other hand, it may not occur in the constant presence of the observer. Contextual inquiry means observing people in their natural environment, as they demonstrate their typical tasks.

Research participants lead their own session, explaining what they are doing, but the primary value is in observing the details of the ways they normally perform their tasks. In naturalistic observation , the researcher attempts to observe one or more people unobtrusively, without interacting with them. In shadowing , the researcher follows participants around as they perform their daily activities.

The researcher may simply observe, without interacting with the participant, or a session may be more interactive, with participants talking about what they are doing and the researcher asking questions, similar to a contextual inquiry. Covert observation is similar to naturalistic observation, but the researcher observes people without their knowing that they are being observed.

Of course, you can ethically observe people covertly only in public places, where there is no expectation of privacy. For example, you might observe what people do in an airport. Participant observation is a traditional ethnographic method in which the researcher joins a group and participates in their activities. The researcher observes and interacts with group members while performing the same activities.

In most of these research methods, the researcher visits participants in their natural environment to observe their natural behavior. The advantage of not interacting with participants at all is that you can observe their natural behavior. So it may be more difficult to understand what participants are doing because you have to rely on assumptions—at least until you can ask them questions later.

The disadvantage, however, is that this interaction can make the situation somewhat artificial. Seeing the details of tasks—such as what participants do with a user interface—requires that you sit very close to them. So sitting silently and pretending to be unobtrusive would be ridiculous in such a situation. Seeing detailed tasks requires close proximity, so not interacting with participants at that distance would be unrealistic.

At a greater distance, there is no social expectation that you maintain a conversation. So you can introduce yourself, then try to be unobtrusive. After some initial awkwardness, participants are likely to relax, and you can observe their natural behavior. Again, to be ethical, you can do this only in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. In all of the other methods, participants consent to being part of a study, and this can affect their behavior.

Naturalistic observation is in wide use in anthropology and the social sciences because it lets researchers unobtrusively observe natural behavior over long periods of time. In just an hour or two, participants can walk you through their key tasks. However, contextual inquiries are somewhat artificial.

During a two-hour time slot that you schedule, you ask participants to show you their tasks—regardless of whether they would normally perform those tasks at that particular time. So they might have to recreate or simulate some situations to show you what they would normally do.

You might not see examples of certain variations, exceptions, problems, and interruptions that are characteristic of their daily tasks. You can see how a normal day unfolds without introducing your own interruptions or influencing participants. For example, while you might hear about particular problems during a contextual inquiry, observing participants over a longer period of time provides a better understanding of how often such problems occur and what causes them.

Naturalistic observation is best used as a complement to other activities such as contextual inquiries and interviews. Instead, you might first conduct a day or two of contextual inquiries with several participants, then spend the next day or two simply observing the group. The contextual inquiries would give you a good understanding of the participants, their tasks, and the problems and issues to watch for during the naturalistic observation.

By combining these methods, you get the advantages of both methods, while minimizing their disadvantages. As I mentioned earlier, observation involves more than simply going somewhere and passively looking and listening. So planning is necessary to get the best results. First, decide what you want to learn from the research.

If you had all the time in the world, you could begin with a general goal of simply observing whatever happens. For example, you may want to conduct interviews or contextual inquiries first, then simply observe participants, and finally, conduct additional interviews to answer any questions that have arisen during observations. If you have time, try to conduct more than one full-day session. Observing participants over several sessions has the following advantages:.

First, interview stakeholders and familiarize yourself with any existing information from past studies, surveys, metrics, and any other sources. Learn as much as you can about the users, their tasks, the tools they use, their environment, and the business domain. If possible, check out the location ahead of time, so you can determine the best place to sit. Pick a spot that gives you the best view while also helping you to remain unobtrusive. You may need to choose several locations, depending on what and who you want to observe.

To simplify notetaking—especially if multiple people are observing sessions and you want to coordinate their efforts—you may want to create an observation guide that lists the types of things observers should focus on. The guide could include events and actions for observers to check off, a map to note where particular actions take place, and what tasks to focus on.

Since observation is typically very unpredictable, keep the guide simple. Create something that they can quickly refer to. At that point, it will feel less strange to have you sitting in the corner watching them all day.