%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Surveys, experiments, large-N datasets and formal models are common instruments in the political scientist's toolkit. In-depth interviews and focus groups play a critical role in helping scholars answer important political questions. In contrast, participant observation techniques are an underused methodological approach. In this article, we argue that participant observation techniques have played and should continue to play a key role in advancing our understanding of political science. After demonstrating the use of these techniques, we offer readers advice for embarking upon participant observation research and explain how this approach should fit into a scholar's long-term career plans.
Defining Participant Observation
In the strictest sense of the term, participant observation is the ethnographic research that is typically associated with qualitative sociology or anthropology. In ethnographic studies, researchers embed themselves in a social group or community for months or years, collect field notes, and track systematic patterns to make inferences about social phenomena (see Burawoy et al. Reference Burawoy, Barton, Ferguson, Fox, Gamson, Gartrell and Hurst1991; Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw Reference Emerson, Fretz and Shaw1995).
Over the years, political scientists have been able to forge alliances with politicians and advocacy groups to produce important, published findings. For example, in 2006, Alan Gerber and his colleagues convinced Texas governor Rick Perry to cooperate on a series of field experiments during his re-election campaign (Gerber et al. Reference Gerber, Gimpel, Green and Shaw2007). The scholars benefited from their link to a high-profile, real-world campaign, and the candidate was able to use the data to determine how best to spend his campaign resources. Outside of electoral campaigns, Han (Reference Han2009) cooperated with the environmental group Clean Water Action to study how best to raise money for the organization. Miller and Krosnick (Reference Miller and Krosnick2004) worked with a pro-abortion group in Ohio to explore how best to encourage its members to make financial donations and correspond with then-President Clinton. Harrison and Michelson (Reference Harrison and Michelsonforthcoming) worked with One Iowa to test how best to raise funds and support for gay marriage. Bergan (Reference Bergan2007) conducted an experiment in cooperation with two public health groups in an effort to win passage of smoke-free workplace legislation in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
Some aspects of ethnographic methodology can be easily incorporated into these more quantitative research designs. For instance, field experiments usually include a participant observation component, especially when scholars work with third parties to implement a research protocol. If a scholar is conducting a canvassing experiment with an outside political group, it is advisable to embed participant observers with canvassers to ensure that the research protocol is being followed. García Bedolla and Michelson (Reference García Bedolla and Michelsonforthcoming) adopted this approach to supplement their quantitative analysis of the California Votes Initiative, using a team of over two dozen student assistants to monitor community organizations in their get-out-the-vote work.
Qualitative political science research more closely hews to the traditional model of participant observation research. Perhaps the most famous participant observer in the field is Richard Fenno, whose Home Style (Reference Fenno1978) is the gold standard of qualitative research in political science. Fenno remained famously detached from his research subjects in order to maintain objectivity. Other researchers, however, have deliberately positioned themselves at the center of the action. Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward became key advocates for Project SERVE, an effort to expand voter registration opportunities for poor residents of New York City in the 1990s. As a result of their work on the project, they were able to employ process-tracing techniques to examine the efficacy of their efforts in Why Americans Still Don't Vote and Why Politicians Want It That Way (Reference Piven and Cloward2000). During a 2002 field experiment on black voter turnout in Newark, New Jersey, Andra Gillespie cultivated connections to expand a more qualitative research agenda. Mayoral candidate Cory Booker allowed her to randomly canvass voters in several precincts to test the effects of canvassing on voter turnout. The arrangement was mutually beneficial: Booker gained additional campaign volunteers to cover what would otherwise have been relatively neglected terrain, and she used the data generated from the experiment for her dissertation (Gillespie Reference Gillespie2005). After observing the intraracial, intergenerational struggle for political power that marked this mayoral race, Gillespie used the connections forged in the campaign to continue to collect ethnographic and interview data on deracialized black politics in Newark. Her results will be published by NYU Press in fall 2011 (Gillespie Reference Gillespieforthcoming).
While the partners in these projects vary, all of these relationships share some common features. The real-world applications of these projects required the researchers to interact with outside groups, whether they were campaigns or third-party advocacy groups. Researchers had to muster the courage to reach out to these groups and request collaboration. To facilitate their cooperation, researchers often had to offer incentives, such as additional campaign workers or consulting services in which findings could be used first as a type of program evaluation. Given the experiences of these scholars and others, we believe that participant observation works best when researchers can forge alliances with partners in ways that benefit both parties professionally.
To Intervene or Not to Intervene
As the previous examples indicate, scholars can adopt a variety of approaches when conducting participant observation research. Some, like Fenno, act more as observers than participants, while others, such as Piven and Cloward, embrace the more participatory aspects of participant observation research. Although there are good arguments to justify both approaches, scholars must consider the ramifications of their choices. All participant observers must be aware that individuals being observed may alter their behavior in the scholar's presence (see Burawoy et al. Reference Burawoy, Barton, Ferguson, Fox, Gamson, Gartrell and Hurst1991, 2, 272). Fenno chose to primarily observe (rather than participate) in an attempt to minimize such changes in the behavior of the congressmen he was studying (see Fenno Reference Fenno1978, appendix; Fenno Reference Fenno1990). However, one could also make the opposite argument: by participating in a political project they are studying, researchers can put their subjects at ease and establish trust so that subjects will behave as naturally as possible. Moreover, experimental research requires manipulation of the research setting in order to make causal inferences.
Regardless of the strategy one chooses in approaching a project, a researcher must strive to minimize his or her impact on the research environment. If acting as an observer will make the researcher stand out like a sore thumb and research subjects feel self-conscious, then it may make sense for the scholar to participate in small office tasks to integrate him or herself into the environment and put subjects at ease (see Burawoy et al. Reference Burawoy, Barton, Ferguson, Fox, Gamson, Gartrell and Hurst1991, 257–58). Similarly, while the more participatory observer may have an advantage in putting his or her subjects at ease, he or she should try to avoid offering services or advice that could have a direct and significant impact on the dependent variable being studied (unless the research design requires researchers to manipulate independent variables, as is the case in an experimental protocol).
Advice for Scholars Embarking upon Participant Observation Research
Both authors learned how to conduct field experiments through our relationship with our dissertation advisor, Donald Green. Working with Green taught us a number of valuable lessons about embarking upon participant observation research. First, many campaigns and organizations are open to working with academics, especially those who offer pro-bono consulting services in exchange for access to data. We often forego access to data simply because we do not ask for it. Second, such collaborations are very cost effective. If scholars collect data under the guise of a program evaluation, organizations being evaluated will often pay for most of the evaluation. After all, they would have spent resources in the course of their campaign or drive anyway. The researcher's role is to watch the organization and determine whether its efforts are fruitful.
For researchers who think that they have no connections to political actors, we encourage them to think closely about their existing relationships—perhaps a college classmate is running for elective office or runs an advocacy group. Leverage those relationships to gain access to data. Volunteer for a local campaign and make friends with the campaign manager. Become a valued volunteer. Offer free consulting services. Such friendships could afford you access to otherwise embargoed data.
Keep in mind that outside political groups may not entertain all requests for collaboration. If a group believes that disclosing the details of its activities will jeopardize its efforts, the organization will not cooperate. However, some groups' fears can be allayed if a researcher offers to agree (sometimes in writing) to never share certain data or to embargo data for a short period of time (e.g., until after a critical election).
Establishing trust with third-party organizations is critical to facilitating any type of research relationship. In some cases, it may be advisable to “pay it forward” by helping a partner on a project that may not immediately result in a publication. Melissa Michelson encountered this issue when she first met Warren Slocum, the registrar of San Mateo County, California. Slocum gained notoriety for trying to increase Latino voter registration by conducting “Tupperware parties that peddle politics” (Garcia Reference Garcia2004).Footnote 1 After reading about the campaign in the local newspaper, Michelson contacted Slocum with an offer to provide a free analysis of the program's effectiveness. By the time that Slocum agreed, it was too late to create a true experiment. Nevertheless, Michelson was able to write a white paper about the initiative that has been widely read by “real-world” practitioners (Michelson Reference Michelson2005). Since that initial project, Michelson, Slocum, and collaborators have worked together on several get-out-the-vote experiments (e.g., see Malhotra et al. Reference Malhotra, Michelson, Valenzuela and Rogersforthcoming). Michelson's initial collaboration with Slocum may not have led to an immediate book or article, but years later, the experience is starting to yield publications.
Methodological Considerations
It is important to remember that participant observation is serious, disciplined research. Some may mistakenly think that participant observers merely spend time with politicians and use their recollections as anecdotes to color their prose. In reality, ethnographic methods are both rigorous and extremely labor intensive. Any time a researcher “hangs out” with politicians, he or she must literally write down everything that happens. It is only after writing down every event or occurrence for a period of months or years that one obtains enough data to find patterns and make inferences. If one chooses to use participant observation methods, he or she must commit to the hard, systematic work that ethnography requires. Spending a day or a week at the local campaign office or in Congress without systematic note-taking will simply not suffice (see Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw Reference Emerson, Fretz and Shaw1995).
In addition, because participant observers interact with real people, their research is subject to institutional review board (IRB) oversight. Rules will vary by project. If a scholar is working directly with politicians and their senior staffs, most IRBs will likely deem the research exempt from supervision. However, if one is studying a nascent social movement staffed by private citizens, IRBs are more likely to demand oversight. In either case, researchers must apply for IRB approval and let the board determine whether or not the research will be exempt. The IRB will also set rules about obtaining consent. Often, researchers can make the case that obtaining written informed consent is too cumbersome. In these instances, they must develop an acceptable plan for collecting verbal assents. It is important to note that even if an IRB does not require a researcher to obtain written informed consent (particularly in the case of exempt projects), he or she should still obtain permission from the individuals and organizations being shadowed before beginning the project.
Externalities of Participant Observation
Participant Observation Improves Teaching
Participant observation has positive externalities beyond research, such as certain advantages for the classroom. Participant observers gather a treasure trove of stories that can be used to illustrate course themes and help students draw connections between readings and reality. For example, an instructor can make a lecture about urban politics more interesting by screening part of Street Fight (Curry Reference Curry2005), an Oscar-nominated documentary on the 2002 Newark mayoral campaign. However, that lecture will be all the more compelling and real for students when their professor was actually there. Similarly, a discussion of voter turnout and why some social demographic groups are less likely to vote will be more memorable for students when the professor can provide firsthand tales of various campaigns and mobilization experiments. These stories can enhance our credibility with students, making them more likely to listen and learn in the classroom. Furthermore, they can serve as inspiration, leading students to formulate ways to become involved themselves.
Participant Observation Improves Service
While research and teaching are the primary barometers by which professors are judged for tenure and promotion, service is also a critical part of their scholarly responsibilities. Participant observation opens up new avenues of service for professors of any rank. The most obvious avenue is public intellectualism, but political scientists can also use their research experiences to help their university maintain good town–gown relationships.
Most universities are concerned not only with the publication record of their faculty, but also with their reputation in the community. Faculty visibility is key to attracting both high-quality student applicant pools and institutional funding. As such, participant observers can help the university fulfill its broader mission. Participant observation offers scholars a platform to advertise their research. Moreover, when done prudently, ethnographic-based public intellectual work can enhance a scholar's authority and ability to work with politicians and community organizations, because third-party groups are more likely to be receptive to scholars with a public profile.Footnote 2
In addition, participant observers can use their outside connections and research interests to help develop programs that will forge strong, amicable bonds among their universities and neighboring communities. For example, Michael Rich leads Emory University's Office of University-Community Partnerships (OUCP), which is specifically designed to help Emory scholars disseminate their research findings to support civic life in the greater Atlanta community. As a result of sharing such findings, OUCP has been able to partner with a number of organizations to design research projects that test their programs' effectiveness (Emory University 2011). Although the primary purpose of these projects is to serve the local community, they have generated publishable research as well (e.g., Owens Reference Owens2006).
Participant Observation Considerations
We are not blind to the disadvantages and pressures that participant observers face, especially those individuals at the beginning of their careers. Junior participant observers cannot escape the reality that they have a finite amount of time in which to finish graduate school with funding or to achieve tenure. Thus, they cannot spend so much time engaging the outside world that they fail to finish their dissertation or publish the requisite number of articles and books needed for tenure. At the end of the day, young scholars must jealously guard their time to ensure that they are on track to complete their research projects in a punctual fashion.
Similarly, participant observation is not without pedagogical considerations. Sharing stories about one's involvement in real-world politics makes it more difficult to maintain the illusion of objectivity. In other words, if you have volunteered for a number of progressive community organizations, students are likely to surmise that you are a progressive, which can have a negative effect on your relationships with more conservative students, and vice versa. If your objective in the classroom is to appear neutral, discussing your involvement in practical work may be less appropriate.
These potential drawbacks aside, we firmly maintain that the benefits that can be gained from engaging in participant observation outweigh the risks, provided one takes the right steps to maintain research priorities. In the following section, we provide practical advice rooted in our own experience and geared toward scholars in different roles and at different stages of their careers.
Advice for Junior Scholars
While junior scholars have less latitude than their senior colleagues for engaging in participant observation work, they should not jettison all outside political engagement just because they face graduation or tenure pressures. Rather, they must be strategic about how they integrate participant observation into their teaching and research portfolios. We recommend that young scholars use some basic metrics to judge the appropriateness of potential participant observation engagements. Of utmost consideration is whether establishing a particular relationship has a reasonable expectation of yielding publishable findings in a relatively short time frame. A third-year assistant professor should probably not spend 20 hours a week working on a longitudinal study that will not produce findings for 10 years, but if working with a campaign or organization could yield publishable findings in one to three years, then establishing such a relationship makes perfect sense.
Junior scholars should always take care to assure supervisors and potential employers that their external activities serve the larger purpose of advancing their research agenda. Junior scholars should pick outside engagements that both complement existing research agendas and have a reasonable chance of producing publishable findings in their chosen field of inquiry. For example, a comparativist studying authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia would have difficulty justifying his or her extensive involvement in a local canvassing effort for an American presidential campaign, because such activity is not germane to his or her specific research agenda. On the other hand, an American campaigns and elections scholar would have a much easier time convincing supervisors of the relevance of the same extracurricular activity. Still, even he or she will have to prove that such volunteer efforts have a high likelihood of yielding publishable data.
There will likely be times when junior scholars will want to immerse themselves in a community organization or campaign that has no connection at all to their research. If these engagements are pursued on the scholars' own time, they are free to participate in activities of their choosing. As with all pre-tenure extracurricular pursuits, these scholars must count the cost in terms of time and lost productivity. If the scholar truly believes that he or she can successfully juggle work and outside commitments, then, as any adult, he or she should be free to pursue such a passion. In doing so, however, he or she will need to assume the consequences if publication deadlines cannot be met.
Advice for Supervisors
Senior scholars who supervise graduate students and assistant professors also play a critical role in supporting participant observation activities. It has been our experience that some well-meaning senior faculty members dissuade young scholars from participating in all pracademic activities—including participant observation—until they earn tenure. While we understand the impulse to be risk averse, we discourage senior scholars from issuing a blanket condemnation of all pracademic activities for junior scholars. If junior scholars seek advice about pursuing participant observation opportunities, we encourage their mentors to weigh each opportunity on a case-by-case basis. Advisors should absolutely dissuade their charges from pursuing activities that will never produce publishable research. However, if the third-party relationship has the potential to quickly generate publishable research, then there is no reason to dissuade a young scholar from pursuing that relationship.
Conclusion
We assume that most political scientists chose this profession because they love politics. Although some political scientists are no doubt attracted to the cerebral nature of scholarly inquiry, we know that direct participation in real politics sparks many other scholars' interest in this field. Direct participation can help sustain these scholars' interest in their work and even lead to important new advances in both empirical analysis and theory-building. We see little chance of harm in political scientists engaging in real politics; rather, we see great opportunity. Participant observation has a significant likelihood of producing beneficial results in all three realms on which scholars are evaluated: teaching, publishing, and service.
