Observational Research———573
Researchers are often positioned as advocates who are
indeed presenting a credible, trustworthy depiction of
a people, condition, or phenomenon, but doing it from
a real, contextualized, involved position. Data are not,
then, presented as subjectively emanating from the
researchers’ whimsies; rather, they authentically, pur-
posefully, and contextually emerge from the dynamic
intersection of researchers’ and research participants’
unique identities, beliefs, ideas, passions, and actions.
Peter Miller
See also Reflexivity; Reliability; Validity
Further Readings
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative
research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH
Observation is one of the oldest and most fundamental
research method approaches. It involves collecting
impressions of the world using all of one’s senses, espe-
cially looking and listening, in a systematic and pur-
poseful way to learn about a phenomenon of interest.
Although frequently employed on its own, observa-
tional research is often used with other methods such as
interviewing and document analysis. Both quantitative
and qualitative researchers, and those working some-
where along the continuum between these two
approaches, use observation. More quantitative observa-
tion is often referred to as systematic or structured
observation and more qualitative approaches include
naturalistic observation, nonstructured observation, and
participant observation. This entry focuses on qualita-
tive observational research. It begins by relating some of
the characteristics of qualitative observation, goes on to
describe the method or doing of observation, explores
the issues of the role of the observer and ethical con-
cerns, and closes with overviews of the strengths and
weaknesses of this methodological approach.
Characteristics of Qualitative
Observational Research
Qualitative observational research attempts to capture
life as experienced by the research participants rather
than through categories that have been predetermined
by the researcher. Observational research assumes
behavior is purposeful, reflecting deeper values and
beliefs. Although it may be conducted in a laboratory or
another setting chosen by the researcher, it more typi-
cally takes place in natural settings to capture behavior
as it occurs in the real world. It usually involves direct
contact between the researcher and participants though
indirect data collection methods such as audio- or video-
recording may also be used. Qualitative observational
research is exploratory. It seeks to uncover unantici-
pated phenomena. It uses inductive reasoning with the
conceptual constructs used to account for observations
being developed during and after data collection from
the observed behavior itself. Qualitative observational
research uses idiographic rather than nomothetic causal
explanation. It is constructivist in approach, emphasiz-
ing meanings that the participants attach to activities
and events. Qualitative observational research recog-
nizes the subjective role of the researcher. It acknowl-
edges reactivity to be inevitable on the part of both the
observed and the observer and seeks to address and
understand this through researcher reflexivity.
Qualitative observational research is associated
with a number of theoretical traditions and broad
research methodologies including ethnomethodology,
grounded theory, dramaturgy, institutional ethnogra-
phy, and participatory action research.
Methods: Doing Observational Research
The Research Process
Observational research, like any research, begins
with the selection of a research problem. This problem
is often presented as an area of research interest, with
more specific research questions being articulated
after more is learned through observation in the field.
Although some researchers prefer to enter the field
and begin observation immediately without the poten-
tial blinders of preconceived notions, many conduct a
literature search to identify relevant indicators and
explanatory concepts that may inform the project.
Researchers gather both descriptive and relational
data through observing behavior in the setting of
interest. Findings are articulated, often with an
explanatory model or one or more explanatory theo-
retical constructs, in reports of the research.
Qualitative observation is characterized by an
emergent research design. This designs involves a
574———Observational Research
cyclical process, moving back and forth between
inductive and deductive reasoning: Themes are identi-
fied through the analysis of observed behavior;
these themes suggest areas for focusing subsequent
observation; subsequent observations suggest new
themes that then initiate more observations. Data col-
lection continues until saturation, the point at which
the observer learns nothing new from continued
observation.
What Is Observed
Observation is holistic in its approach, with
researchers collecting data about many aspects of the
research setting and its participants. Researchers pay
attention to the actors or participants in a setting, col-
lecting sociodemographic (e.g., age, gender, educa-
tion, class) and descriptive (e.g., dress and stature)
information, trying to determine who the people are.
Acts, activities, and events are observed and recorded
to discover what people do and with whom, what is
happening, and if there are any trends and patterns dis-
cernible in these activities. Observers attend to what
people say, the words they use, accounts and explana-
tions they give of their behavior, and the personal and
social meanings and the attitudes and beliefs that are
revealed through their talk. Relationships between
people, both individually and within groups and
between people and groups of people and organiza-
tions, are explored. Characteristics of the physical set-
ting, including the objects found in it, are noted. Where
possible and often through the collection and examina-
tion of documents, information is gathered about the
history of the phenomenon of interest and the research
setting. Observers attend to mundane, everyday
details, believing that what is actually happening is
often evident in what might be seen to be trivial and
taken for granted. Through observation practices such
as these, researchers strive to identify broad trends and
patterns of behavior.
Fieldnotes
Data are most frequently recorded in the form of
fieldnotes. From initial jottings made during observa-
tion, researchers develop full fieldnotes usually within
24 hours of data collection while memory is still
strong. Fieldnotes always include written descriptions
of what was observed and may also contain maps, dia-
grams, and documents or other objects gathered while
observing. While writing up fieldnotes, observers
often have insights about what has been observed, and
these are recorded as theoretical or analytical field-
notes. Researchers also keep track of conditions in the
setting, their own state of mind, attention span, and
other variables that might affect the process of obser-
vation. These records are referred to as either method
fieldnotes or a reflexive journal. Fieldnotes are the
core data log for analysis in observational research.
Researcher Roles in Observation
The role adopted by the researcher is important in
that it constrains what can be observed. Several
schemes have been developed to describe these roles.
Raymond L. Gold’s typology, dating from the late
1950s and commonly used, is based on the degree that
the researcher participates in the setting, ranging from
complete observer (no interaction between the
observer and the observed) through observer as par-
ticipant, participant as observer, and complete partici-
pant. More recently, some researchers have asserted
that all observers participate in a setting in some way
and prefer to use the term membership, varying from
peripheral through active to full membership to
describe researcher roles. The purpose of an observa-
tion study, the characteristics of the observer, and the
nature of the setting all contribute to the choice of an
appropriate research role. For example, in a study of
the work of a nursery school teacher conducted on site
in an actual nursery school by an adult male
researcher, it may be best for the observer to adopt the
research role of complete observer or peripheral mem-
bership to remain relatively nonobtrusive and to not
disrupt the normal flow of activities. In presenting the
findings of observation research, it is important that
the researcher role and its entailments in the particu-
lar research setting be described.
Ethical Issues in Observational Research
A number of ethical issues are associated with observa-
tional research. Of major concern is the use of decep-
tion by the researcher. Practicing covert observation,
assuming a false role, or misleading participants about
the research in other ways may (depending on the cir-
cumstances) violate the principle of informed consent;
due care and attention must be paid to ethical issues in
these cases. Researchers must maintain confidential-
ity, both protecting the identity of participants and

refusing to reveal sensitive information gathered during
the research process that could harm the individuals
involved. Researchers must be inclusive, realistically
representing the voices of all participants in a research
setting. Key informants and gatekeepers may block
access to the less powerful, and ways to bypass them
must be found. Member checking helps to ensure
that participant’s accounts and meanings are authen-
tic. Observational methods are often used for explor-
ing deviant behavior. Researchers may observe or
participate in illegal or deviant behavior as part of the
data gathering process. This behavior can result in
what is called guilty knowledge and presents the ethi-
cal dilemma of whether or not this behavior should be
reported to police or health or other authorities to pro-
tect and help participants and the community.
Strengths of Observational Research
Qualitative observation, with its flexible and emergent
research design, is effective for exploring topics about
which little is known. It is well suited to the study of
social processes over time. The rich descriptions it
generates can result in deeper, fuller understanding of
phenomena. It is particularly powerful when com-
bined with other methods such as interviewing. Most
forms of qualitative observational research are rela-
tively unobtrusive and therefore nonreactive and able
to generate highly trustworthy data. Finally, observa-
tional research is well suited to both the discovery of
new information (theory generation) and the valida-
tion of existing knowledge (theory confirmation).
Weaknesses of Observational Research
Observation is not suited to all research inquiries. Not
all phenomena, such as cognitive processes, can be
directly observed. Infrequently occurring acts are dif-
ficult to capture even with prolonged time spent in the
field. Observation requires a substantial amount of
time and other resources and is usually tied to one
specific place, raising issues related to the transfer-
ability of findings to other settings. Repeated observa-
tions in a number of settings and thick descriptions of
what was observed that help readers determine how
transferable findings are to other settings help to
address this problem.
As observation is very dependent on the ability of
the observer (reflected in the idea of researcher-as-
instrument), it is subject to observer bias that occurs
Observational Research———575
when researchers channel both their observation and
interpretation of data through what they know.
Strategies to reduce observer bias include maintaining
reflective journals that actively examine this issue;
prolonged engagement in the field that allows for dis-
covery of unanticipated phenomena; triangulation of
data sources, researchers and methods; negative case
analysis; member checking; peer debriefing; and pro-
viding thick descriptions of what was observed.
Novice researchers may not have the experience and
skill to be effective observers. They need training and
especially apprenticeship, as the best way to learn is
by actually doing observation.
Recently, researchers working from a postmod-
ernist perspective have questioned the desirability and
feasibility of objectivity in observational research and
point to a number of factors that inevitably threaten
objectivity. They maintain the researcher’s situation
(e.g., gender, class, and ethnicity) must be fully
understood as it acts as a lens through which observa-
tion is conducted. They assert there will always be
multiple accounts of what is happening depending on
who is describing an event and that no single account
may be privileged over another. Postmodernist
researchers argue for thinking of observation as a
context for interaction among those involved in the
research, as collaboration between the researcher and
the participants.
Lynne E. F. McKechnie
See also Naturalistic Observation; Nonparticipant
Observation; Participant Observation; Structured
Observation; Unstructured Observation
Further Readings
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2000). Observational techniques. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 377–392).Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Pérez, K. A. (2000).
Rethinking observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 673–702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: A complex research
method. Library Trends, 55(1), 171–189.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field
observation. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.
576———Observation Schedule
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lofland, J., Lofland, L. H., Snow, D., & Anderson, L. (2005).
Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Palys, T. (2003). Observation and ethnography. In Research
decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives
(3rd ed., pp. 203–227). Scarborough, Canada: Thomson
(Nelson).
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
OBSERVATION SCHEDULE
An observation schedule is a form prepared prior
to data collection that delineates the behavior and
situational features to be observed and recorded
during observation. Observation schedules vary on a
quantitative–qualitative continuum. More quantitative
observation schedules, sometimes referred to as
observation checklists, use carefully and explicitly
predefined categories of variables that can be counted
and analyzed statistically. More qualitative observa-
tion schedules act as flexible guidelines for data col-
lection, listing topics of interest and providing space
to record notes about new themes that emerge during
observation. Heavily structured observation schedules
are best suited to contexts where more is known about
the topic of interest; more flexible, less structured
observation schedules are more effective in situations
where less is known about the research questions.
Usually taking the form of a single sheet of paper,
observation schedules are most frequently used with
structured observation. Categories included on the
data collection form are derived from the purposes of
the research project and from what is known about
the variables or themes of interest. Observation sched-
ules are typically pretested and modified before
implementation.
Observation schedules allow factual information to
be recorded immediately. Factual data collected typi-
cally include some or all of relevant demographic
information (e.g., age, gender), the role of participants
in the research setting (e.g., job title), counts of the
number of individuals present, and elements of the
physical setting. Investigators also document what
participants do (acts and activities) either by checking
predetermined categories or by making notes about
what is observed. What people say (words and the
meanings ascribed to them) and relationships among
participants are usually also of interest. In developing
observation schedules, researchers attend to ease of
use. More quantitative observation schedules will
include explicitly defined categories that are exhaus-
tive and mutually exclusive and that, wherever possi-
ble, avoid subjective measures requiring judgment or
inference. More qualitative observation schedules
seek to list as many emerging themes of interest to the
project as is possible. Observation schedules are well
suited to tracking time and if designed to do so, can
capture the frequency, sequence. and duration of
events observed. Most researchers recommend leav-
ing space on observation schedules, including the
most explicitly quantitative forms, for recording data
that do not fit into preselected categories and impres-
sions and other more subjective data that may inform
the study.
Observation schedules provide clear guides for
focusing observation and recording data. In studies
involving more than one observer, they allow for tests
of intercoder reliability and serve to enhance consis-
tency among observers. Heavily structured observa-
tion schedules are less flexible, restricting attention
and limiting the ability of observers to see new things.
The use of observation schedules can be intrusive and
result in reactivity in research settings. However, it
has been found that this is usually ameliorated
through habituation.
Lynne E. F. McKechnie
See also Checklists; Inter- and Intracoder Reliability;
Observational Research; Structured Observation
Further Readings
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for
social scientists and practitioner researchers (2nd ed.).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
OBSERVER BIAS
Errors and biases can occur in all types of social sci-
ence research, whether it is qualitatively driven or
quantitatively led. One type of bias that may occur

during observational methods is observer bias. This
term refers to the ways in which errors may uncon-
sciously occur when gathering and analyzing observa-
tional data. The observer’s age, gender, social class,
values, schemas, and expectations may lead certain
observations to be recorded as significant and others to
be ignored if the observer regards them as unimpor-
tant. Further, observers may associate meanings to the
observed behavior that are different from the meanings
associated by the person(s) displaying the behavior.
Psychological studies have shown that bias in
human perception and expectation can encourage
findings that correspond with those perceptions and
expectations. In one study, Miriam Goldstein, J. Roy
Hopkins, and Michael J. Strube found that students
who were led to believe that an individual’s perfor-
mance would decrease as a result of consuming alco-
hol reported corresponding observations. The
decrease in performance was not evident in the
observed behavior as the individual observed—a
trained confederate who drank a nonalcoholic drink—
maintained consistent performance throughout the
observation.
Although the researcher cannot alter some influenc-
ing characteristics, such as age, observer bias can be
reduced if the researcher adopts specific strategies dur-
ing the observation, for example, using standardized
forms. Standardized forms, as used in structured obser-
vations, can help to reduce the impact of selective per-
ception, as the forms direct the observer’s attention to
those behaviors or activities that are closely related to
the central research project. The use of multiple
observers can also highlight deviations from the main
research topic, misinterpretations, omissions, and
overemphasis. Further, triangulation—the use of multi-
ple methods or data sources to study the observational
individual(s)—enables findings to be cross-checked
and any biases or errors to be highlighted.
Observer bias can also manifest itself in more sub-
tle ways, which are more difficult to eliminate. Those
being observed may modify their behavior, disguise
their actions, and alter their opinions because they do
not wish to share them with the researcher. Behavior
may be changed according to how those being
observed think they are expected to behave. Such
responses are often referred to as the Hawthorne
effect, taken from the name of a factory where the
effect was first identified—the Western Electric
Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. As com-
pletely neutral observations may be difficult to
Ontology———577
achieve, when reporting observational findings
researchers should acknowledge and discuss the fac-
tors that may have contributed to observer bias and
how these factors may have altered the interpretation
of the findings. This discussion will enable readers to
make an informed judgment when assessing the value
of the observational findings.
Sharon Lockyer
See also Bias; Objectivity; Observational Research;
Structured Observation
Further Readings
Goldstein, M. D., Hopkins, J. R., & Strube, M. J. (1994).
“The eye of the beholder”: A classroom demonstration of
observer bias. Teaching of Psychology, 21(2), 154–157.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
ONTOLOGY
Ontology derives from the Greek words for thing and
rational account. In classical and speculative philoso-
phy, ontology was the philosophical science of being.
Its general aim was to provide reasoned, deductive
accounts of the fundamental sorts of things that
existed. Ontology was not concerned with the specific
nature of empirical entities, but rather with more basic
questions of the universal forms of existence.
Examples of classical ontological questions are as fol-
lows: Are bodies the only things that exist, or are
immaterial forms real? Is there a supreme intelligence
in the universe, or is all activity reducible to mechani-
cal motion? Are individuals alone real, or are collec-
tivities independently real? Are there real objects of
universal terms, or are universals simply names that
humans give to mental abstractions? The very general-
ity of these questions means that they will always have
some connection to the investigation of natural and
social phenomena. In the contemporary era, however,
it would be wrong to continue to think of ontology
as a fundamental science given that hypothetical-
empirical methods of research (at least in the natural
sciences) have permanently displaced the deductive-
rationalist methods of classical philosophy.
The last systematic attempt at fundamental ontol-
ogy in the work of Martin Heidegger hoped to displace
578———Ontology
the domination of empirical science by demonstrating
that its conclusions were relative to unexamined
frames of meaning. The answer to the question, “What
is being?” differs depending on the frames of meaning
within which the question is asked. The scientific
answer to this question refuses to admit all nonquan-
tifiable data into an acceptable account of reality. The
consequence of this method is that the world is
reduced to the sum total of individual things. Since
these things are assumed to be meaningless in them-
selves and anything that might exist beyond individual
things but is not quantifiable is ruled irrelevant, the
entire world is reduced to mere raw materials for sci-
entific and technological manipulation. The impor-
tance of this aspect of Heidegger’s work has not
impeded the further extension of the hegemony of
quantitative methods in both the natural and social sci-
ences. His alternative, to let beings be, has not proven
a globally convincing alternative.
Nevertheless, ontological questioning remains an
essential moment of any adequate social scientific
research. The importance of ontological questioning,
however, does not mean that it is reasonable any
longer to expect deductive expositions of the essential
nature of social reality. It would be anachronistic to
pose these questions with the goal of arriving at a
totalized system of universal principles in mind. In the
contemporary period, ontology, or more particularly,
social ontology, remains essential as a critical propae
duetic to empirical research.
Social Ontology
The term social ontology derives from the work of
Carol C. Gould. In this more restricted sense, ontol-
ogy aims at providing general accounts of the nature
of social reality. Its practice is linked explicitly to the
goal of avoiding a naive (unreflective, uncritical)
empiricism that would reduce the nature of social
reality to that which is disclosed by statistical and
empirical methods of research. From an ontological
perspective, the problem of statistical–empirical
methods is not that they cannot uncover important
data about social dynamics or patterns of behavior, but
rather that they rest upon an untheorized and undis-
closed ontological assumption: Social reality is iden-
tical to the conclusions of statistical–empirical
research. In other words, the empirical researcher who
does not explicitly pose ontological questions fails to
ask the most important question of social research:
How did the given social reality come to be consti-
tuted as it appears? The social ontologist recognizes
that unlike the objects of natural science, which are
not produced by human action and thus constitute a
reality that truly is given to the mind to investigate,
social reality is the result of complex forms of human
action and interaction. That fact means that social
reality is dynamic in a way that natural reality is not.
The fundamental forms of social reality can change
precisely because they are determined by forms of
action and interaction that create a field of possibili-
ties, but that simultaneously exclude the realization of
most of them. Posing critical ontological questions
thus opens up the field of social possibilities, whereas
proceeding on the assumption that that which is real in
society is identical to the conclusions of statistical–
empirical research keeps the field of possibilities
hidden. An example will clarify this claim.
The newspapers are regularly full of stories about
crime. Quite detailed demographic and statistical
analyses of the causes and trends of crime are easy to
find in the popular press. These analyses are generally
accompanied by definite psychological and sociolog-
ical assumptions that can differ within a narrow range
of alternatives (some accounts give relatively more
weight to sociological factors such as class and race;
others tend toward a more psychologistic approach,
linking criminal activity to a specific mindset that
increases the propensity for antisocial behavior).
What one rarely finds in these accounts, however, is
an inquiry into the meaning of crime. That is, these
accounts generally assume without argument that
crime is some independently real entity and the crim-
inal, thus, an objective variable that can be studied as
one would study the behavior of a neutrino or a mag-
netic field. In other words, empirical research pro-
ceeds on the basis of assumptions that the investigator
may not even be aware of, but these assumptions pre-
determined the sorts of questions asked and the range
of answers that will prove acceptable. This predeter-
mination of questions and answers at the same time
limits the range of policy options that will be
defended by the conclusions of the research. If socio-
logical factors are paramount, then various projects of
social development (poverty reduction programs, edu-
cation, etc.) will be favored. If psychologistic assump-
tions rule, then strategies of deterrence (designed to
make a life of crime less appealing) will be favored.
The aim of social ontological investigation is not to
support one policy option over the other, but rather, to

work beneath the givens of empirical research to
disclose the wider field of possibilities for social
action and organization closed off to empirical meth-
ods because of their unreflective approach. As
opposed to the positive nature of empirical research
(positive in the sense of being governed by the goal of
accumulating data that can support policy), social
ontological research is primarily negative. Negative
here means aimed at the breaking up of fixed and
untested assumptions that illegitimately limit the field
of questions and answers that guide empirical inquiry.
Social Ontology and Social Criticism
The negative form of inquiry proceeds by taking the
givens of empirical research and making them the tar-
get of ontological questioning. That is, it asks whether
or not, or under what conditions, the fixed object of
empirical research actually exists. Consider the exam-
ple of crime and the criminal once again. Positive meth-
ods assume the objective reality of crime and criminals
and seek to draw inductive generalizations about
causes, behaviors, and practical remedies. Ontological
investigation asks deeper questions: What constitutes
criminal behavior? Is being a criminal being something
fundamentally distinct from being a not-criminal?
What general social conditions must obtain for their
being the categories of crime and criminal? Are these
conditions universal (transhistorical and cross-cultural),
or are they historically specific terms, apart from spe-
cific policy options in any given society? Is it possible
to conceive on the basis of real social potentialities a
different form of social organization in which crime
and criminals would no longer exist?
These sorts of focused questions are only the
beginning of negative inquiry. As the questioning pro-
ceeds, it will lead the questioner into more fundamen-
tal questions, questions that establish contact between
social ontology and the deeper questions of classical
ontology. If the first set of questions reveals that spe-
cific factors must be in place for a given social reality
to appear in the form that it does (to use the example
of crime once again, a civil legal institution separate
from religious authority that permits the distinction
between crime and sin), then the general conclusion
follows that social reality is more fluid than natural
reality. From this general conclusion follow more gen-
eral questions: In what sense can institutions be said
to exist independently of the individuals whose behav-
iors they govern? Does institutional reality depend
Ontology———579
upon the beliefs of people, or is it a reified whole that
determines people’s beliefs and actions? In what sense
is society an object of research? Is social reality dis-
tinct from the individuals who make it up? The gen-
eral methodological implication of this form of
questioning is to open up a difference between the
given appearances of social belief and the action and
general underlying processes that produce changes in
the institutional configurations in which beliefs and
actions develop. In short, social ontology undermines
the plausibility of uncritical empiricism that identifies
social reality as such with given forms of organiza-
tion, belief, and action.
Empirical approaches to understanding society that
simply assume that what the researcher sees is the truth
about society run the risk of not only ignoring the his-
torical development of different social forms (and thus,
the possibility of deeper social transformations in the
future) but also misunderstanding the nature of indi-
viduals whose belief and action purportedly constitute
the foundation of social life. Methodological individu-
alism—the claim that only individuals are real and that
collective entities such as classes and movements are
understandable only if their behavior is reduced to the
behavior of the individuals who make them up—is the
necessary counterpart to empiricist social research.
Since the empiricist necessarily refuses the distinction
between apparent forms of reality and essential under-
lying, constitutive structures and relations, the possi-
bility of collective subjects, is ruled out from the
beginning. It does not follow from this argument that
there are in fact collective agents; that is a question that
can be decided only by fundamental inquiry into the
nature of social reality. The point of ontological ques-
tioning is to test presupposed assumptions by working
beneath the manifest forms of action in given social
formations. This deep questioning extends all the way
down into those elements of human subjects that appear
most natural: sex, skin color as an objective determi-
nant of race, the biological needs that structure the
human organism, and so on. There can be no certainty
that what appears to be natural (i.e., fixed indepen-
dently of institutional structure) is in truth natural with-
out ontological investigation.
Contemporary Relevance of
Ontology in Social Research
The need for this form of ontological questioning of
given social reality follows from the basic structure of
580———Ontology
human thought. Although he did not use the term
social ontology, Theodor Adorno’s inquiry into the
basic relationship between thinking consciousness
(subject) and the object of thought reveals clearly its
necessity. Adorno demonstrates in Negative Dialectics
that human thinking is essentially contradictory.
Because thought depends upon universal concepts to
organize the raw material of sense data, but the objects
of that sense data are material particulars, the very
processes by which human beings cognize the world
distances the human mind from it. That is, there is
always a cognitive deficit between the conceptual
forms through which the world is known and the
intrinsic (particular) structure of the things of the
world itself. The same point holds whether one is
referring to natural or social reality. To simply assume
that a categorical system corresponds to a nonconcep-
tual reality (as positivism must) is to ignore the essen-
tial difference between universal concepts and
particular things and the relations between them.
Since concepts are necessary for there to be objects of
thought at all, there can be no question of abstracting
from conceptual structures to get at the things them-
selves as Edmund Husserl argued. Instead, genuine
thinking for Adorno must engage in an ongoing
dialectical process of conceptualization and criticism
of achieved conceptualization, constantly reopening
the conceptual closure the mind must impose upon the
world. The point of this constant reopening is not to
end up with some definite ontology (general or
social), but rather it is to remind subjects that no par-
ticular conceptual system is ever fully adequate to the
complexity of reality.
In this sense, ontology today is best practiced as a
critical discipline rather than a positive philosophical
science. Positive knowledge of social, like natural,
reality cannot do without empirical and statistical
methods. These methods, however, must be located in
a more fundamental matrix of critical (ontological)
thought. Critical thinking here does not mean what it
has come to mean in the social sciences today—prob-
lem solving—but rather, it refers to the essentially
negative nature of thinking. That is, thinking negates
the givenness or independence of the object. Any
object of thought must become an object of con-
sciousness before it can be named and classified. All
systems of naming and classification follow from the
structure of human consciousness itself, which, as
noted above, converts material particulars into univer-
sal concepts. Critical thinking remains mindful of this
dialectical conversion process and thus, refuses just
what the empiricist demands—total closure of the
field of thinking by the given forms of reality that con-
stitute the object of its claims. The general ontological
conclusion of this approach to the problem is simply
that reality is not a fixed object that can be known
once for all. What is real is determined by the
dynamic processes implicit in both nature and society
and the structures of mind upon which active cogni-
tion of those processes depends. Without this, aware-
ness of the dynamic and changeable nature of the real
empirical knowledge continually compromises its
truth value by falsely universalizing conclusions
drawn from particular sets of data.
It would appear, then, that the sort of ontological
investigation that remains vital today entails both rel-
ativistic and idealist conclusions. Such a conclusion,
however, is too hasty. Ontology is essentially a form
of questioning. Questions open up the field of
research; they do not determine answers. Hence,
whether relativism or idealism is true cannot be
decided simply from a process of critical questioning
of apparent natural and social forms. In fact, to
assume that some definite systematic conclusion fol-
lows from a process of questioning is the result of a
demand that questioning cease, whereas the whole
point of ontological investigation is to make clear the
reasons why questioning cannot terminate in any
absolutely final conclusions. Since the real is a
dynamic process (or processes) of change and devel-
opment, there can be no final, one-sided conclusions
as to its essential nature. To argue that everything is
relative or that the implication of consciousness in the
cognitive determination of material reality leads to
idealism is to miss the real point of ontological criti-
cism. The real point, once again, is to undermine the
positivist drive to reduce reality as such to its apparent
forms in any given moment of time. To grasp natural
and social reality as processes of change and develop-
ment is thus to grasp that the opposites that structure
classical ontology (ideal–material, relative–absolute)
are always both present in the object. One does not
exclude the other; each implies the other. That social
and natural realty change means that there is always
going to be an element of relativity in empirical
knowledge; it does not mean that truth is relative. The
first formulation is not a general theory of truth; the
second is. The second contradicts itself (by absolutiz-
ing relativity); the first asserts a particular conclusion
of critical investigation.

It is, therefore, as the necessary foundation of
critical understanding that ontology remains relevant
to social research. Unless fundamental questions are
posed, social research runs the risk of being deter-
mined by immediate appearances, to the detriment of
both understanding and making efficacious contribu-
tions to public policy. Policy recommendations that
follow from unreflective assumptions about the nature
of social institutions and agents necessarily remain
hostage to given modes of social action. If those
modes of social action are problematic, however, then
policies that assume their necessity will serve to exac-
erbate rather than ameliorate their effects. The various
social wars of the last 3 decades, on poverty, on crime,
and so on, are cases in point of manifest policy failure
owing to the naive assumptions about the nature of the
social problem (and thus, about the basic nature of
social institutions and agents) that guided them. Thus,
although ontology as a fundamental philosophical sci-
ence may no longer have an important role, the deep
questions that motivated it remain an essential ele-
ment of illuminating social research.
Jeff Noonan
See also Essence; Essentialism; Idealism
Further Readings
Adorno, T. (2003). Negative dialectics. London: Continuum.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx’s social ontology. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper &
Row.
Heidegger, M. (1993). Modern science, metaphysics, and
mathematics. In Basic writings (chap. 6). New York:
HarperCollins.
OPEN CODING
Open coding refers to the initial phase of the coding
process in the grounded theory approach to qualitative
research (generating theory from data) espoused by
Anslem Strauss and Juliet Corbin. They call this ini-
tial stage of data analysis open coding because they
view the process as the “opening up” of the text in
order to uncover ideas and meanings it holds.
Open Coding———581
The process of open coding begins with the
collection of raw data (e.g., interviews, fieldnotes, art,
reports, diaries). The intent of open coding is to break
down the data into segments in order to interpret
them. Detailed word-by-word and line-by-line analy-
sis is conducted by researchers asking what is going
on. The researcher discovers, names, defines, and
develops as many ideas and concepts as possible with-
out concern for how they will ultimately be used. How
the issues and themes within the data relate must be
systematically assessed, but such relationships can be
discovered only once the multitude of ideas and con-
cepts it holds have been uncovered.
Turning data into concepts is the process of taking
words or objects and attaching a label to them that
represents an interpretation of them. When data col-
lection is ongoing, the concepts identified guide what
further data are collected. Such theoretical sampling,
sampling based on the concepts uncovered in the data,
is contingent upon the open coding process. The topic
of study and issues of concern to the researcher play a
key role in the ideas and concepts identified; however,
the researcher is advised to be vigilant in keeping an
open mind when analyzing the data.
Any phenomenon (e.g., event, incident, action, object,
process) may be multiply classified. For instance, a state-
ment by the spouse of an incarcerated offender, “I’m
worried that my daughter keeps getting into fist fights,”
may be coded as fighting, as parental concern for his or
her child, and as actions signifying the need for assis-
tance or therapy. The development of such concepts pro-
vides the opportunity for researchers to classify similar
phenomena together, ordering and reducing the data.
Data segments are, therefore, compared so that they may
be grouped together as examples of the same concept or
differentiated to form new ones. For instance, the con-
cepts of cheating, stealing, and fighting share the prop-
erty of being deviant and may be grouped together under
the more abstract category labeled deviant acts. In the
process of open coding, researchers also search for the
dimensions of categories, such as frequency (how often)
and intensity (how severe).
In the coding process advocated by Strauss and
Corbin, open coding precedes axial coding, the refine-
ment and development of specific categories, and
selective coding, where categories are related around
a core or central theme in an attempt to explain a
phenomenon.
Some critics have expressed concern that the
advantages of this style of microanalysis may be
582———Open-Ended Question
outweighed by the drawbacks of stripping away
context and thereby obscuring larger storylines.
Open coding may be recorded in a variety of
ways, for example, through marginal notes, the use
of word processing programs, or specialized soft-
ware programs designed for qualitative research
where code labels are attached to data segments for
easy retrieval.
Lucia Benaquisto
See also Axial Coding; Codes and Coding; Grounded
Theory; Selective Coding
Further Readings
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OPEN-ENDED QUESTION
An open-ended question is a type of question that
researchers pose to research participants that allows
them to select how they orient to the research topic.
Also referred to as nondirective questions, open-ended
questions provide participants of research interviews
or written surveys with the opportunity to choose the
terms with which to construct their descriptions and
highlight the topics that are meaningful to them. The
freedom on the part of research participants to elabo-
rate on self-selected aspects related to the researcher’s
topic of examination in response to open-ended ques-
tions contrasts with the kind of responses called for by
closed questions, which provide possible answers in
the question and structure the format in which inter-
viewees should respond. Open-ended questions make
no presumptions about the kinds of answers partici-
pants might provide and are sometimes used as a way
to develop the response options used in standardized
survey formats.
The “grand tour” and “mini tour” questions out-
lined by the ethnographer James Spradley are good
examples of open-ended questions, for example:
• Describe a typical day at work.
• Describe what you usually do when you encounter
x at work.
One guideline for using open-ended interview ques-
tions is to begin with general questions and to request
more detail from participants with probes. For exam-
ple, a general question such as, “Tell me how you
came to be doing y,” might be followed up with the
probe, “You mentioned z; give me an example of
that.” Participants’ descriptions of their subjective
states may also be elicited via probes: “You men-
tioned y; tell me what that was like for you.” A useful
closing question in any qualitative interview is the
open-ended question, “Is there anything we have not
talked about that you would like to add?”
Although Spradley’s use of open-ended questions
is in the context of ethnographic interviews that exam-
ine questions about culture, open-ended questions
may be used in a range of qualitative interview for-
mats, including open-ended or in-depth individual
interviews, group conversations and focus groups, and
in (quantitative) questionnaires to elicit written data.
Interviewers must take care to pose open-ended
questions purposefully, for if questions are too broad
and the researcher has provided insufficient context
for the research purpose, participants may not know
how to respond, and lengthy clarification sequences
may ensue. Another challenge faced by qualitative
researchers lies in the analysis of data generated from
open-ended questions. Since participants are free to
respond to open-ended questions in whatever way
they choose, data generated are likely to be wide-
ranging in topic, complexity, and length.
Kathryn J. Roulston
See also Closed Question; In-Depth Interview; Interview
Guide; Probes and Probing; Semi-Structured Interview;
Unstructured Interview
Further Readings
Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews
and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social
research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A
guide for researchers in education and the social sciences
(3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2006).
Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.