Chapter 4 - The Disturbing and the Disturbed Observer, Lincoln and Guba,

Naturalistic Inquiry is an approach to understanding the social world in which the researcher
observes, describes, and interprets the experiences and actions of specific people and groups
in societal and cultural context.
The chapter begins with the notion that the concept of the active observer, “one who reaches
out and sees if his ideas worked or not” was consistent with the positivist point of view.
Science seen as empirical, formal, and exact. Scientist pictured as objective, independent.
Subject-object dualism, wherein the investigator is the subject, and the entity being studied
is the object.

• Positivist axiom of “inquirer respondent relationship”:

“The inquirer and the object of inquiry are independent; the knower and the known
constitute a discrete dualism.”
• Naturalist axiom of “inquirer respondent relationship”:
“The inquirer and the ‘object’ of inquiry interact to influence one another; knower
and known are inseparable.
In this chapter, the authors make the case for the latter proposition.
Critique -
The author does not mention that the assumption of positivism was and is still actually quite a
useful assumption for physicists dealing with classical mechanics.
These positivist assumptions have also worked well in complexity science as well, that deal
with the modelling of large number of interactions.

Slide 2
The first chink they identify in the positivist armor is that of “reactivity”.
Reactivity, described as “an error from the respondent”, is the tendency of “subjects” to
react differentially to the research stimulus.
The authors describe four classes of reactivity error
Awareness of being tested, which is often called the “guinea pig effect”.
Role selection, which has to do with the respondent choosing one out of many selves, which
he believes to be proper.
Measurement as change agents, which states that the mere act of measurement may alter
the respondent’s reaction to subsequent measurements.
Response sets which has to do with the respondent exhibiting certain typical behaviours, such
as a tendency to endorse a strongly stated statement to a weakly stated one.
There have been many well documented instances of reactivity such as Hawthorne effect,
Pygmalion effect etc.
There have been various responses to this threat to internal validity.
First being the use of equivalent comparison groups. One of them being the Solomon Four-
Group Design.
The second response was the use of unobtrusive measures. Ethicality of the such measures
becomes questionable.
The third response is when the researchers resort to out-and-out deception.
Critique -
Awareness of being tested (guinea pig effect) - Difficult to control but can be controlled
through misdirection
Response Sets – Can be controlled for to some extent
The question of ethics in this instance seems a bit misguided. As long as the intentions are
made completely clear to the respondent about what the researcher is exactly pursuing, the
researcher is in some sense misinforming the respondent, which according to the author is
“unethical”.

Second chink - indeterminacy.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle served as the ultimate instance of indeterminacy and
observer disturbance.
This result of uncertainty was later used in many other disciplines. As Heisenberg himself
puts it, “what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of
questioning”.
The argument is that if physics cannot observe without distorting the object of the
observation, it is much difficult for social sciences because humans being not homogeneous,
distortions are inevitable.
The observer by the mere act of observing distorts the observation itself, and thus it can lead
to false conclusions if done without an awareness of the distortion.
The authors claim that observation therefore not only disturbs, but it shapes.
Critique –
Indeterminacy of a particular variable can actually be reduced by quite a lot, and is done in
various experiments in Physics. A similar analogy can be made for human experiments, where
one particular dimension is being measured, and the accuracy of measurement can be focused
on this particular dimension.

Third chink – Interaction

Observation not only disturbs and shapes, but is shaped by what is observed.
The question maker is shaped throughout by his/her expectations of what the sample of
respondents will be like, and how they are likely to react to whatever he or she may finally
send out.
Similarly, the respondents are constantly being shaped by their perceptions and expectations
about the researcher and his or her use of the data.
Hence, in a very real sense, the investigator and respondent together create the data of the
research. Each influencing the other.
dealing with interaction. These include:
One, simply ignoring it.
Second is to devise methodological safeguards that can effectively eliminate its effect.
Third is to take the phenomenon into account as the best one can, but conceding at the outset
that one’s best efforts will always be inadequate.
The fourth one, and according to the authors by far the best one, is to capitalise on it by
exploiting the opportunities that interaction afford.

Critique –
Interaction cannot be avoided, but it can be minimised unlike what the author seems to
imply. there is a clear imbalance of information between the researcher and the
respondent.
Questions can be tailored in a way to keep the respondent from shaping their responses
from the interaction with the questionnaire.

The authors pursue two additional questions in this chapter.

1. What justifications can one give for choosing to capitalise on interactivity, rather than
endeavoring to exclude it, as positivists would do?
Theories and facts are not independent.
Purposeful sampling and emergent design are impossible to achieve without interaction
“To move beyond “mere” objectivity requires a level of mature judgment that can be
achieved only by continuous interaction.”
Here, according to Hegel, three levels of consciousness are possible:
1. A primary level, in which we are one-sidedly subjective.
2. A social level, in which we are one-sidedly objective.
3. A realised level, in which we are objectively-subjective.
The fourth is that human research is inherently dialectical.
A researcher must be prepared to deal with conflicts and contradictions.
Here, three principles are involved:
1. The interdependence of opposites. One cannot exist without its opposite.
2. The interpenetration of opposites. Everything contains elements of its opposite.
3. The unity of opposites.
The fifth is that meaningful human research is impossible without the full understanding and
cooperation of the respondents.
The last justification is that it is the quality of interaction that provides the human instrument
with the possibility of fully exploiting its own natural advantages

The second question that the authors ask is can adequate safeguards be mounted against
investigator bias?
There are techniques that naturalists employ that help provide a system of useful checks and
balances:
Member checks : Referring data and interpretation back to data sources for verification.
Debriefings by peers : Discussion with non-involved professional peers about research
experiences, findings, decisions etc.
Prolonged engagement and persistent observation : Maintaining long-term, in-depth contact
with the subjects.
Use of reflexive journals
Independent audit : External auditor examines the inquiry to establish that the process was
carried out within the bounds of professional practice.