We are all familiar with the old-fashioned work study practitioners who, with their clipboards, stopwatches, pens and pads stood and observed people working. They were using structured observational methods, which are quantitative. They may have wanted to know how many times a person carried out a cycle of work activity within a particular period of time; and if a different method of working would improve productivity.
Unlike the data gathered from an interview, this kind of observation records irrefutable facts about people’s behavior. However, structured observation is quite a ‘cold’ exercise in that it tells us little about the subject’s emotions – their reactions to what they have to do and their thoughts and feelings about it. Those being observed are usually aware of what you are doing and, for ethical reasons, they should be told anyway. Exceptionally, when there is no alternative and when the observation subject is sufficiently important to justify it, covert observation takes place. Obviously, this raises ethical issues. Researchers do not normally set out to deceive people. On the other hand, the transparency of the observation creates a dilemma because in certain circumstances the probability of accurate data has been reduced markedly since those being observed seldom behaving in the way they would normally. Another form of deception takes place when as part of an ostensibly overt observation exercise, such as participant observation, the behavior that is being observed by the researcher may be outside the limits of his or her stated intentions.