Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is a method of gathering data for research. It consists of monitoring the subject or subjects of study without interfering with or influencing them or their surroundings. Naturalistic observation is most commonly associated with studies that involve living beings as subjects. The strictest definitions of the term require that subjects are completely unaware that they are being observed or that a study is even occurring. However, some principles of naturalistic observation may be used even if a study does not meet all the criteria. A subject may know a study is occurring but not know the location or identities of the observers or what the study entails.

This form of observation often is employed to determine the behavior of humans and other animals. The fields of biology, zoology, psychology, and medicine all have depended on research conducted with naturalistic observation. Naturalistic observation has limitations that prevent it from being the only method to scientifically observe life, but it has been crucial to findings that could not be obtained in more controlled or artificial environments.

Brief History

Naturalistic observation stems from humanity's ability to learn by observing others and their surroundings. As experiments and the scientific method developed, naturalistic observation became a valuable research technique. However, human limitations hampered early instances of naturalistic observation. Researchers often could observe animals without detection only from great distances or for short periods. Without methods to record evidence, the result of studies depended on researchers' word, and sometimes researchers misinterpreted what they observed or could not observe a behavior clearly enough or frequently enough to understand it thoroughly.

The nineteenth century saw a great increase in the study of animals. The idea of animal welfare and the ethical treatment of animals began to develop. With these ideas came greater interest in animal behavior. In the twentieth century, technology further developed to help make naturalistic observation of animals more practical.

Primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall became renowned as one of the world's top experts on chimpanzees due to decades of naturalistic observation. She overturned many common beliefs about apes and revealed many previously unknown details about their lives and behavior. As an extremely well-known researcher with a large body of work, Goodall has drawn a variety of reactions to her studies. She is known as one of the most famous naturalistic observers, but many scientists have argued that her methods were not naturalistic. She did not hide her presence from her subjects. Her studies took place over such long periods, however, that her subjects grew accustomed to her presence and no longer considered her an outsider. Regardless of her exact methods, she used many aspects of naturalistic observation, including observing the subjects in their natural environment.

Studies on wolves in the twentieth century highlighted the value of naturalistic observation. A 1948 study established many ideas about wolf pack structure and pecking order. However, studies of wild wolves throughout the late twentieth century demonstrated that many of these concepts did not accurately represent wild wolves.

Overview

Over the years, naturalistic observation has been particularly popular in studies regarding behavior. Since these studies try to determine how animals behave in nature or how humans behave in ordinary, everyday situations, naturalistic observation has many benefits. Rather than requiring a specific setting, the study can use a setting that is already available. Theoretically, people and animals will behave as they ordinarily would if they are not aware that they are being observed. Animals may behave differently in the presence of humans in a laboratory setting, while human subjects may either intentionally try to manipulate a study's findings or subconsciously act unnaturally because they know they are being watched.

However, naturalistic observation has many disadvantages and limitations. In a natural environment, it can be difficult to reduce the amount of variables. Variables refer to aspects of an experiment that change with each instance, such as providing different foods to an animal to find out what it prefers. Most studies try to limit variables as much as possible because too many variables can make results unclear. For instance, if researchers provide a rabbit with carrots in the morning and lettuce at night and it eats only the carrots, it is unclear whether the rabbit prefers carrots to lettuce or prefers eating in the morning to eating at night. In a controlled environment, researchers can deliver food in the exact same place and at the same time of day and prevent any outside influences from distracting or frightening the rabbit.

Although studies with human subjects avoid some of the problems that can arise in studies with animals—humans can agree to participate in a study and be in a certain place at a certain time without knowing where the observer is or any other details—they pose additional challenges. Humans are more complex than other animals and can make decisions based on random chance, mood, or changes of emotion. This creates variables that are even more difficult to control. Naturalistic observers have a very hard time determining the cause of human behavior because internal thought processes play a large role in many decisions.

Ethical barriers also hinder observation when the subjects are human. For instance, researchers cannot follow subjects into their homes or secretly monitor them while they are inside, unless they have explicit permission. The places people may go in their daily routine can simply make it impractical to observe them without their knowledge. This is why it can be useful to set up studies in which subjects give consent, and the observers remain as secretive as possible. However, such scenarios can lead to the same drawbacks that arise in more controlled studies. Even if the observers remain out of sight, the subjects know that they are being observed, and many people have a tendency to act differently with that knowledge in mind. Many try to behave in a way that they think the researchers want or take the actions that they assume a "good" person would take, rather than acting however they normally would. Rarer, but still an obstacle to accurate findings, are people who deliberately act differently to sabotage a study for their own reasons.

Bibliography

"About Jane." Jane Goodall Institute, www.janegoodall.org/our-story/about-jane. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.

Cherry, Kendra. "Naturalistic Observation." VeryWell, 4 Nov. 2017, www.verywell.com/what-is-naturalistic-observation-2795391. Accessed 6 Dec. 2017.

Fournier, Gillian. "Naturalistic Observation." PsychCentral, 17 July 2016, psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/naturalistic-observation/. Accessed 6 Dec. 2017.

McLeod, Saul. "Observation Methods." Simply Psychology, 2015, www.simplypsychology.org/observation.html. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.

Mech, L. David. "Outmoded Notion of the Alpha Wolf." L. David Mech, www.davemech.org/news.html. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.

Miller, D. B. "Roles of Naturalistic Observation in Comparative Psychology." American Psychologist, vol. 32, no. 3, 1977, pp. 211–19.

"Naturalistic Observation." Explorable, explorable.com/naturalistic-observation. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.

"Naturalistic Observation." SAU, 31 Jan. 2007, peace.saumag.edu/faculty/kardas/Courses/RMPA/naturalisticobservation.html. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.