Field Data Collection

Data for behavioral research can be gathered in a number of ways. Although in experimental paradigms researchers have a great deal of control, the results of such studies often have limited generalizability and cannot account for the great complexity of variables experienced in the real world. On the other hand, field data collection techniques such as field observation, field research, and unobtrusive measures offer the researcher little or no control but are rich sources of information about the way people actually act in the real world. The data gathered using these methods enable researchers to apply inductive reasoning to real world data so that the variables contributing to behavior can be better understood and testable hypotheses can be formulated. Field data collection tools are an important part of the behavioral scientist's toolbox and can add to our understanding of human behavior in significant and important ways.

Keywords Data; Ethics; Field Observation; Hypothesis; Inductive Reasoning; Inferential Statistics; Operational Definition; Scientific Method; Subject; Survey; Survey Research; Unobtrusive Research; Variable

Field Data Collection

Overview

Research in the behavioral and social sciences can be both fascinating and challenging. Not only does social science research require the application of the scientific method, it also requires the use of a great deal of creativity in order to obtain data concerning intangible constructs, phenomena that change when they are directly observed, or complex situations affected by numerous extraneous variables not directly related to the hypothesis being tested. The complexity of social science research was vividly and hilariously illustrated by a recently published cartoon. Captioned simply, "If Einstein had been a social scientist…," the cartoon showed the back of a wild-haired individual scribbling furiously on a blackboard. Rather than the expected E=MC2 equation, however, the concept of "relativity" was expressed in terms of the square root of parents multiplied by sibling rivalry, the square of in-laws divided by the first marriage, and numerous other nonsensical terms. The resultant equation filled the blackboard while the researcher continued to articulate variables and relationships that needed to be considered.

In the behavioral and social sciences, there often seems to be a plethora of variables that need to be taken into consideration in the quest to understand and predict behavior. As a result, the findings of research studies frequently bring up more questions than they answer. For example, a researcher might want to determine the relationship between the time it takes to readjust after the death of a spouse and the time that the couple had been married. This is a simple enough relationship at first glance, at least until one takes into account other considerations: How dependent had the spouses been on each other? Does the surviving spouse have a strong support network of family and friends that can help in the readjustment period? Does the surviving spouse have a strong religious faith? Did the couple have children who also survived? Was this a first marriage? If not, what caused the end of the first marriage? The list of possible variables other than length of the marriage that might also have an effect on the outcome of the relationship is seemingly endless. Even if a researcher could articulate all the major factors to be considered and design a research paradigm that could be analyzed using inferential statistics, he or she would still face an ethical problem in collecting the research. It would simply be unethical to randomly assign married people to the various experimental conditions and then manipulate whether or not their spouses lived.

Survey Research

Because of the complexity of social science issues and the ethical considerations in the treatment of experimental subjects, social and behavioral scientists are often required to be very creative in the operational definition of their variables and concomitant data collection methods. One way to collect data is through survey research, in which data about the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of the members of a sample are gathered using a survey instrument that is administered in a paper-and-pencil (or electronic) form or by an interviewer. Surveys have the advantage of being able to collect information on non-tangible constructs (e.g., feelings, attitudes, and opinions of subjects) that are difficult to collect directly. Further, surveys can be relatively inexpensive to administer, as they require no manipulation of variables and have relatively low costs associated with data collection. However, even well-written surveys cannot provide the researcher with the answers to all questions of interest. What one says and what one does are often two different things. Research subjects may lie on a survey instrument in order to look good to the researcher (or even to themselves) or give responses that are not well thought out because they are not motivated to participate honestly in the survey. On the other hand, subjects' actions in response to the manipulation of an independent variable tend to reflect their real reaction. However, in addition to situations where it is unethical to manipulate variables to measure subjects' reactions, there are also instances where the mere fact that a subject knows that a researcher is watching may change his or her behavior.

Further, survey instruments do not yield the same kind of neat interval or ratio data that are gathered in most experimental designs. This makes the data problematic to analyze. Many commonly used inferential statistical tools assume that the data being analyzed have been randomly selected from a population that has a normal distribution and require data that are interval or ratio in nature. This means that not only do the rank orders of the data have meaning (e.g., a value of 6 is greater than a value of 5) but so do the intervals between the values. In the physical sciences, such assumptions are typically easy to meet: it is clear that the difference between 1 gram of a chemical compound and 2 grams of a chemical compound is the same as the difference between 100 grams of the compound and 101 grams of the compound. Physical measurements have meaning because the weight scale has a true zero (i.e., we know what it means to have 0 grams of the compound) and the intervals between values are equal. However, it may not be quite as clear that the difference between 0 and 1 on a 100 point attitude scale is the same as the difference between 50 and 51 or between 98 and 99. These are value judgments, and the scale may not have a true zero. For example, the scale may go from 1 to 100 and not include a 0. Similarly, even if the scale does start at 0, it may be difficult to define what this value means. It can be difficult to articulate how a score of 0 on this scale differs significantly from a score of 1 or even what a score of zero means (e.g., does a score of zero mean that the person has no opinion?). In addition, one cannot tell from the scores why the subject assigned the values, a question often of interest to social scientists. Even if the various points on the scale were well-defined, different people may give vastly different responses to indicate the same attitude. Ratings are also subjective, and although numerical values may be assigned to them, they do not necessarily meet the requirement of parametric statistics that the data can be at the interval or ratio level.

Field Research and Observations

One way to collect better data in some situations is through the observation of subjects in a real world setting. This can include field research, the collection of unobtrusive measures, and field observations. Like experiments and surveys, these methods also have advantages and disadvantages. However, they provide the researcher with additional tools for data collection that can aid in the quest to understand and predict behavior. Like all research tools, these methods should be selected only after careful consideration of what data are needed, what the practical and ethical limitations are in collecting the data, and what the statistical limitations are for analyzing the data. Although field research tools offer the researcher less control than laboratory experiments and simulations, they have the advantage of allowing subjects to be observed in a natural setting where the intrusion of the experimenter is unlikely to be noticed.

The Uses and Drawback of Field Research

Field observation and research typically allow the researcher no control over the experimental situation. Therefore, this approach to data collection is often considered inferior to other methods. However, it must be remembered that it is through the application of inductive reasoning to individual observations in the real world that testable hypotheses are generated. This is not only one of the first steps in the scientific method, it is also an essential step without which more controlled data collection could not be conducted. Further, because of the complexity of human behavior in real world situations, it is often beneficial to observe people in field settings in order to better understand the interaction of variables causing their behavior. On the one hand, field observation and research frequently do not yield high quality, quantitative data that can be statistically analyzed. On the other hand, carefully controlled experimental research often restricts the operational definitions of variables used in the study to the extent that the results are far removed from the real world. It is important to note that both these approaches are useful tools when appropriately used.

Participant and Non-Participant Observation

Field research and observation constitute a set of data collection tools that allows researchers to directly observe behavior in natural, real-world situations. Perhaps the simplest of all methods of data collection is to merely observe subjects acting naturally in a real-world setting. This can be done with the researcher acting either as a participant or as a non-participant in the situation. For example, a researcher who is interested in how police officers treat suspects from arrest through arraignment could gather data in several ways. The researcher might develop a questionnaire that could be given to suspects asking them to rate how they were treated by the arresting and booking officers. Although this approach has the advantage of being able to potentially gather information about the subjects' attitudes, emotions, and opinions, it also presents subjects with a tempting venue to lie or exaggerate in order to appear more sympathetic. The researcher could also gather similar data through field observation. In a participatory observation paradigm, the researcher might train at the police academy to learn how to arrest and book a suspect, or the researcher might allow himself or herself to be arrested and observe what happens during the process. These scenarios, however, are not without difficulty. First, it is unlikely that a police department would allow a behavioral researcher to train at the academy and actually participate in arrest and booking procedures if he or she were not a police officer. Similarly, the researcher who poses as a suspect is unlikely to be able to be objective during the arrest and booking process. Further, in such a scenario, it would be virtually impossible to take notes on the behaviors of others or the reactions of oneself without alerting the subjects in the experiment to the fact that they were being observed. In this instance, non-participatory observation might produce more realistic data. The researcher could do a ride-along with police officers, taking notes on their interactions with the suspects while observing their behavior. The problem with this approach, however, is that the police officers—the subjects of the observation—would know that they were being observed and, therefore, might not act naturally.

Unobtrusive Research

For such situations, another approach to real-world data collection is available. Unobtrusive research is an approach in which the researcher collects data without directly interfacing with or talking to the subjects. The purpose of collecting unobtrusive measures is to create a situation in which valid data can be collected in a non-reactive way so that subjects behave naturally. There are a number of approaches to collecting unobtrusive measures. First, one might look at the various physical traces resulting from human behavior, including both erosion and accretion. For example, a study of the relative popularity of museum exhibits might compare the wear patterns in the linoleum tile surrounding the various exhibits. Floors around exhibit areas that show the most wear could be interpreted to be the most popular.

Another example of using physical traces to gather data is the practice of looking for information by going through subjects' trash. This approach might be taken in a situation where the researcher wants to gather information on how much milk is being given to children in a family but is dubious about the likelihood of the parents answering the question truthfully. Trash cans filled with beer bottles but no milk cartons over a series of days would be a good indication that no matter what the parents say, they are spending their money on beer rather than milk. Another way that data can be unobtrusively gathered is through an analysis of existing records. For example, researchers could review and analyze data found in actuarial records, political or judicial records, government records, the mass media, or any other hard copy or electronic document. Like the collection of data through the examination of physical traces, the analysis of data found in archives does not require the researcher to interact with the subject. However, archival information is limited: it is not always possible for researcher to find the archival data necessary to investigate the research question.

Another way to collect unobtrusive data on behavior is through the use of hidden hardware and controls. For example, a research situation could be set up to observe the behavior of a subject behind a one-way mirror. The subject's reaction could be recorded by the researcher on the other side of the mirror, or a microphone or video camera could be unobtrusively placed in the room in such a way that the subject does not notice. This would allow researchers not only to collect data unobtrusively but also to record it objectively for further analysis. Unobtrusive research techniques allow the observation of sensitive situations and events or ones in which the introduction of the researcher might change the situation. However, unobtrusive research can be far removed from normal situations and does not necessarily allow the researcher to collect all the data needed.

Applications

Case Study: Observing and Analyzing Graffiti

In a real world example of field research using unobtrusive methods, Kiofas and Cutshall (1985) looked at institutional cultures in a closed juvenile facility. Based on review of the literature, the authors determined that graffiti can often be a useful unobtrusive measure in the investigation of social and cultural phenomena. The data collected in this study consisted of 2,765 discrete pieces of transcribed graffiti from the walls of an institution for juvenile delinquents. The graffiti analyzed were found in 95 general population rooms. Two teams of research assistants transcribed the graffiti along with identifying data, including the location of the room and the wall on which each graffito was found. The researchers defined discrete units of graffiti using criteria such as handwriting, subject matter, and the writing tool used. Chained responses to the graffiti left by another were considered to be discrete units of graffiti. After transcription, the graffiti were grouped into 13 categories with a high degree of inter-rater reliability. The quality of the graffiti data was limited by the fact that in some of the rooms, the writings were so old that they could not be read and, therefore, were not included in the data analysis. In addition to analyzing the graffiti, the authors also looked at other sources of data, including official reports from the last years that the institution was open, related newspaper articles from the largest local newspaper, and interviews with former staff members and inmates of the facility. This supplementary information helped researchers better interpret the graffiti. The combination of analysis of the graffiti and other sources of information helped the authors better understand the kinds of various influences on the juvenile legal system. Newspaper reports written from a liberal point of view, for example, frequently focused on the impact of brutal incarceration conditions on naïve juveniles. On the other hand, interviews with conservative ex-staff who had worked at the detention center tended to portray the former inmates as both sophisticated and dangerous criminals.

The authors found that the analysis of the graffiti, supplemented by interviews and newspaper accounts, was useful in reconstructing the lives of inmates at that particular juvenile detention center. Many of the items of graffiti showed the significance of having peer support and belonging to an identifiable group within the facility. An analysis of the contents of the graffiti in different corridors in the institution also demonstrated the importance of time served by the inmates and the severity of deprivations that they endured. For example, early in an inmate's incarceration period, graffiti tended to be concerned with individuality and identity. As time served progressed, these concerns gave way to other concerns, in particular great antagonism towards authority figures.

Analysis of the graffiti allowed the researchers to gain insight into the juvenile institution in a way that interviews, surveys, or short-term observation alone could not. However, as with any unobtrusive measure, the authors also admit the limitations of this type of data in assessing institutional culture. Although the graffiti were a rich source of information that would have otherwise been unavailable to the researchers, they did not provide in-depth information in the same way that the interviews did. In addition, the authors pointed out that both observations and interview studies of prison inmates have significant problems of reliability and validity not encountered in the analysis of graffiti. Although graffiti does not provide a sufficient stand-alone measure for understanding the culture within a juvenile detention institution, it provides invaluable insights into this cultural situation.

Conclusion

Because of the complexity of social science issues and the ethical considerations in the treatment of human subjects, social and behavioral scientists often need to be quite creative in developing methods for collecting research data. Although research experiments allow researchers to control the variables in the study, the need to operationally define and restrict the experimental paradigm so that it can be statistically analyzed can lead to conclusions with very limited applications. Surveys can gather more in-depth information, but they are susceptible to problems related to scaling and lack of objectivity. Field observation, field research, and unobtrusive measures give the researcher little control but enable the application of inductive reasoning to real world data so that the variables contributing to behavior can be better understood and testable hypotheses can eventually be formulated. Like more controlled experimental tools, field tools have their place in the behavioral scientist's toolbox and can add to our understanding of human behavior in significant and important ways.

Terms and Concepts

Data: (sing. datum) In statistics, data are quantifiable observations or measurements that are used as the basis of scientific research.

Ethics: In scientific research, a code of moral conduct regarding the treatment of research subjects that is subscribed to by the members of a professional community. Many professional groups have a specific written code of ethics that sets standards and principles for professional conduct and the treatment of research subjects.

Field Observation: An approach to data collection in which the researcher directly observes behavior, experiences, and phenomena in the settings in which they naturally occur. Although field observation can provide in-depth insight the researcher might not otherwise be able to obtain, it often involves only a limited number of cases, making findings difficult to generalize.

Hypothesis: An empirically testable theory that certain variables and their corresponding measure are related in a specific way.

Inductive Reasoning: A type of logical reasoning in which inferences and general principles are drawn from specific observations or cases. Inductive reasoning is a foundation of the scientific method and enables the development of testable hypotheses from particular facts and observations.

Inferential Statistics: A subset of mathematical statistics used in the analysis and interpretation of data. Inferential statistics are used to make inferences, such as drawing conclusions about a population from a sample, as well as in decision making.

Operational Definition: A definition that is stated in terms that can be observed and measured.

Scientific Method: General procedures, guidelines, assumptions, and attitudes required for the organized and systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and verification of data that can be verified and reproduced. The goal of the scientific method is to articulate or modify the laws and principles of a science. Steps in the scientific method include problem definition based on observation and review of the literature, formulation of a testable hypothesis, selection of a research design, data collection and analysis, extrapolation of conclusions, and development of ideas for further research in the area.

Subject: A participant in a research study or experiment whose responses are observed, recorded, and analyzed.

Survey: (a) A data collection instrument used to acquire information on the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of people; (b) a research study in which members of a selected sample are asked questions concerning their opinions, attitudes, or reactions and their responses are recorded for purposes of scientific analysis, the results of which are typically used to extrapolate the findings from the sample to the underlying population; (c) to conduct a survey on a sample.

Survey Research: A type of research in which data about the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of the members of a sample are gathered using a survey instrument. The phases of survey research are goal setting, planning, implementation, evaluation, and feedback. Unlike experimental research, survey research does not allow for the manipulation of an independent variable.

Unobtrusive Research: An approach to data collection in which the researcher collects data without directly interfacing with the subjects. Unobtrusive research techniques allow the observation of sensitive situations and events or situations in which the presence of the researcher changes the situation. However, unobtrusive research is often far removed from normal situations.

Variable: An object in a research study that can have more than one value. Independent variables are stimuli that are manipulated in order to determine their effect on the dependent variables (response). Extraneous variables are variables that affect the response but are not related to the question under investigation in the study.

Bibliography

Kiofas, J. M. & Cutshall, C. R. (1985, Win). The social archeology of a juvenile facility: Unobtrusive methods in the study of institutional cultures. Qualitative Sociology, 8 , 368-387. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10871953&site=ehost-live

Savage, M., & Silva, E. B. (2013). Field Analysis in Cultural Sociology. Cultural Sociology, 7, 111–126. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87909126&site=ehost-live

Stockard, J. (2000). Sociology: Discovering society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Sutton, J. (2011). An ethnographic account of doing survey research in prison: Descriptions, reflections, and suggestions from the field. Qualitative Sociology Review, 7, 45–63. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65288230&site=ehost-live

Waller, L. (2013). Interviewing the surveyors: Factors which contribute to questionnaire falsification (curbstoning) among Jamaican field surveyors. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 155–164. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85750329&site=ehost-live

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Suggested Reading

Cochran, P. A. L., et al. (2008, Jan). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98 , 22-27. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28804932&site=ehost-live

Haer, R., & Becher, I. (2012). A methodological note on quantitative field research in conflict zones: Get your hands dirty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15, 1–13. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67698514&site=ehost-live

Taylor, B. W. K. (2006, Jul). A feminist critique of Japanization: Employment and work in consumer electronics. Gender, Work and Organization, 13 , 317-337. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20857183&site=ehost-live

Wood, E. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology, 29 , 373-386. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22172175&site=ehost-live