Participant Observation James Spradley Pdf Download [UPDATED]
Participant Observation James Spradley Pdf Download >> https://byltly.com/2toLDn
Non-participant observation is often used in tangent with other data collection methods, and can offer a more \"nuanced and dynamic\" appreciation of situations that cannot be as easily captured through other methods.(Liu & Maitlis 2010)
The concept \"participant observation\" was first coined in 1924 by Eduard C. Lindeman (1885-1953), an American pioneer in adult education influenced by John Dewey and Danish educator-philosopher N.F.S.Grundtvig, in his book \"Social Discovery: An Approach to the Study of Functional Groups.\" The method, however, originated earlier and was applied in the field research linked to European and American voyages of scientific exploration. During the year 1800, one of precursors of the method as Joseph Marie, baron de Gérando already affirming that: \"The first way to get to know the Indians is to become like one of them; and it is by learning their language that we will become their fellow citizens.\"[1] Later, the method would be popularized by Bronisław Malinowski and his students in Britain; the students of Franz Boas in the United States; and, in the later urban research, the students of the Chicago school of sociology.
Since the 1980s, some anthropologists and other social scientists have questioned the degree to which participant observation can give veridical insight into the minds of other people.[6][7] At the same time, a more formalized qualitative research program known as grounded theory, initiated by Glaser and Strauss (1967),[8] began gaining currency within American sociology and related fields such as public health. In response to these challenges, some ethnographers have refined their methods, either making them more amenable to formal hypothesis-testing and replicability or framing their interpretations within a more carefully considered epistemology.[9]
The development of participant-observation as a research tool has therefore not been a haphazard process, but instead has involved a great deal of self-criticism and review. It has, as a result, become specialized. Visual anthropology can be viewed as a subset of methods of participant-observation, as the central questions in that field have to do with how to take a camera into the field, while dealing with such issues as the observer effect.[10] Issues with entry into the field have evolved into a separate subfield. Clifford Geertz's famous essay[6] on how to approach the multi-faceted arena of human action from an observational point of view, in Interpretation of Cultures uses the simple example of a human wink, perceived in a cultural context far from home.
In participant observation, a researcher's discipline based interests and commitments shape which events he or she considers are important and relevant to the research inquiry.[11] According to Howell (1972), the four stages that most participant observation research studies are establishing rapport or getting to know the people, immersing oneself in the field, recording data and observations, and consolidating the information gathered.[12]
Participant observation is not simply showing up at a site and writing things down. On the contrary, participant observation is a complex method that has many components. One of the first things that a researcher or individual must do after deciding to conduct participant observations to gather data is decide what kind of participant observer he or she will be. Spradley (1980)[16] provides five different types of participant observations summarised below.
According to Richard Fenno, one problem in participant observation is the risk of \"going native\", by which he means that the researcher becomes so immersed in the world of the participant that the researcher loses scholarly objectivity.[20] Fenno also warns that the researcher may lose the ability and willingness to criticize the participant in order to maintain ties with the participant.[20]
While gathering data through participant observation, investigator triangulation would be a way to ensure that one researcher is not letting his or her biases or personal preferences in the way of observing and recording meaningful experiences.[23] As the name suggests, investigator triangulation involves multiple research team members gathering data about the same event, but this method ensures a variety of recorded observations due to the varying theoretical perspectives of each research team member.[23] In other words, triangulation, be it data, investigator, theory or methodological triangulation, is a form of cross-checking information.[22][23]
Member checking is when the researcher asks for participant feedback on his or her recorded observations to ensure that the researcher is accurately depicting the participants' experiences and the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the data.[23] This method can be used in participant observation studies or when conducting interviews.[23] Member-checking and triangulation are good methods to use when conducting participant observations, or any other form of qualitative research, because they increase data and research conclusion credibility and transferability. In quantitative research, credibility is liken to internal validity,[23][24] or the knowledge that our findings are representative of reality, and transferability is similar to external validity or the extent to which the findings can be generalized across different populations, methods, and settings.[23][24]
A variant of participant observation is observing participation, described by Marek M. Kaminski, who explored prison subculture as a political prisoner in communist Poland in 1985.[25] \"Observing\" or \"observant\" participation has also been used to describe fieldwork in sexual minority subcultures by anthropologists and sociologists who are themselves lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender,[26] as well as amongst political activists and in protest events.[27] The different phrasing is meant to highlight the way in which their partial or full membership in the community/subculture that they are researching both allows a different sort of access to the community and also shapes their perceptions in ways different from a full outsider. This is similar to considerations by anthropologists such as Lila Abu-Lughod on \"halfie anthropology\", or fieldwork by bicultural anthropologists on a culture to which they partially belong.[28]
This study reflects approximately nine weeks of participant observation on an assembly line in the slaughter division of a large beef processing plant in the Midwest. Couched within a symbolic interactionist perspective, it focuses on the day-to-day activities of assembly line workers. It examines the sociological aspects of the workers' interaction on the job, how they coped with the danger, strain, and monotony of the work, and how they developed consumer spending norms which virtually trapped them in the plant. It also examines how the workers attempted to maintain their sense of self-worth despite the demeaning and dehumanizing aspects of their jobs.
Artificial intelligence is part of our future and has allowed the creation of truly advanced devices. Now 3D printing technology can also make full use of AI, and with the development of this technology, it is expected to be used in various fields in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This technology can be used not only in manufacturing but also in various fields such as architecture and medical care and is recognized as an essential technology for future generations. Educating the students about the use and impact of 3D technology is even more important than it was ever; however, not enough research has been conducted on specific teaching methods for 3D printing technology education. This paper, therefore, studies the future education method using 3D printing technology for children. The research method of this study is a qualitative research method in which interviews and participant observation methods are used. This qualitative research method was developed by James P. Spradley, an American cultural anthropologist. The findings of this study are as follows. Children can make products easily by using 3D programs and can develop creativity through this product design process. Based on these results, this paper aims to present the curriculum and teaching methods of 3D printing that can be practically utilized in public education courses. This education will be a preparatory step for the micro-manufacturing industry in the future. The findings of this study are helpful in developing the courses of future education.
This paper studies the future education method using 3D printing. To do this research, theoretical research was first conducted in this paper. The theoretical study analyzed the principle of 3D printing and the education of 3D printing. This paper then analyzed the current status of 3D printing education in advanced countries such as the United States and Japan. These analyses were based on various papers, related books, magazines, etc. In addition, apart from research materials, the author of the paper visited an educational institution where 3D printing education was conducted and interviewed educators and students. We follow a qualitative research method developed by the US cultural anthropologist James P. Spradley, in which interviews and participant observation methods are used. James P. Spradley studied the participant observation method used by cultural anthropologists. The participant observation is divided into six stages including descriptive observation, domain analysis, focused observation, classification analysis, selective observation, and component analysis [9]. Also, this study then analyzes the problems of 3D printing education in current educational institutions and presents a kind of 3D printing curriculum that can actually be used by educational institutions. The effect of 3D printing education on these courses is also evaluated and further analyzed. Finally, this stu