Beyond a good story: from Hawthorne Effect to reactivity in health professions education research

Abstract

This article thus concludes with three recommendations: that researchers, editors and reviewers in the HPE community use the phrase 'participant reactivity' when considering the participant, observer and research question triad; that researchers invest in interpersonal relationships at their study site to mitigate the effects of altered behaviour; and that researchers use theory to make sense of participants' altered behaviour and use it as a window into the social world. The term 'participant reactivity' better reflects current scientific understandings of the research process and highlights the cognitive work required of participants to alter their behaviour when observed. Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the original Hawthorne experiments is the power of a good story (Levitt & List, 2011).

The benefits and challenges of employing new sonography graduates: Key stakeholder views

“…Due to the potentially sensitive topic of the potential introduction of a lower band sonographer, it also allowed the researcher to assess for any distress or anxiety and take appropriate action if this arose (Bluff, 2005;Gerrish & Lacey, 2010). It was felt the flexibility and adaptability of the interviews allowed the researcher to respond to situations with skill, tact and understanding (Seidman, 2013) and recognise any signs of the participant reactivity (Bluff, 2005;Paradis & Sutkin, 2017).…”

“…In another interview it was evident that the participant viewed the researcher in their role as a member of University staff and made several references to course development for example, Participant reactivity was defined as an effect during research that leads to behavioural changes to align with 'perceived social norms' (Paradis & Sutkin, 2017). The term was advocated by Paradis and Sutkin (2017) in preference to the phrase the 'Hawthorne effect' which they claimed had lost some of its popularity more recently.…”

“…The term was advocated by Paradis and Sutkin (2017) in preference to the phrase the 'Hawthorne effect' which they claimed had lost some of its popularity more recently. The Hawthorne effect was first observed in the 1920's and 1930's in the Hawthorne Works Factory in Illinois and later aligned to productivity by Landsberger (Fernald, Coombs, DeAlleaume, West & Parnes, 2012).…”

“…The Hawthorne effect was first observed in the 1920's and 1930's in the Hawthorne Works Factory in Illinois and later aligned to productivity by Landsberger (Fernald, Coombs, DeAlleaume, West & Parnes, 2012). In the research field it has been used to describe how participants (or those being observed) modify their behaviour when they are being watched (Fernald et al, 2012;Paradis & Sutkin, 2017). This can create methodological challenges (Boet, Sharma, Goldman, & Reeves, 2012) as participants act differently to how they would do, if not being observed (or interviewed) (Ng & White, 2005).…”

“…This can create methodological challenges (Boet, Sharma, Goldman, & Reeves, 2012) as participants act differently to how they would do, if not being observed (or interviewed) (Ng & White, 2005). In an attempt to minimise participant reactivity, it is essential a good rapport is established with the participants and any effects documented (Paradis & Sutkin, 2017) whilst acknowledging that researcher influence cannot be completely avoided (Adler & Adler, 1994).…”