The paradox from within: research participants doing-being-observed

Abstract

This article analyses a collection of cases from video recordings of naturally occurring interaction in institutional settings, where members display an orientation to the presence of the recording equipment.Such instances have been treated elsewhere as evidence of contamination of the ecology of the setting.The findings suggest that participants do remain aware of the recording activity, but that they publicly display when they are attending to it. Indeed, it is used as one resource to occasion identity work as competent, knowledgeable members of a particular institutional community, displaying to one another their understanding of the research aims, and their knowledge of how these kinds of data are constituted.Investigating how observational research is oriented to and constituted by the observed allows for a better understanding of what at that moment and in that setting is deemed recording-appropriate or -inappropriate conduct, and offers a more nuanced perspective on how data are co-constituted.

Who’s Behind the Lens?

“…Thus, the technology shapes an unwitting disclosure to the researcher about participant recordings, enforcing a degree of transparency into the relationship. As researchers, although we were positioned as commissioning editors, once the video study was underway, our roles were essentially passive; we were audience or distant and future observers with little agency as a result of an “asynchronous participation framework” (Hazel, 2015, p. 4), a role we consider further in the following.…”

“…Some issues of paradox have already been identified in organizational research methodology (Cunliffe, 2003; Johnson & Duberley, 2003). For example, as further explored later, video studies that seek to capture naturalistic data are said to be confounded by the “observer’s paradox” (Hazel, 2015). Specifically, the presence of video or audio equipment (the observer) is seen as inhibiting access to the object of study, namely, “how people speak when they are not being observed” (Labov, 1972, p. 97).…”

“…Constructionist approaches reject the idea of the 'observer's paradox' as a methodological problem. Instead these studies explore participant interactions with video and audio devices and how these are used as a resource for identity work by participants (Gordon, 2012;Hazel, 2015). These authors focus on how participants talk about taking part and how they orient themselves to the technology.…”

“…For example, participatory research has been regarded as paradoxical since it may unintentionally contribute to the very problems it aims to address by perpetuating existing relational dynamics (Burns, Hyde, Killett, Poland, & Gray, 2014;Reason & Bradbury, 2001). As we explore more fully below, video studies that seek to capture naturalistic data are said to be confounded by the 'observer's paradox' (Hazel, 2015). Specifically, the presence of video or audio equipment (the observer) is seen as inhibiting access to the object of study namely 'how people speak when they are not being observed ' (Labov, 1972 p. 97).…”

Using Conversation Analysis in the Lab

“…nonetheless contain orientations to the camera and research context that surely would not otherwise occur (see Hazel, 2015;Laurier & Philo, 2006;Speer & Hutchby, 2003).…”