A Review of the Participant Observation Method in Journalism: Designing and Reporting

IF 6.3 Q1 COMMUNICATION Review of Communication Research Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.035
Soo-Ray Shin, Serena Miller
{"title":"A Review of the Participant Observation Method in Journalism: Designing and Reporting","authors":"Soo-Ray Shin, Serena Miller","doi":"10.12840/issn.2255-4165.035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The participant observation method involves numerous methodological competencies and procedures, yet no systematic research has been found to date that evaluates the qualitative practice. The method has played a foundational role in the field of journalism and is growing in use among researchers. Despite its contributions to knowledge about organizations, movements, and cultures, the procedures that encompass the method may be unfamiliar or unclear for some researchers according to the literature. The study analyzed journalism researchers’ reporting of methodological information in studies involving news contexts and assessed scholars’ adherence to methodological reporting best practices in 150 journal articles. The results showed participant observation researchers employed data trustworthiness techniques by primarily using qualitative formal interviews and they also provided site selection logic. The results, however, also showed evidence of methodological conceptual ambiguity when referring to participant observation method techniques and low reporting of several specific recommended techniques associated with participation observation. The narrative reflects our desire to help other researchers learn more about the method, while also encouraging methodological transparency to improve the collective understanding of the method. We put forth eight participant observation reporting recommendations rooted in anthropology and sociology to consider when reporting methodological practices. The hope is this introduction and the proposed measures will initiate discussions and support community around the practice of participant observation.","PeriodicalId":43364,"journal":{"name":"Review of Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The participant observation method involves numerous methodological competencies and procedures, yet no systematic research has been found to date that evaluates the qualitative practice. The method has played a foundational role in the field of journalism and is growing in use among researchers. Despite its contributions to knowledge about organizations, movements, and cultures, the procedures that encompass the method may be unfamiliar or unclear for some researchers according to the literature. The study analyzed journalism researchers’ reporting of methodological information in studies involving news contexts and assessed scholars’ adherence to methodological reporting best practices in 150 journal articles. The results showed participant observation researchers employed data trustworthiness techniques by primarily using qualitative formal interviews and they also provided site selection logic. The results, however, also showed evidence of methodological conceptual ambiguity when referring to participant observation method techniques and low reporting of several specific recommended techniques associated with participation observation. The narrative reflects our desire to help other researchers learn more about the method, while also encouraging methodological transparency to improve the collective understanding of the method. We put forth eight participant observation reporting recommendations rooted in anthropology and sociology to consider when reporting methodological practices. The hope is this introduction and the proposed measures will initiate discussions and support community around the practice of participant observation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新闻学中的参与式观察方法:设计与报道
参与性观察法涉及许多方法学能力和程序,但迄今为止还没有发现评估定性实践的系统研究。该方法在新闻学领域发挥了基础性作用,并在研究人员中得到越来越多的应用。尽管它对组织、运动和文化的知识有所贡献,但根据文献,对于一些研究人员来说,包含该方法的程序可能是不熟悉或不清楚的。该研究分析了新闻研究人员在涉及新闻背景的研究中对方法学信息的报道,并评估了150篇期刊文章中学者对方法学报道最佳实践的坚持。结果表明,参与观察研究者主要采用定性正式访谈的数据可信度技术,并提供了选址逻辑。然而,当涉及到参与性观察方法技术时,结果也显示了方法学概念模糊的证据,以及与参与性观察相关的几种特定推荐技术的低报告。叙述反映了我们帮助其他研究人员更多地了解该方法的愿望,同时也鼓励方法的透明度,以提高对该方法的集体理解。我们提出了八项基于人类学和社会学的参与性观察报告建议,以供报告方法实践时考虑。我们希望这篇介绍和提议的措施将引发讨论,并支持社区围绕参与性观察的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Review of Communication Research will publish an annual volume with comprehensive and authoritative reviews of the current state of the main topics and the most significant developments in the field of Communication. These comprehensive critical reviews will summarize the latest advances in the field, but also will root out errors and will provoke intellectual discussions among scholars. The journal seeks both evaluative (theorical) and quantitative (meta-analysis) papers that make a state of the art of issues in scientific communication. Integrative review articles that connect different areas of research are of special interest.
期刊最新文献
Socio-cultural and individual factors in verbal irony use and understanding: What we know, what we don’t know, what we want to know The role of social support in obesity online health communities. A literature review Navigating a Diverse Paradigm: A Conceptual Framework for Experimental Framing Effects Research Are Emotion-Expressing Messages More Shared on Social Media? A Meta-Analytic Review A Review of the Participant Observation Method in Journalism: Designing and Reporting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1