Oh Jeong Hyun, Yeatman Sara, Trinitapoli Jenny
University of Chicago.
University of Colorado Denver.
Am Sociol Rev. 2019 Aug 1;84(4):634-663. doi: 10.1177/0003122419859574. Epub 2019 Jul 9.
Research disrupts the social world, often by making respondents aware that they are being observed or by instigating reflection upon particular aspects of life via the very act of asking questions. Building on insights from the first Hawthorne studies, reflexive ethnographers, and methodologists concerned with panel conditioning, we draw on six years of research within a community in southern Malawi to introduce a conceptual framework for theorizing disruption in observational research. We present a series of poignant-yet-typical tales from the field and two additional tools-the refresher-sample-as-comparison and study-focused ethnography-for measuring disruption empirically in a longitudinal study. We find evidence of study effects in many domains of life that relate directly to our scope of inquiry (i.e., union formation, fertility) and in some that extend beyond it (i.e., health). Moreover, some study effects were already known and discussed in the broader community, which was also affected by our research in unintended ways. We conclude that the assumption of non-interactivity in observational research is shaky at best, urging data-gatherers and users to think more seriously about the role of disruption in their work.
研究往往会扰乱社会世界,通常是通过让受访者意识到自己正在被观察,或者通过提问这一行为促使他们对生活的某些方面进行反思。基于最初的霍桑研究、反思性民族志学者以及关注面板条件作用的方法论学者的见解,我们利用在马拉维南部一个社区进行的六年研究,引入一个概念框架,用于对观察性研究中的干扰进行理论化。我们呈现了一系列来自实地的深刻而典型的故事,以及另外两种工具——作为比较的再抽样样本和聚焦研究的民族志——用于在纵向研究中实证测量干扰。我们发现,在生活的许多与我们的研究范围直接相关的领域(即婚姻关系的形成、生育)以及一些超出研究范围的领域(即健康)中,都存在研究效应的证据。此外,一些研究效应在更广泛的社区中已经为人所知并被讨论过,而这个社区也以意想不到的方式受到了我们研究的影响。我们得出结论,观察性研究中无交互作用的假设充其量是不可靠的,这促使数据收集者和使用者更认真地思考干扰在他们工作中的作用。