Advertisement

Unobtrusive Methods

  • Raymond M. LeeEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Unobtrusive methods use ways of collecting data that do not involve the direct elicitation of information from research participants. They are useful in situations where it might be dangerous or difficult to question respondents directly or where, for one reason or another, using self-report methods will not yield reliable information. Three main sources of unobtrusive data can be distinguished: traces, documentary records, and direct nonparticipative observation. Each of these is discussed with examples of their use, as is the increasing use of unobtrusive data acquired online. The ethical challenges associated with the use of unobtrusive methods are identified, and the issues involved in their generation are discussed.

Keywords

Unobtrusive measures Traces Running records Episodic records Observation Online methods Ethics Triangulation Ethics 

References

  1. Abbott A. Methods of discovery: heuristics for the social sciences. New York: WW Norton & Company; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott A. Digital paper: a manual for research and writing with library and internet materials. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderman DH, Ward H. Writing on the plywood: toward an analysis of hurricane graffiti. Coast Manag. 2008;36(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvesson M. Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Acad Manag Rev. 2003;28(1):13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvesson M, Sandberg J. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. J Manag Stud. 2013;50(1):128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binet L. The 7th function of language. London: Harvill Secker; 2017.Google Scholar
  7. Bouchard TJ Jr. Unobtrusive measures: an inventory of uses. Sociol Methods Res. 1976;4(3):267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bright J. Big social science: doing big data in the social sciences. In: Fielding NG, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The SAGE handbook of online research methods. London: SAGE; 2017. p. 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryman A. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(2):111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan EA. Ethics in digital research. In: Friese H, Rebane G, Nolden M, Schreiter M, editors. Handbuch Soziale Praktiken und Digitale Alltagswelten. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2016. p. 1–9.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini RB. Littering as an unobtrusive measure of political attitudes: messy but clean. In: Arkin RM, editor. Most underappreciated: 50 prominent social psychologists describe their most unloved work. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. Couper M. Measuring survey quality in a CASIC environment. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association. 1998; 41–49.Google Scholar
  14. Couper MP, Singer E. Informed consent for web paradata use. Surv Res Methods. 2013;7(1):57–67.Google Scholar
  15. Denzin NK. The research act in sociology: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Butterworth Ltd.; 1970.Google Scholar
  16. Emmison M. Conceptualizing visual data. In: Silverman D, editor. Qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010. p. 233–49.Google Scholar
  17. Emmison M, Smith P, Mayall M. Researching the visual. London: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Fielding NG. Mixed methods research in the real world. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2010;13(2):127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fielding NG. Qualitative research and our digital futures. Qual Inq. 2014;20(9):1064–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB, Smith KE, Collin J, Holden C, Lee K. Corporate social responsibility and access to policy élites: an analysis of tobacco industry documents. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001076. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fritsche I, Linneweber V. Nonreactive methods in psychological research. In: Eid M, Diener E, editors. Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1967.Google Scholar
  23. Giuliani MV, Scopelliti M. Empirical research in environmental psychology: past, present, and future. J Environ Psychol. 2009;29(3):375–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg P. Strengthening sociological research through public records requests. Soc Curr. 2016;3(2):110–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jagger E. Marketing the self, buying an other: dating in a post modern, consumer society. Sociology. 1998;32(4):795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janetzko D. Nonreactive data collection online. In: Fielding NG, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The SAGE handbook of online research methods. London: SAGE; 2017. p. 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johns M, Coady MH, Chan CA, Farley SM, Kansagra SM. Evaluating New York City’s smoke-free parks and beaches law: a critical multiplist approach to assessing behavioral impact. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(1–2):254–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones RK. The unsolicited diary as a qualitative research tool for advanced research capacity in the field of health and illness. Qual Health Res. 2000;10(4):555–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King EB, Hebl MR, Morgan WB, Ahmad AS. Field experiments on sensitive organizational topics. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(4):501–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee RM. Dangerous fieldwork. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee RM. Unobtrusive methods in social research. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  33. Lee RM. The secret life of focus groups: Robert Merton and the diffusion of a research method. Am Sociol. 2010;41(2):115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lees-Maffei G. Introduction: studying advice: historiography, methodology, commentary, bibliography. J Des Hist. 2003;16(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  35. Ley D, Cybriwsky R. Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 1974;64(4):491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lieberson S. A matter of taste: how names, fashions, and culture change. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  37. Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mastrofski SD, Parks RB, McCluskey JD. Systematic social observation in criminology handbook of quantitative criminology. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D, editors. Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 225–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCall GJ. Systematic field observation. Annu Rev Sociol. 1984;10(1):263–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Page S. Community research: the lost art of unobtrusive methods. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(10):2126–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plummer K. Documents of life: an introduction to the problems and literature of a humanistic method. London: Allen & Unwin; 1983.Google Scholar
  42. Plummer K. Documents of life 2: an invitation to a critical humanism. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2014). Contextual positioning: using documents as extant data in grounded theory research. Sage Open, 4(3). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014552425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rathje WL, Murphy C. Rubbish!: the archaeology of garbage. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  45. Reis HT, Gosling SD. Social psychological methods outside the laboratory. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of social psychology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010. p. 82–114.Google Scholar
  46. Reiss AJ. Systematic observation of natural social phenomena. Sociol Methodol. 1971;3:3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rodriguez A. On the origins of anonymous texts that appear on walls. In: Lovata TR, Olton E, editors. Understanding graffiti: multidisciplinary studies from prehistory to the present. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 21–31.Google Scholar
  48. Rowe MA, Vandeveer SS, Greenblum CA, List CN, Fernandez RM, Mixson NE, Ahn HC. Persons with dementia missing in the community: is it wandering or something unique? BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(1):28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott J. A matter of record: documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  50. Seale C, Charteris-Black J, MacFarlane A, McPherson A. Interviews and internet forums: a comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(5):595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trahan A. Research and theory on latrinalia. In: Ross JI, editor. Routledge handbook of graffiti and street art. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 92–102.Google Scholar
  52. Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unobtrusive measures: nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.Google Scholar
  53. Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L, Grove JB. Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1981.Google Scholar
  54. Wessel D. (2015). The potential of computer-assisted direct observation apps. Int J Interac Mob Tech, 9(1). Retrieved from http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jim/article/view/4205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiid R, Pitt LF, Engstrom A. Not so sexy: public opinion of political sex scandals as reflected in political cartoons. J Public Aff. 2011;11(3):137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiles R, Coffey A, Robison J, Prosser J. Ethical regulation and visual methods: making visual research impossible or developing good practice? Sociol Res Online. 2012;17(1):8. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/8.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson JZ. Ambient hate: racist graffiti and social apathy in a rural community. Howard J Crime Justice. 2014;53(4):377–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yampolskaya S. Research at work: administrative data and behavioral sciences research. Fam Soc: J Contemp Soc Serv. 2017;98(2):121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeisel J. Inquiry by design: tools for environment-behaviour research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  60. Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Hoi, G. W. S., & Tolmie, P. (2016). Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PLoS One, 11(3). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations