The data collection techniques used in this research include participant observation, semi-structured and unstructured interviews, firm and demographic surveys, official statistics, and documented and personal evidence. A summary of the details of these methods are provided in Table 3.1 and in the following parts.
Table 3.1: Methodologies used in data collection
Methods
Size of sample or time spent in field
Sampling procedure When data collected Method of recording information Participant observation 77 weeks April, 1991 to December, 1993 Fieldnotes Unstructured
interviews 187 logging firms
Snowball sampling April, 1991 to May, 1993 Fieldnotes Semi-structured interviews 58 individuals 30 logging firms Stratified random sample January to March, 1993 Tape recorded fully transcibed Surveys 58 individuals 30 logging firms Su-atified random sample January to March, 1993 Survey forms Participant observation
Participant observation seeks to reveal the meaning of reality individuals use to make sense of their daily lives (Spradley 1980; Znaniecki 1934; Burgess 1984). It is a strategy by which a researcher obtains access to the world of everyday life from the stand-point of an insider (Denzin 1970; Jorgensen 1989; Spradley 1980). Through participation, the researcher is able to experience and observe the meanings which insiders attach to social situations (McCall and Simmons 1969; Jorgensen 1989). Participant observation, when used in combination with methods such as interviews offers a 'potentially powerful way to call into question the relationship between words and deeds' (Schwartz and Jacobs 1979:46).
Through participant observation, it is possible to describe what goes on, who or what is involved, when and where things happen, how they occur and why... (Jorgensen 1989:12).
It is a 'field strategy that simultaneously combines document analysis, respondent and informant interviewing, direct participation and observations, and introspection.' (Denzin 1970 :186) It involves an open-ended, flexible, and interactive process of inquiry where the research is constantly defined and re-defined based on field experience and observations (Jorgensen 1989; Denzin 1970).
Participant observation is not a single method, as the name implies, but rather a 'tool box' of data collection techniques in which:
The participant observer gathers data by participating in the daily life of the group or organisation he studies. He watches the people he is
in them. He enters into conversation with some or all of the participants in these situations and discovers their interpretations of events he has observed (Becker 1958:652).
It has been used successfully to study a wide variety of topics including street life (Liebow 1967; Whyte 1981), gangs (Horowitz 1983; Patrick 1973), sectarian groups (Festinger, Riecken and Schacter 1956; Homan 1978; Peshkin 1986), police (Norris
etal. 1992), musicians (Becker 1963), medical students (Becker et al 1961), drug- users (Adler 1985; Agar 1973; Power 1989), cocktail waitresses (Spradley and Mann 1975), bars (Anderson 1978), schools (Lacey 1970; Ball 1981; Burgess 1983), communities (Davis, Gardner and Gardner 1941; Dempsey 1990, 1992; Ellis 1986; Lynd and Lynd 1929, 1937; Oxley 1978; Stacey 1960; Stacey etal. 1975; Warner and Lunt 1941, 1942; Wild 1974) and work (Applebaum 1981; Cavendish 1982; Golding 1980; Dalton 1959; Ram 1994; Willis 1977; Whyte 1961; Curran and Burrows 1987; Carroll 1989; Williamson 1977). Participant observation is
recommended as a methodology appropriate to the study of small business managers (Curran and Burrows 1987; Ram 1994) and has been used in a number of studies of North American loggers (Dunk 1994; Carroll 1989; Carroll & Lee 1990; Williamson
1977).
Participant observation is used most appropriately when there is little known about the phenomenon (newly formed or previously unstudied groups); when there are important differences between insider and outsider perspectives (ethnic groups, occupational groups, sub-cultures such as the occult); when the phenomenon is obscured from the view of outsiders (families, organisations such as businesses and religious groups); when it is obscured fi-om public view (drug-dealers, terrorist groups, crime and deviance) (Jorgensen 1989); or when it is changing (Denzin
1970). It is not appropriate for questions about large populations, precise
relationships among limited sets of variables, or measurements of things; surveys or experiments are most appropriate for these (Jorgensen 1989).
Participant observation was viewed as the most appropriate methodology to study logging contractors because of their relatively small numbers, the fact that relatively little is known about this group of people, and like other small firms, their daily work activities are largely hidden from outsiders. Another reason I chose to develop an insider role to study logging contractors is that logging contractors were likely to be suspicious of outsiders, particularly those from a university, which they consider 'breeding grounds for greenies (environmentalists)'. The main benefit of using participant observation is that it produces highly valid data. The main
weakness of this methodology is in assessing the reliability of the data and the time required to obtain and analyse data.
Participant observer roles
In participant observation a variety of possible roles may be assumed by the
researcher, determined in general by the extent to which the researcher is involved, and participates, in the everyday life of the individuals or groups under study. Distinctions have been made between active and passive roles (Schwartz and Schwartz 1955), overt and covert roles (Schwartz and Jacobs 1979; Whyte 1984), native as stranger, covert outsider and overt insider (Bulmer 1982), and peripheral, active and complete membership roles (Adler and Adler 1987). The basic typology for distinguishing between the different roles was devised by Gold (1958,1969) and Junker (1960). Gold (1958) distinguishes between four main roles: the complete participant, participant-observer, observer-participant and complete observer. Gold contends that the researcher is not limited to these main roles, but will assume as many roles as possible, as long as the roles assist in developing relationships with informants in the master role.
In a complete participant role, the true identity of the researcher is unknown to those observed. A classic example is the Festinger and others (1956) study on a group that predicted the end of the world. By assuming the role of a believer (complete participant), they obtained access to a group that would otherwise have been denied. Other classic examples using complete participant roles are Homan's (1978) and Pryce's (1979) studies on sectarian groups. Douglas and colleagues (1977) studied nude beaches by taking off their clothes and becoming nude bathers. Humphreys (1970) observed homosexual acts in toilets by assuming the role of a look-out, while Jorgensen (1984) explored occuh divinity practice as a tarot card reader. This role was also used by Carroll (Carroll and Lee 1990; Carroll 1989) where he obtained employment as a logger in the first phase of his research on the occupational community of loggers in Northwestern United States. This role is most appropriate for studying groups or behaviours that the researcher would be denied access to if the true role of the researcher were exposed. Although applicable for studying certain research situations, it presents several problems as outlined by Gold (1969) and Burgess (1984). First, the researcher may alter the behaviour of the group being researched. Second, the researcher may become handicapped by the role itself, as in the study conducted by Festinger and others (1956), when one of the researchers was asked to lead the group. Third, the researcher may 'go native', by assuming her or his role too well, and have difficulty in gathering, recording and
analysing data. Fourth, there may be moral problems relating to the ethics of doing research on a group without their permission.
The participant-observer role is similar to the complete participant, except that the participant-observer makes her or his presence as an observer known to the group. This role is commonly used in community and case studies, where the researcher develops relationships with informants through time (Davis and others
1941; Dempsey 1990, 1992; Gray 1991; Lynd and Lynd 1929; Oxley 1978; Warner and Lunt 1941; Wild 1974, 1978). The researcher lives in the community under study and participates in community activities in order to obtain an insider's perspective. Similarly this approach is used by those studying ethnic cultures and subcultures in urban societies; for example, to study Negro men in Washington's inner city (Liebow 1967), an Italian-American slum district in Boston (Whyte 1981), gangs in Glasgow (Patrick 1973) and in a Chicago neighbourhood in the United States (Horowitz 1983). The participant-observer role is also the predominant role assumed by researchers studying schools, work organisations and other activities (Hannan 1975; Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970; Ball 1981; Roy 1970; Ram 1994; Cavendish 1982; Williamson 1977).
The benefit of assuming this role is that the researcher is fi-ee to go wherever is necessary for the purpose of research. The researcher's role is not dictated by the structures and norms of the groups to the same extent as the complete participant role. There are fewer problems with ethics and morality, as the purpose of the researcher participating is known (Roy 1970; Gold 1969). The disadvantage lies in combining data collection with participation in a group, particularly when the two are in conflict. The issue of bias, and the extent to which the researcher participates and affects the groups or individuals behaviour may also be problematic (Roy 1970). The relationship between the group under study and the researcher may reduce reliability, unless strategies are taken to overcome this.
Gold (1958, 1969) refers to two further roles, the observer-participant and the complete observer. The observer-participant role is usually limited to situations where the researcher has brief and usually formal interaction with informants. The observer role is made explicit. The researcher has less chance of 'going native' than either the complete participant or participant-observer, but the brevity of the
relationship may result in misunderstandings over the meanings the informants attach to social situations. In the complete observer role, the researcher is totally removed fi-om social interaction with informants, such as in eavesdropping or reconnaissance. Gold (1958, 1969) recognises that this role removes the chance of the researcher
'going native', but it does have problems with ethnocentrism. It is seldom used as a 'dominant role', but may serve a function in certain situations such as 'casing' out a community prior to taking on either a complete participant or participant-observer role (Gold 1969).
In reality, the distinction between these roles is blurred and a field researcher may find that different roles suit different phases of research over the course of the study. Junker (1960 :3 8) argues that while:
it is made to appear that the four roles can be sharply distinguished and that the field worker will find himself cast in one and only one position, with its opportunities and limitations as indicated. But the practising field worker may well find his position and activities shifting through time from one to another of these theoretical points, even as he continues observing.
The role taken here is outlined in the following part.