Paper short abstract:

This paper questions the common anthropological use of the method of participant observation in regard to its western conception and colonial ties in post-colonial societies.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines the anthropological understanding of the

concept of participant observation and questions its premises. Participant

observation implies an objective analyses of social activity. This method enables the

researcher to access a distinct level of awareness. This second consciousness, an

ability out of the ordinary, oversees the social activity, without being fully consumed

by it. This method, when successfully applied, should enable an objective reading of

social/cultural activity. Yet, and the question is, is this attempt at objectification

realistic, and in regard to ethics is it desirable? What actually validates participant

observation? This paper examines the premises of participant observation and its

common assumption as an esteemed academic method of inquiry.

It follows that the concept of participant observation is two folded; a deliberate

attempt at gathering information about (distinctive) social/cultural behavior by

observation. Secondary, an attempt to participate or rather to infiltrate in peoples'

lives in a least disturbing manner.

These motivations are examined against anthropology's colonial origins and the

western bias of the anthropological researcher. It follows that this paper examines

the (colonial) anthropological preoccupation with observing and accounting for the

behavior of others, which is often considered to be distinctively different from

western society.

Moreover, this paper reflects ethically upon the impact of teaching participant

observation, a western method of inquiry, in classrooms that are representative of

multicultural/convivial societies.