For my most recent Qualitative Methods assignment, we focused on observation. The task was to observe 3 actors in a social setting and describe their waiting styles (more generally, their behavior). I observed 3 people while on a train in New York, which is pretty hard to do directly, as any eye contact or staring at anyone in New York is basically a threat. I found that people are super comfortable with being alone with their thoughts… or they have no choice when you have no service and are on a train. I took some notes and submitted my assignment. As part of the assignment, we have to peer review at least 4 peers’ work in order to see our own grade. One was a French student’s work (which I translated to read), and I’m not sure if it was the translation or the actual written text, but the student described the people they observed at a bus stop as “islands” of their own. A Russian submission said something similar, commenting on the lack of interaction between people at a bus stop. It’s so cool to me that people from around the world, in spite of where they may be, can be quite similar in their social behavior.
Something I also found interesting was that I mainly focused on the behavior and body language of individuals (crossed legs, eyes, stillness), while others focused their descriptions on demeanor/energy (calm, tense), age/appearance, and behavior. I ended up missing a key, obvious fact about people, as I was not looking directly for it (inattentional bias, apparently). I thought about my approach more deeply, and I tend to approach people from the lens of removing any obvious differentiators and focusing on patterns of interaction, being, and movement. In that, there is a chance of missing context that is crucial for understanding why behavior comes about. For example, a person who is older may not cross their legs because it’s uncomfortable and not because they are more open.
So, it may be wise to consider the cultural/baseline context surrounding behavior. How much should I consider it?

Leave a comment