Observers Paradox and Ways to minimize its Impact in Collection of Live Speech Data - Essay Example

Number Lecturer’s LING 5160M – Sociolinguistics May 4, Observer’s Paradox and Ways to minimize its Impact in Collection of Live Speech Data Sociolinguistic research tries to make observations about normal use of linguistic tools under systematic observation. Broadly, sociolinguistic study encompasses a unique field of study of language and culture in a way that gives insight into language use and social life of the community under consideration. Therefore, the collection of live speech data is an indispensable data collection method that makes the overarching aims of sociolinguistic study attainable. For instance, speech data helps the researcher unravel elements of the social milieu and shared perspectives that define a community. However, the awareness that the participants are under observation impacts on the way they speak and what they speak about, an effect called the Observer’s Paradox. A famed sociolinguist, William Labov, was the first to discuss the paradox in detail. Labov observed that the use of systemized observation had an impact on the way respondents made use of their sociolinguistic abilities, in a way that could profoundly distort the nature of the data collected. This, he noted, could dent the validity of the research in question. This research seeks to discuss the Observer’s Paradox in the context of collecting speech data and explore some ways in which a researcher can roll back some of its negative effects in sociolinguistic research. Introduction Observer’s Paradox is a term attributable to the linguistic researcher, William Labov. The term describes the situation whereby the observation of an event by a researcher in a controlled experimental situation fundamentally alters the natural way in which the event occurs. This transformation, especially in sociolinguistic behavior, impedes the collection of accurate data on the subject. Consequently, the effect arouses much concern in the linguistic research community. According to Labov (1), linguistic research should aim to reveal how people talk without the influence of systematic observation, even though data is unobtainable without systematic observation (Labov, 1). Hence, Observer’s Paradox poses a challenge to sociolinguistic researchers, and ways to circumvent the hurdle are necessary to maintain the validity of research with regard to accuracy and ethical codes that govern empirical research. One of the broad aims of sociolinguistic research is to observe linguistic elements in a community. The elements under empirical scrutiny occur normally, although they are usually unnoticeable outside the confines of systematic controlled observations (Sheffield university, 1). This necessitates the introduction of statistical research methods such as data collection through recording of live speech data. By extension, this means the introduction of a third party to the social setup within which these linguistic factors occur. The disruptions of the natural conditions that define sociolinguistic elements in a community are not dismissible, and can influence the intimate understanding of a community’s sociolinguistic landscape. Sociolinguistic studies are rarely quantifiable, therefore qualitative data collection method remains the best option for many researchers. Speech data is one of the strongest methods through which sociolinguistic data is obtainable. Unfortunately, the method of data collection is one of the major in which the effect of Observer’s Paradox happens. Since the effect's initial observation in Labov’s seminal work on qualitative sociolinguistic work, Observer’s Paradox has attracted considerable attention from the linguistic research community (Labov, 92). Presently, the issues pertaining to the paradox and the consequential ways in which the effects of the effect are eliminable in sociolinguistic research are plentiful. This research seeks to discuss the various issues that are attributable to Observer’s Paradox, and some of the ways in which the negative attributes of the effects are reversible. The Significance of Speech Data in Sociolinguistic Research The process of documenting language can be cunningly complex, requiring a deep understanding of the process and an informed approach to collection of data (Merrill, 1). Although a number of techniques are available at the researcher’s disposal for the collection of sociolinguistic data, recording speech data offers unique benefits and richer insight into the sociolinguistic traits of the community under study. Speech data is collectable either with interviews, where the interviews are recorded on tape or through a more active role by the researcher where he places himself in the community as a student of the new culture while recording the necessary linguistic data of the community. Although the process can be enriching and enjoyable for the researcher, certain challenges can accrue with regard to the validity of the data collected for research purposes if the impact of Observer’s Paradox are unresolved. Speech data is fundamentally imperative in the collection of narrative attributes in sociolinguistic research. By the use of recordings of speech data, a researcher can collect information on traditional folk narratives, dialect accents, oral memoirs, and prosaic narratives that form part of a society’s daily lives (Labov, 1). In addition, the use of the speech recording technique can considerably increase the ability to understand elements of culture that assume a more quantifiable form such as housing layouts, cooking techniques, dancing styles and so forth. Speech data helps in preservation of cultural sociolinguistic identity in a more natural form, especially when accompanied by video recordings of the same events. Issues Raised by Observer’s Paradox Observer’s Paradox raises a number of issues, some of which affect the very core of the sociolinguistic research. Gathering natural speech is a challenge when the participant can adopt a form of speech they consider more appropriate for the ongoing research. Researchers consistently observe that when participants know that their speech is been recorded for scholarly purposes, they tend to assume a more formalized mode of speaking. This shift in linguistic use can grossly misrepresent the speaker’s natural speech styles, which are of interest to the researcher. The paradox lies in the fact that the absence of the observer would naturally liberate the speaker of the pressure of research and cause them to revert to their natural use of speech, and yet without the observer, the speech data becomes inaccessible. Kiernan (3) recounts the even though characteristics of linguistics and the manner in which they interact in qualitative sociolinguistic research is specifically undeterminable, their impact can be monstrous. Observer’s Paradox in the collection of speech data is sometimes born of the tendency by researchers to undermine the impact of experimental conditions on respondents in conducting sociolinguistic research. For instance, the process of designing interview questions to initiate dialogue to collect speech data sometimes overlooks the fact that the method affects the way the speaker behaves. Some of these limitations include the inability to inspire discussions in areas that most interest the speakers, elements that would provide a more definitive insight into the linguistic aspects of the speaker (Kiernan, 3). Consequently, in order to avoid this effect, the researcher can assume the role of a passive observer, without actively getting involved in the way speeches unfold among the participants in the research. The advantages of avoiding the use of interview method in collecting speech data in the study of linguistics are self-evident. However, this proposition encounters some opposition from some researchers in social sciences. Many experts argue that given the consideration that interview method is the most common instrument of research in social sciences, its dismissal for the sake of overcoming limitations of Observer’s Paradox is not justifiable. According to these researchers, interview is now an integral and indispensable part of society and culture, and is no longer classifiable as an empirical research technique for the sole purpose of collecting data (Kiernan, 4). Interviews, researchers argue, are not mere conduits of linguistic data from the speakers to the observers, but also experiences that help researchers comprehend the way other societies live within their cultural settings (7). Many researchers have sought to disentangle the Observer’s Paradox, and come up with ways to eliminate their negative impact without compromising proven tenets of sociolinguistic research. For instance, Kiernan (21) proposes that evaluation of viewpoints with regard to the use of interview method in collecting speech data. According to Kiernan (12), this technique can help the observer gain new perspectives that can aid in identifying the underlying sociolinguistic dimensions of a culture regardless of the obscuring impact of Observer’s Paradox. This viewpoint backs claims by proponents of interview method, who see it as part of social culture, by looking on interview method as a valid and invaluable discourse to exploring sociolinguistic aspects in a community. Some of the proposed methods of gaining greater control over the validity of speech data include evaluating information based on emotional, aesthetic, ethical, and factual quality, as well as the ability to model viewpoints in the perspectives of self and other (16). Observer’s Paradox raises a number of ethical issues. The major ethical issue relating to collection of live speech data is that the observer may have to record information without the knowledge of the respondent. This is a more aggressive method, which is ethically incongruous, and can debunk the validity of a research altogether. Subtler forms of the techniques, although equally contentious, include the concealment of the true intent of the research. For instance, the sociolinguistic researcher wishing to investigate speech patterns in the subjects can make the interview to seem to focus on other research elements, although the true aspects under scrutiny are the linguistic traits in the speaker (Blanco-Iglesias & Broner, 1997). This area has always been a possible minefield for researchers looking to eliminate the negative impact of Observer’s Paradox. As a result, sociolinguistic researchers dealing with live speech data have to find an acceptable balance between what is ethically tenable and what empirically veritable. Minimizing the Impact of Observer’s Paradox Personal Experiences. Observer’s paradox often arises when the respondent knows that their speech is under scrutiny. Because of the paradox, the speaker is inclined to speak in a way that would seem appealing to the researcher. Consequently, in speech data collection trying to understand the natural use of language, the paradox can compromise the validity of the research. Labov (1), in his research on sociolinguistic nature of African American English through the collection of speech data, came to the realization that observer’s paradox was considerably reducible by engaging the participants in conversations about their personal experiences. The reasoning behind this technique is that by making the respondent feel confident, they can engage the more natural use of their sociolinguistic skills during a research, and significantly avoid the impact of the observer’s paradox, which and leads to collection of more accurate speech data. Participant Distraction. Another key proposal for resolving the issue of Observer’s Paradox in sociolinguistic research is the employment of devices that distract the participant from consciously monitoring their speech (Sheffield University, 2). The idea, a concept put forth by Labov himself in the 70s, helps create a situation that is closer to natural settings in which the linguistic elements occur. The method is especially effective where the participant believes that at the particular moment the recording of speech data is not taking place. Techniques to achieve include devising a series of ‘breaks’ within the interviews, although the collection of data continues without the participant’s knowledge (Sheffield University, 2). Understandably, this raises some ethical concerns, where the participant may feel duped for being under investigation without informed consent. Therefore, more subtle forms of interruptions are necessary, which do not exclusively do eliminate informed consent from a speaker’s perspective. Some of these techniques include allowing family members to interrupt the speaker. Another important method of using distraction method is to allow the researcher to assume a casual register in his/her speech by not appearing too attentive to the speaker’s speaking style, and asking questions that arouse sentiments that override consciousness as to the manner of speech delivery in use by the speaker (Labov, 1). Resolving Ethical Issues of Observer’s Paradox. That research should not happen without informed consent is a common consensus in most research communities. The cross-purposes born of the need to minimize Observer’s Paradox and the requirement to observe ethics of informed consent put the researcher relying on the use of speech data in an enigmatic dilemma. Some research entities wholesomely dissociate themselves from the use of research techniques that require the overriding purpose of research to remain inconspicuous to the participants (Sheffield University, 3). Therefore, on many levels, the use of apparently deceptive methods to collect information from the respondents requires avoidance by researchers as much as possible. Considering that violation of a participant’s informed consent is a major issue in many research codes of ethics, and alternatives to eliminate Observer’s Paradox with ethically sound techniques should be put in use. The Death Question. A popular proposition put forth by Labov (92) in an aim to eliminate many of the effects of Observer’s Paradox is the ‘danger of death’ question. According to Labov, the researcher should ask the participant whether they have been in a situation where they experienced a real danger of dying. Labov (92), who had taken part in numerous sociolinguistic research endeavors, had come to the enlightening realization that asking the participant this question gets the participant to engage in a deeply consuming narration, in which the negative impact of Observer’s Paradox effectively disappears. The underlying reasoning for the application of this method was the notion that Observer’s Paradox had a close correlation to heightened tension in the respondent. The death question relieves the participant of the emotional tension; they have more confidence and less nervousness to participate in the research without been subject to the limiting impacts of Observer’s Paradox. Ethical Solutions to Observer’s Paradox. The impact of ethics on research is far-reaching. Many research endeavors seek to attain certain ethical ideals in their agendas to articulate their aims and win acceptance from the scientific research community. Ethical solutions for Observer’s Paradox purpose to avoid the violation of informed consent in participants, and give the participants greater control in their role by avoiding the use of deceptive tactics in the collection of data. One of the proposals is the use of ethnographic methods of sociolinguistic research. The methods have already won considerable support from many research interests handling sociolinguistic research. The methods include greater engagement of researchers in the studies rather than creating the impression that they are just passive sources of information (Llamas, 138). This latter method of participant observation also allowed the research in question to have a far-reaching social impact in the communities under scrutiny. The feeling that the participant’s way of life and sociolinguistic inclination is not a mere source of empirical curiosity but a rich and appreciable cultural experience effectively eliminates the negative effects of Observer’s Paradox. Use of Ethnography in Minimizing the Observer’s Paradox. Feagin (23), in his discussion on minimizing the impact of Observer’s Paradox, suggested that the use of ethnographic research techniques to help reduce some of the effects of Observer’s Paradox in sociolinguistic research. Ethnography is a field of study in social sciences that concentrates on the study of the salient characteristics within an ethnic group (23). In support of his broad claim, Feagin (23) observes that for the participant in a sociolinguistic study to feel comfortable and assume a casual register in speech, it is necessary for the researcher to engage the respondent in conversations that deal with the social situations familiar to the respondent and particular to his/her community. While the effectiveness of the method is not in dispute, some sociolinguistic researchers claim that the method involves research methods beyond the scope of sociolinguistic researchers. However, the importance of the technique is noticeable through its ability to help researchers select the right mix of participants for the research (Feagin, 23), and creating an effective research design for sociolinguistic studies relying principally on collection of live speech data. Conclusion In its abridged form, Observer’s Paradox is a state where the act of observation affects the observed action. The basis of any research, and in particular sociolinguistic research, is to capture information in its natural form. The Observer’s Paradox stands in the way of achieving this goal by influencing the speaker to deviate from naturalness in an effort to be accurate, sound relevant, easier to understand and so forth. These actions skew the outcome of the research to some extent, and broadly constitute the Observer’s Paradox. Sociolinguistic researchers, especially those using speech data to record participant participation, have to grapple with a range of issues, and devise an array of techniques to overcome these challenges. Observer’s Paradox raises a considerable level of debate, ranging from the validity of research to issues on ethical implications of research. The fact that respondents adopt themselves to controlled research environments may considerably skew the accurate outcome of the data. In addition, some of the techniques adopted for reversing the effects of Observer’s Paradox raise ethical concerns among many research communities, and require careful consideration prior to their application. Therefore, ethically sound methods are necessary in carrying out research that relies on collection of live speech data, as the method faces the full impact of Observer’s Paradox in sociolinguistic research. Labov came up with a number of ways to resolve issues arising from Observer’s Paradox. Some of the methods include interruption of the participants to create a more natural setting for the recording of data. In addition, the researcher can ask questions that touch on the emotional issues in the speaker’s life to wear off the impact of consciousness of participation in a scholarly research. Another method put forward by Labov was recording speech data when the participant was unaware as to the monitoring of their speech. However, this latter method raises considerable dialogue with regard to ethical issues, which modern linguistic researchers try to overcome. Llamas (138), in a concept that has been applied elsewhere in sociolinguistic research, came to the conclusion that observer’s participation in the community under research, rather than assuming a distant and passive role of a ‘scientist’ or ‘researcher’ could effectively eliminate reporting bias attributable to Observer’s Paradox. Recommendation Although a number of methods have come up with the purpose of eliminating the negative impacts of Observer’s Paradox in sociolinguistic research, certain methods face challenges in implementation. For example, Feagin’s proposal to apply ethnographic research techniques prior to the research faces much opposition from some sociolinguistic researchers. This is despite the fact that the method can provide prior data about the community that can help draft better research questions and designs. While there is little contestation as to the additional demands the methods would put on sociolinguistics not conversant with ethnography, it is worrying that the researchers would dismiss the technique altogether. More beneficial options should be explored, for instance, collaboration with anthropological researchers specializing in ethnography, use of previous secondary accounts on target communities, or even taking the initiative to acquaint themselves with ethnographic research techniques. Given the magnitude of Observer’s Paradox to the validity of ethnographic research, it would do more good than harm to use all the methods at the researcher’s disposal to stem the impact of the foreboding research paradox, the Observer’s Paradox. Works Cited Blanco-Iglesias, S and Broner, M. Methodological and Ethical Issues in Classroom-Based Research. University of Minnesota. 1997. Pp 6-7. Print. Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Blackwell Publishing. 1972. Pp. 92. Print. Labov, W. Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1997. Web May 4, 2012 < http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/sfs.html> Llamas, C. A New Methodology: Data Elicitation for Regional and Social Language Variation Studies. York Papers on Linguistics. 2007. Pp. 138-163. Print. Feagin, C. Entering the Community: Fieldwork. Blackwell Publishing. n.d. Pp. 23-24. Web May 4, 2012 < http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/ Sample_chapter/9780631218036/04Chap01.pdf> Kiernan, P. Overcoming the Observer’s Paradox. University of Swansea. 2008. Pp. 3-23. Web May 4, 2012 from < http://www.toshima.ne.jp/~kiernan/BAAL2008PPT.pdf> Merill, B. The Observer’s Paradox: Skewing and how to Mitigate it in Language Documentation. Sil.org. 2008. Web May 4, 2012 < http://www.sil.org/~merrillb/SkewingNotes.pdf> Sheffield University. The Observer’s Paradox. Sheffield University. 2009. Pp. 1-7. Web May 4, 2012 Read More