Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the strengths and limitations of using participant observation methods to investigate gang culture.
Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the strengths and limitations of using participant observation methods to investigate gang culture.
Item A: Venkatesh was a student at the University of Chicago in 1989 when he became interested in the housing projects surrounding the university where 27,000 people lived. He approached a group of Black youths hanging around a stairwell in one of the project buildings but instead of answering his carefully prepared questions he found himself held hostage overnight by members of the Black Kings, a crack-dealing gang who thought he might be a member of a rival Mexican gang (Venkatesh was actually an Indian).
However, the incident proved to be fortunate because it resulted in a meeting with the leader of the Black Kings, the charismatic ‘JT’, who expressed disappointment at the questionnaire and asked ‘how’d you get to do this if you don’t know who we are, what we are about?’ JT went on to observe, ‘you shouldn’t go around asking them sill-ass questions. With people like us, you should hang out, get to know what they do, how they do it. You need to understand how young people live on the streets.’ This inspired Venkatesh to return the next day with some beer and the aim of persuading JT to let him ‘hang out’ with the gang.
Venkatesh embarked on an ethnographic study of the everyday life of the housing projects, which eventually lasted for 8 years. This involved the successful development of a rapport with JT so that he trusted Venkatesh enough to let him participate in the daily life of the gang.
Participant observation is when a researcher or ethnographer joins a group in order to study the members of the group close up and see things through their eyes. This can either be done covertly, when the researcher is under cover and does not reveal their true identity or purpose, or overtly, when the researcher is completely open and honest about what they are doing.
In Item A Ventakesh’s research was overt.
Item A: Venkatesh was a student at the University of Chicago in 1989 when he became interested in the housing projects surrounding the university where 27,000 people lived. He approached a group of Black youths hanging around a stairwell in one of the project buildings but instead of answering his carefully prepared questions he found himself held hostage overnight by members of the Black Kings, a crack-dealing gang who thought he might be a member of a rival Mexican gang (Venkatesh was actually an Indian).
However, the incident proved to be fortunate because it resulted in a meeting with the leader of the Black Kings, the charismatic ‘JT’, who expressed disappointment at the questionnaire and asked ‘how’d you get to do this if you don’t know who we are, what we are about?’ JT went on to observe, ‘you shouldn’t go around asking them sill-ass questions. With people like us, you should hang out, get to know what they do, how they do it. You need to understand how young people live on the streets.’ This inspired Venkatesh to return the next day with some beer and the aim of persuading JT to let him ‘hang out’ with the gang.
Venkatesh embarked on an ethnographic study of the everyday life of the housing projects, which eventually lasted for 8 years. This involved the successful development of a rapport with JT so that he trusted Venkatesh enough to let him participate in the daily life of the gang.
Participant observation is when a researcher or ethnographer joins a group in order to study the members of the group close up and see things through their eyes. This can either be done covertly, when the researcher is under cover and does not reveal their true identity or purpose, or overtly, when the researcher is completely open and honest about what they are doing.
In Item A Ventakesh’s research was overt.