What are the advantages and disadvantages of the participant observation technique?

What will be an ideal response?

Participant observation offers the advantages of a natural setting, the opportunity to observe people for lengthy periods of time so that interaction and changes in behavior may be studied, and a degree of accuracy or completeness impossible with documents or recall data such as that obtained in surveys. This technique will allow you to know and understand what happened at these events far better than reading official minutes or transcripts. However, there are some noteworthy limitations to the method as well. The main problem with direct, participant observation as a method of empirical research for political scientists is that many significant instances of political behavior are not accessible for observation. For example, the privacy of the voter in the voting booth is legally protected, US Supreme Court conferences are not open to anyone but the justices themselves, political consultants and bureaucrats do not usually wish to have political scientists privy to their discussions and decisions, and most White House conversations and deliberations are carefully guarded. Another disadvantage of participant observation is lack of control over the environment. A researcher may be unable to isolate individual factors and observe their effect on behavior. Participant observation is also limited by the small number of cases that are usually involved. Unstructured participant observation also has been criticized as invalid and biased. A researcher may selectively perceive behaviors, noting some, ignoring others. The interpretation of behaviors may reflect the personality and culture of the observer rather than the meaning attributed to them by the observed themselves. Moreover, the presence of the observer may alter the behavior of the observed no matter how skillfully the observer attempts to become accepted as a nonthreatening part of the community.