Comparative Research Design - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 45

e.g. at conferences or on other occasions, but also with foreign experts such as consultants,
other researchers, etc. They enriched the preliminary research findings with their own expe
riences and assessments.
Most of the expert interviews and informal conservations were conducted in Russian,
some in English and German. Quotations from the interviews in the text are translated into
English. However, when quoting recorded interviews conducted in Russian, the original Rus
sian phrase is indicated in a footnote.
Participant Observation
Participant observation is a research method frequently used in social anthropology and soci
ology; it is often considered to be the ethnographic method per se (Spittler 2001; Schatz 2007:
4f; Kohl 1993: 109 114; Cicourel 1974: 63 109; Girtler 1998). The basic aim of participant
observation is “to develop verstehen (Weber 1949) based on direct observations gleaned from
partaking in subjects' everyday realities” (Schatz 2007: 4f, emphasis in original). In this way, it
is an adequate method for my research aim to try to comprehend politics of water reform
beyond formal rules and processes: “With its help, subjective perceptions, procedures of social
processes or cultural and social rules that shape these processes, can be understood” (Schöne
2003: [11], translation JS).
In political science, in Germany more so than internationally, observation is seldom used
and consequently also seldom considered in methodological discussions (Schöne 2003: [2]).
One of the pioneers of observation in political science, Richard F. Fenno (1986: 4 6) mentions
several insights that can not be gained by interviews but by participant observation: 26 (1) to
approximate the perspective of the actors, (2) to gain not only intellectual knowledge of the
subject of research but also to sensitize the researcher to it, and (3) to gain a better comprehen
sion of the relevance of the context as a relevant variable. Schöne (2003: [55]) further notes
that observations can compensate a major disadvantage of interviews: the problem of social
desirability. Especially political actors tend to answer interviews questions according to con
ventions about how things should be rather than how they are factually. Participant observa
tion, in contrast, allows insights into the de facto behavior and situations, and hence facilitates
comparisons between the ideal and the real situation, or de jure and de facto realities. An addi
tional aspect is what Malinovski (1984: 43) called the “imponderables of real life” that cannot
be determined in interviews or document analysis. Observation allows collecting data that
people do not provide in interviews because they are not aware of it, the so called 'tacit know
ledge' (Spittler 2001: 8 10). Much important information, especially in the case studies, could
only be gathered by observation. For example, this was the case with relations between indi
viduals and between different organizations or institutions. Questions concerning the latter
point were often not answered as people did not perceive of an organization as an “organiza
tion” but only associate its responsibilits with single person.
For an observation to become a scientific method, it has to be planned methodologically
and analyzed systematically. Participant observation is typically open (the observed persons
know about it), natural (carried out in the regular setting rather than under specially con
structed conditions), and more or less systematic (structured by preconceived schemes). The
“participant” observer does not necessarily have to be actively involved in the situation but can
also be rather passive, taking part as a participating listener in a meeting, for example. The
process of observation typically runs through three phases: (1) descriptive observation: unspe
cific and comprehensive observation in order to gain an overview of the field and to identify
26 He calls it “interactive observation”.