Participant observation as a method is rather different from Freire's participatory (collaborative) research. In the first case you are simply collecting data, while in the second case you are actively collaborating with members of the community to bring about change.

Participant observation is often described as offering a range of options from acting largely as an observer (outsider) to actively participating (insider). Either way, your goal is primarily to study the organization in question for your own purposes as a researcher.

Of course, it is possible. Two issues to be aware of though: First is access. Would you be able to access the setting? Second is bias. Would you be able to sustain your neutrality and avoid bias. That is usually one of the difficult issues associated with participatory research and which sets it apart from ethnographic observation

Participant observation as a method is rather different from Freire's participatory (collaborative) research. In the first case you are simply collecting data, while in the second case you are actively collaborating with members of the community to bring about change.

Participant observation is often described as offering a range of options from acting largely as an observer (outsider) to actively participating (insider). Either way, your goal is primarily to study the organization in question for your own purposes as a researcher.

Dear Gordon and David,

Thank You for correct and enabling answers. But this means that participatory observation is possible, but participatory (collaborative) Freire research is not possible in public bureaucratic organization, or is possible only under very special circumstances. Am I right?

I think, You understand my meaning.

Yours, Arvydas

Yes, participant observation as a method (similar to ethnography) is quite common in bureaucratic settings, and no, participatory (collaborative) Freiren research seems very unlikely in public bureaucratic organization.

By it's very nature, a bureaucratic organisation is likely to be antithetical to participatory collaborative research. For one, getting through gate keepers and staying on the right side of rules and regulations are key issues

Dear Arvydas,

I would agree with Gordon that participatory research is not possible in highly bureacratic organizations, Your question recalled to me a research on migration in large companies that I participated as a researcher years ago, The "official" discourse of the organisation was so tight that you could not go past it in an interview, let alone do participatory observation. Bureaucracy and participation are very anthitetical.

I think that depending on how one defines it, participant observation in such an organisation is possible, although raises some challenges.

For example, I was involved in a project in the English National Health Service which used managers from the organisation as co-researchers. This did require a considerable time commitment from them, but allowed for excellent access and a focus on providing relevant findings. Observations and interviews were sometimes conducted by university researchers, sometimes by the co-researchers, and included active involvement in meetings or quiet observation depending on the situation.

You can read the full report here:

http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/volume-1/issue-14

However, as Luis rightly notes above, if the organisation does not wish to engage, such approaches can be very difficult.

The distinction between ethnography (I prefer ethnography to participant observation) and Freire's work with poor people is very important.  However, both are possible in bureaucracies.  I use observation and ethnography extensively in evaluations of government programs and very occasionally I was a participant as well. Most often the 'participant-observation' research was self-initiated. 

In respect of participatory action research, I have twice been asked to develop  models for Governments in Australia.   Neither of them got very far because the 'champions' who asked me both moved to a different job and the new Managers struggled to understand the concept.  So it is difficult and might be considered less valuable than similar work with marginal groups: but I would not say it is impossible.

I should also say that, while Freire was certainly an inspiration to many participatory research practitioners and articulated many of the important principles, I don't believe he ever used the term himself.    His focus was much more on self-learning and education. His techniques are extremely valuable in research but their goal was to help improve the education of adults in very poor communities.

The term participatory action research  has different roots, though it too is strongly humanist.  I believe it was Kurt Lewin in 1946 who coined the term many years before Freire.

Hello, cordial greetings.

For many years it has tried to strengthen relations Business University, at least in the Latin American context and certainly my most accent in my country Colombia, where academics and invetsigativos developments are on the rise. A recurrent concern of Univesridades by assisting in the organizations and to be supported by the academy, however, there are profound asymmetries between the scope and needs of each other.

On the other hand the many jobs that are performed without widespread and regularly are not put into practice.

But if possible and if made, a more causal and symmetrical development between formal and informal education and worked required