Human Development

This essay critically reflects upon my contact and observations of a 28 year old mother (V), and her 4 Ð'Ð... year old daughter (E). I briefly discuss the objectivity and subjectivity of naturalistic and scientific observational theories, focussing on the method of participant observer. The process of observation is used to identify E’s growth and developmental needs; in particular her language and social development. To support my observations of E’s developmental needs, theories and research in human growth and development are referred to. Lastly I examine the ethical issues raised and my personal development in observing V and E.

Due to my awareness/commitment to upholding the rights of the child (United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Child 1989 articles 12,13 and 16) and the principles of confidentiality (BASW Code of Ethics 2002 paragraph 4.1.7), only the first initial of each family member’s name is used. In all of my observations with V and E their consent and permission to observe were sought and obtained.

Family background and reasons for my observations.

I became involved with V and L in March 2007 after I approached V for consent to observe E for my Human Development Study.

V and M, the child’s father are separated but still have positive communication. The family are of white British origin. E is the only child and was delivered by forceps after a �difficult labour’. V reports that E has not suffered from any medical problems and does not have any known conditions. Although I have been informed that E did suffer with regular ear infections when she was cutting her teeth.

Application of observations theories and methods

During my initial contact with E I was needed to take on the role of participant observer (Pellegrini 2004 p288). I watched/took part in the interactions and behaviour from within the social environment (Miller 1998 p67). I was an active integral part within the process rather than an outsider looking in. The role of participant observer is informed by naturalist perspective on observation theory and methods (Sanger 1996 p10-11). Unlike scientific approaches, naturalistic observation theory focuses on qualitative and not quantitative research and recordings (Robson 1993 p194). Subjectivity is accepted and embraced. Post-positivist, feminist ethnography, social constructivism and contemporary psychoanalysis theory have all been linked and associated with the development of naturalistic observation theory and methods (Le Richie and Tanner 1998 p28; Sanger 1996 p11-16). Although differing in their stance these theories agree that in the process of acquiring knowledge subjectivity is inherent.

In applying naturalistic participant observation theory/method I experience the advantage of using my communication skills to complement/explain the information/events I observed (Baldwin 1994 p81). My perspective was informed by the realities and viewpoint of each family member (Bogdewic 1999 p48-49) For example V explained E’s initial behaviour in my first observation as her natural response to strangers. V’s explanation of E’s behaviour assisted my holistic assessment of T’s social and emotional development needs (Holland 2004 p122; Hobart and Frankel 2004 p104). The opportunity to use my observation to make a holistic rather than a selective assessment was a key advantage, influencing my decision to use naturalistic observation theory and the participant observer method.

In scientific observation objectivity is paramount. Observation is used as a tool for collecting/validating information about an individual’s external world (Le Richie and Tanner 1998 p25). Within the concept of objectivity are stability and truthfulness (Pellegrini 2004 p18). In objective observation it should be possible to replicate the observation many times, and produce the same findings. An advantage of the objective approach to observation is that the observer can control and structure the setting so as to ensure that the behaviour/event of interest takes place (Littefield-Cook and Cook 2005 p22).

A critique of scientific observation is that it can prevent practitioners from taking a holistic viewpoint. According to Sanger (1996 p13-14) objectivity removes the complexity of the social world. Sanger suggested that objectivity resulted in focusing on a small predetermined part that no longer reflected the internal relations of its existence. To clarify, if we as social workers focus too rigidly or remain too objective in our observation approach we risk ignoring the feelings, values, culture and community of those we observe and the social structure within which the observation takes place. Similarly Baldwin (1994 p79) argued objectivity in observation was a myth that increased the potential for oppressive judgments/assessments. To be anti-oppressive in our observational practice an awareness of our subjectivity is needed.

Through naturalistic participant observation unobtrusive, empowering, partnership and open/honest practice can be implemented. Although my initial presence was considered an intrusion by E, through ongoing and regular contact my presence has become more natural (Miller 1998 p67). E accepts rather than responds to my presence. I used therapeutic responses such as minimal encourages, paraphrasing, and reflection of feelings to communicate listening and attentiveness (Fine and Glasser 1996 p61). This empowered V to talk freely, to feel relaxed and in control of the interaction and process of the observations. As Fawcett (1996 p68) stated the observation in the home setting necessitates that practitioners be skills in empathy and respect; the home is a private and personal setting, where an observer can be felt as an intruder.

For practicality, familiarity and convenience I chose the free descriptive/written narrative method of recording (Hobart and Frankle 2004 p37-38). Good, reliable, valid descriptions inform practice knowledge, assessment, intervention and understanding (Pellegrini 2004 p57) In addition, writing is a skill regularly used and therefore requires little practice or planning (Hobart and Frankel 2004 p37). When applying this method of recording I experienced difficulty writing down all that I observed and maintain focus on the observation aims.

As my visits/involvement with the family continued I developed a more structured systemic and focussed observation approach. My written narrative became easier and concise. I carried out a pre-arranged planned observation which included V, E and E’s (M) father at their home. I