I will be looking at the positives and negatives of a researcher being present during a study with research examples, then concluding with what I think is best and possible ways to get around any disadvantages.
One argument in favor of a researcher being present is simply that more can be observed, say for example you are filling out a questionnaire and don’t understand a question- the researcher can explain it to you and stop you from giving false responses. The counter side to is that the observer may influence the responses; the participant may either want to impress them or ruin the experiment, people naturally act differently under pressure, Rosenthal (1966) pointed out that even rats learn faster when expected to. Social desirability and wanting to impress/ annoy a researcher can however still occur when no researcher is present, in fact a researcher being there may lead to people giving less false responses e.g. in a response test as they may be more likely to concentrate and less likely to day dream if they are conscious they are being watched; of course the counter argument is that in our everyday life we do daydream and stop concentrating.
Another concept is filming the participants, or the use of one way glass or another way in which the participants can be observed but not in direct contact with a researcher during the experiment; this has its criticisms though as ethical rules mean that people need to consent to being filmed or watched so it could be argued that this will lead to all the same demand characteristics as someone actually being there and will only illuminate the positive effects of researcher presence, e.g. the researcher being able to explain any misunderstood tasks.
In conclusion seeing as anyone being present can affect results it seems silly not to have a researcher available, some studies need an observer, e.g. studies on children playing, it should be a professional. Possible ways to avoid the observer effect include disguising the purpose of the experiment from the participants (although this risks deception, an example being Milgram’s obedience study participants thinking they were doing an experiment on punishments effects on learning/ memory), not making the researcher seem too much like an authority figure, single blind (participants not knowing which condition they are in) and double blind (participants and researchers not knowing which condition they are in); both of the last ideas can be achieved using a placebo pill in some conditions. It is difficult to judge the level of which a researcher should be present/ not present without considering a specific study and I think researchers should show this in their designs and tailor the level of researcher presence to reflect what they are looking to study.
psuc98 
Interesting topic 🙂
Personally I think that the experimenter should not be there when the experiment is being conducted if they don’t need to. Because as you have stated people do not act naturally under pressure and while the experimenter is watching there is a need for social desirability. Recently I did an experiment where the investigator sat right next to me because we were dealing with advanced tech and they were sat there I found myself making a lot of mistakes in fear I would break something. The next session they sat away from me and this instant relief of pressure made it easier to concentrate on the task.
You mentioned being filmed or watched through a two way mirror I don’t think that you would face the same potential problem off having the investigator actually in the room. When you are being filmed for example the participant has the choice to withdraw from the trial at the beginning if they are not comfortable with the fact. So if a ps was worried about being filmed they would say then.
So I think the investigator being present when there is no need for them could have negative impact on the outcome of results
Like you said there are both, advantages and disadvantages of researcher being present during experiment. I do agree with you that the presence of the researcher could provide some bias to the findings. People usually try to show themselves in the best possible light. Ash (1951) showed that people do not want stand out and they do conform to majority view only to not be seen as the odd one. Therefore this study suggests that people would do everything, only to fit to the desirable society criterion. Surely, if the researcher is not present that gives them more confidentiality.
Like you said some researches requires participants to be observed. For example observational studies. Bandura (1963) conducted study in which he observed children aggressive behaviour towards doll . When it comes to studies with young children , I do not really think that children ,would change their behaviour to look better. Hovewer as we get older we do understand more and we form our social norms that we would like to follow(it does not always happen). Therefore we are more likely to change any unacceptable behaviour when we know we are being observed. In Rosenhan (1973)study deception was necessary. His research –sane in insane places- revaled horrifc truth about the medical staff in psychiatric hospitals. He and his collegues went to psychiatric hospitals; under cover as pseudopatietns saying that they hear voices. On that basic assumption they have been admitted to those hospitals. They were givena label saying ‘schizophrenic’ . As soon as they got a label attached to them they could observe real behaviour of the staff in that hospital. If they told the staff that they are observed and they are not real patients but fake ones, then they would be not able to find what they have found ; the horrible truth. Therefore I think the researchers should be kept out of the experiment ( as long as it is possible) or participants should be deceived about the real aim of the study.
Pingback: cooments fro 18 th of april « camilia92
I think this blog covers valid points as to reasons why researchers should be present and valid reasons why it might not be such a good idea. In my opinion i would have to favour the presence of the researcher. The reason I think this is because with the researcher there as you have mentioned they can help you with potentially difficult questions. They may also make you feel more comfortable by using calming words with a calming tone of voice. I also believe that when a researcher is present it allows you to focus more on the task at hand rather than diverting your attention to something else such as your phone!. This can be easily done if the researcher is not present due to the fact that you do not have someone monitoring your progress so what is stopping you from using your phone?
On the other hand I do understand that some participants may experience some anxiety issues when being directly observed by the researcher and this may cause a lack in concentration or may also cause participants to over analyse the task which they have been given.
However, in conclusion I feel that an experiment is not properly carried out without the researcher being present in the room.
Pingback: final blog comments for the year!!!! whoop whoop! | jessica0703
Personally when doing an experiment, I find it more difficult if the experimenter stays in the room as I feel they are watching me and judging my answers or how I carry out my actions. This then makes me overthink things and makes the tasks more difficult that they actually are. However, there have been occassions where I have not understood a question or part of a task and didn’t kno what to do as the experimenter had left me. Therefore I think a good comprimise would be for the experimenter to remain in the room for the duration of the experiment, but doing something themself so questions can be asked if needed but participants stil feel they can answer and act as they would normally.
Pingback: Final comments :D « laurenpsychology
I agree with what you say. I think that the presents of the research may however make some individuals feel uncomfortable as they may feel under pressure but on the other hand if the research is there and something is to go wrong they are there on hand, therefore they are also taking into account ensuring that the participants are safe from harm at all time, for this reason i believe that it is a good reason for the research to be in the room.
Pingback: Last Comments! :) :) :) « statsjamps