Sample Participant Observation Methods for Potential Use in COINTELPRO Study

        Participant observation methods are useful in qualitative study which rely on subjective analysis.  Wright and Stein contend that the tools most often used in qualitative study are participant observation and interviews (1996, p. 66).  These methods must be used in concert with ethical guidelines; Wright and Stein assert that the foundation of any research is based upon the researcher's integrity (1996, p. 67).  In a comparison of COINTELPRO operations, the possibility of using three of these methods of data collection is discussed.  This discussion is divided into sections:

            Part 1 – Survey, Questionnaire, Code Book, Content Analysis

            Part 2 – Guidelines for an on-site observation

            Part 3 – Interview Questions

Part 1 – Survey

            Part 1: Section 1 Survey Questions

           

1	In what years were you a member of the FBI?
2	Did you participate in COINTELPRO operations against both WHITE HATE and NEW LEFT targets?
3	How many COINTELPRO: WHITE HATE operations did you participate in?
4	How many COINTELPRO: NEW LEFT operations did you participate in?
5	Did you have a personal bias against members of the Ku Klux Klan?
6	Did you have a personal bias against members of the New Left?
7	Did national headquarters request more operations against NEW LEFT targets than WHITE HATE targets when both programs were concurrent?
8	Did national headquarters request more operations against WHITE HATE targets than NEW LEFT targets when both programs were concurrent?
9	Was your SAC ever punished for not meeting a quota of actions against WHITE HATE targets?
10	Was your SAC ever punished for not meeting a quota of actions against NEW LEFT targets?
11	Did your SAC ever discuss a priority for WHITE HATE targets?
12	Did your SAC ever discuss a priority for NEW LEFT targets?
13	Did you perceive a difference in tone or urgency in discussing these priorities?
14	Did you ever participate in actions against NEW LEFT targets you felt were unjustified?
15	Did you ever participate in actions against WHITE HATE targets you felt were unjustified?
16	Did you ever participate in actions against NEW LEFT targets you felt were illegal?
17	Did you ever participate in actions against WHITE HATE targets you felt were illegal?
18	On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, how justified did you consider operations in COINTELPRO: WHITE HATE to be?
19	On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, how justified did you consider operations in COINTELPRO: NEW LEFT to be?
20	On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, how successful did you consider operations in COINTELPRO: WHITE HATE to be?
21	On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, how successful did you consider operations in COINTELPRO: NEW LEFT to be?

            Part 1: Section 2 Codebook

1	respondent
2	respondent
3	respondent
4	respondent
5	1- yes, 2- no
6	1- yes, 2- no
7	1- yes, 2- no, 3- NA
8	1- yes, 2- no, 3- NA
9	1- yes, 2- no
10	1- yes, 2- no
11	1- yes, 2- no
12	1- yes, 2- no
13	1- yes, 2- no
14	1- yes, 2- no
15	1- yes, 2- no
16	1- yes, 2- no
17	1- yes, 2- no
18	1-5
19	1-5
20	1-5
21	1-5

            Part 1: Section 3 Content Analysis Parameters

            Once the surveys have been collected, there needs to be a system to analyze the responses.  Zhang and Wildemuth explain this in terms of themes, exploring the properties of categories, and defining relationships between those properties (2009, p. 9). In analyzing the survey questions, we can use “Question 1” to eliminate some incorrect responses; for example an agent that claimed to be participation in NEW LEFT operations before the program was initiated.  “Question 2” can be used to isolate respondents that had experience with, and thus the ability to compare both programs.  “Question 3” and “Question 4” can be used to gain a sense of operations per year per program when compared against “Question 1”.  “Question 5” and “Question 6” can be used to infer levels of bias when cross referenced against later questions.  “Question 7” and “Question 8” can be cross referenced to “Question 1” and “Question 2” and in addition can be used to gain a sense of whether one set of operations was given a higher set of priorities.  “Question 9” and “Question 10” can provide a direct comparison of management pressure.  “Question 11” and “Question 12” can be used to translate whether this pressure was carried through at the local office level, while “Question 13” can be used as a direct comparison as well as a cross reference for  “Question 11” and “Question 12”.   “Question 14” and “Question 15” can provide an indication of incidence by program as to whether agents felt that operations were unjustified.  In a like vein, “Question 16” and “Question 17”  can explore whether agents felt that operations were illegal.  The final four questions are based upon a Likert-type scale.  Chimi and Russell suggest that this type of question to collect qualitative data that can be difficult to measure or that touches upon sensitive topics (2009, p. 1).  These final four questions probe into agent's judgments into any differences as operations that were justified, and most importantly, successful.

Part 2 – Guidelines for an on-site observation

            It is unlikely that an active participant observation of agents conducting security operations would be allowed.   Berg notes the problem of “getting in” (2004, p. 150), and this situation demonstrates where that problem is insurmountable.  Keeping in mind Wright and Stein's discussion of ethical concerns in research, a brief overview of on-site research guidelines would be in order.  While the Belmont guidelines provide a good foundation of guidelines, Family Health International suggests that the following additional considerations be taken for an on-site observation:

*observing people as they engage in activities that would probably occur in much the same

way if you were not present

*engaging to some extent in the activities taking place, either in order to better understand the

local perspective or so as not to call attention to yourself

*interacting with people socially outside of a controlled research environment, such as at a

bar, public meeting place, bus depot, religious gathering, or market – if casual conversation

gives way to more substantive discussion of the research topic, you would need to disclose

your identity, affiliation, and purpose

*identifying and developing relationships with key informants, stakeholders, and gatekeepers  (Mack et al, 2005, p 18)

Part 3 – Interview Questions

            The interview method can be used to obtain in-depth perceptions of a subject's experience and viewpoints. Turner suggests that interview questions be open ended in order to allow the subject to provide as much detail in answering the question as the subject desires; this also allows for an astute interviewer to discern follow-up questions based upon the initial question (2010, p. 756).  Questions that may be asked relating to COINTELPRO operations could include:

·                “How much of an authoritarian leadership style did Director Hoover show in directing COINTELPRO operations?”

·                “What were the attitudes that Hoover expressed towards the groups that comprised the WHITE HATE and NEW LEFT groups?”

·                “What accounted for the successful operations in the COINTELPRO operations that you were aware of?”

·                “How did Hoover deal with orders from the White House or the Attorney General's office concerning domestic security?”

·                “Why do you think Hoover made chain of command in COINTELPRO operations in the structure that it consisted of?”

·                “What did you think of Hoover's ability to generate support from Congress?”

References

Berg, B. (2004).  Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.).  Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Chimi, C. and Russell, D. (2009).  The Likert scale: A proposal for improvement using quasi-continuous variables. In The Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference 2009, v 26.Washington DC.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International. Retrieved August 13, 2015 from http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%20Methods%20-%20A%20Data%20Collector%27s%20Field%20Guide.pdf

Turner, D. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, (15)3. Retrieved August 13, 2015 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/qid.pdf

Wright, R., & Stein, M. (1996). Seeing ourselves: Exploring the social production of criminological knowledge in a qualitative methods course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 7(1), 65–77. http://doi.org/10.1080/10511259600083601

Zhang, Y. , & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp.308-319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.