Unobtrusive Research: Helpful or Creepy?

For about a week now in class, we have been learning and practicing unobtrusive research methods.  Unobtrusive research is a method used to conduct public relations research and during which, the researcher does not influence the situation or outcome in any way.  This is done through careful attention and observation of different elements based on what the researcher is trying to find.

I can see both a major advantage and disadvantage to this method.  Clearly, this can be one of the most effective methods used by public relations research professionals because without the known presence or observation of a researcher, individuals are truly themselves, holding nothing back.  They could get the same results from a survey or focus group if the individual was exceedingly honest even while they knew they were being watched and recorded, but it is not likely to happen often.  This is because unobtrusive research is often used to delve further into sensitive issues which people are not willing to admit.  The results the researchers find are truly their subjects' feelings, thoughts, preferences and dislikes without the subjects putting up a good face to seem like a better person.  This can be crucial to a research plan because a plan based on false information a subject or subjects gave because they were insecure about their true feelings can put a public relations campaign's time, effort and money in completely the wrong direction. 

On the other hand, it is important to consider the studied individuals' points of view.  I can see how this research method could be an invasion of privacy if looking for something personal that the individual did not want revealed.  Of course, there can be precautions taken to ensure the individual's information and observed results are kept private, but still they are being watched without notification or them giving consent.  To me, I believe this violates the full disclosure ethical guideline in public relations.       

Here is an example from Reuters that I like and would like to share because both the pro and con aspects of unobtrusive research are included.  In this article, the unobtrusive research tactics are equated to Big Brother: the concept of being watched by the government or some other sort of officials to learn private information otherwise unattainable or protected.  Big Brother is a phrase often used when individuals feel their privacy has been compromised.  However, important to my earlier concern of full disclosure, the people who wanted to eat in this restaurant had to sign a consent form stating they were willing to be watched.  

The article is about a restaurant that opened in 2007 in the Netherlands.  It was equipped with several unobtrusive cameras to monitor their diners' eating habits and meal preferences.  The cameras were aimed to find out what the customer preferred in color, noise, smell, food preparation, packaging, taste and even light stimulus.  Daily, the restaurant staff made small changes such as the friendliness of the waitstaff to observe how the customers reacted.  Kitchen staff was also monitored through the cameras so "how they are working" could be observed.  This was all aimed to subtly influence customer behavior, which is the ultimate advantage of unobtrusive research.

Because consent forms were used, I believe these actions and observations were ethical.  But this poses yet another problem.  Were the customers more likely to hold back with their true reactions to light, noise and food preparation, etc. because they knew they were being watched?  Were they more likely to be more dramatic to make sure their opinion was known?  These are important questions that should be taken into consideration while gathering data as well as while analyzing and interpreting what the data means. 

Unobtrusive research overall seems to produce great, useful results.  It is the tactics used to get those results and how those results are used where public relations professionals could potentially get into trouble.