They are useful for answering questions about what would happen in a real‐life situation if we changed one or more of the factors in that situation.
We have less control over them because they are being conducted in a natural setting – often like the ‘Candid Camera’ or ‘You've Been Framed’ TV programmes where hidden cameras or observers record what happens. Sometimes situations occur when an experiment is not being conducted deliberately, but the circumstances are such that we can make comparisons between two different approaches to tackling the same issue and we can compare the findings – insofar as we can – for the different results. Let's begin with a classic case study.
Example 1: The Nineteenth‐Century Cholera Epidemic in London
At the time of the cholera outbreak in London in 1854, the prevailing medical view was that it, like some other diseases, such as plague and malaria, were caused by a ‘miasma’ or ‘bad air’ which emanated from the ground. John Snow was a sceptic of this theory (Figure 3.1). So, during the outbreak of cholera in the Soho area of London, he talked to local residents and mapped the pattern of the disease. As a result, he identified what he thought to be the source of the outbreak as the public water pump on Broad Street, and his ‘experiment’ was to remove the handle of the pump! This controlled the outbreak and demonstrated to his satisfaction the role of water in the transmission of cholera (Snow 1849).
After the outbreak had passed, the authorities replaced the pump handle. They rejected Snow's explanation that faecal contamination of the water supply was responsible for the cholera outbreak, as it was too unpleasant at that time to accept the faecal–oral route of transmission (Chapelle 2005). How times have changed!
FIGURE 3.1 John Snow – being very smart and learned.
Source: Unknown author / Wikimedia Commons / Public domain.
Example 2: The Paddington Station Experiment
Mary Sissons conducted her classic study of interactions between people of different social classes in Paddington Station in London (Sissons, 1971). Thinking of all the happy hours I have spent waiting for trains there between 1967 and now makes me realise how much it has changed. It used to be much larger inside before the shops and restaurants were added, and therefore there were many more offices overlooking the vast station concourse. It was the perfect place for ‘people watching’. So, Mary was able to set up her cameras in the offices overlooking the station concourse. Of course, this sort of study raises many more ethical issues now than it did then – see Reece and Siegal’s (1991) book on the ethics of social research.
She hired an actor who dressed up in one of two different roles. In his ‘middle‐class’ role he dressed up in manual worker's clothes and spoke and behaved as though he was ‘working‐class’. In his ‘middle‐class’ role, he was dressed like a businessman and talked and behaved as though he was ‘middle‐class’. He approached 80 people and asked them if they could tell him the way to Hyde Park (which is a five‐minute walk from the station). For half, he was in his ‘middle‐class’ role and for half, he was in his ‘working‐class’ role. The interactions were filmed from the offices and audio‐recorded by a hidden microphone carried by the actor. Once the interactions had ended, a researcher approached the ‘subjects’, explained the study to them, interviewed them and obtained their consent for their participation in the study.
She found that middle‐class to middle‐class interactions went more smoothly than any others. Instant rapport was more likely, the interactions lasted longer, there was more smiling and there was a definite ending. This experiment was used by the Open University and the BBC as a featured example of Field Research. Google it! Watch the video.
Example 3: Urban Sound Planning in Brighton and Hove
A colleague at BSMS, Harry Witchell, worked with Brighton and Hove City Council to help solve a common urban problem – that of safety in tunnels, or underpasses, specifically the Brighton Beach Tunnel. In the past, there were problems with public safety because of anti‐social behaviours which led to the tunnel's closure. In an attempt to try to make this a ‘more inviting and safer’ environment, due to increases in its use, an experiment was carried out. Video cameras and a sound system were installed in the tunnel.
The music interventions were played between the hours of 07:00 pm and 07:00 am on Thursday nights, Friday nights, and Saturday nights; for the duration of the pilot study, the tunnel was left open all night on these nights. Playlists of traditional, archetypal representatives of classical, jazz, and contemporary dance music (and silence) were cycled repeatedly to tunnel users, most of whom passed through the music intervention in approximately 30 seconds; the music was chosen to be non‐aversive, and the played sound level was measured to have a LAeq ranging from 68 to 81 dB(A).
Extensive data were gathered in the form of video files; based on motion sensing, over 15,000 filmed episodes were recorded, with almost all of these having one or more individuals moving in the tunnel (Easteal et al., 2015).
So, in this natural space, it was possible to introduce one of four sound interventions:
classical music;
jazz;
contemporary dance music; and
silence.
‘Participants’ were naïve members of the public who were passing through the tunnel. There was no randomisation as such, but the four conditions (classical music; jazz; contemporary dance music; and silence) were equally cycled, so there was a ‘random’ effect in terms of exposure to each of these. All participants were unknown – they were anonymous. The results were interesting.
Classical music seemed to lessen loitering when compared to silence or other music. Music with a faster tempo led to faster walking speeds. The researchers also noted an unexpected effect of music – dancing in the tunnel. Also, in a daytime experiment, ‘brief exposure to music led to an increase in charitable donations to collectors for the Martlets Hospice’.
They concluded that ‘At the end of the experiment, no vandalism or weather damage occurred to any of the equipment, suggesting that this intervention strategy can work in an open public space at night.’
I like this experiment. It's nice to have an experiment which notes an unexpected result – dancing! It demonstrated a good partnership between the Local Authority and the University; and it gave meaningful results which had an immediate practical application.
Note: There is no requirement for REC approval for studies which are ‘naturalistic observations’ of people. Filming in public – as long as no individuals can be identified in any publications or presentations of the results –
