The Hawthorne effect: Can it validate social science research?

Abstract

This paper will review the phenomenon and origins of the Hawthorne effect and its common interpretation that field-based researchers act as a social interference to the evaluation and effectiveness of any new program, curriculum or product. The Hawthorne effect’s common interpretation of researcher bias led to the suggested need for a control group with a double blind experimental research design in order to neutralise its effect. The Hawthorne effect appears to invalidate much of contemporary practice action research and qualitative research generally, in which strong social relationships between the researcher and his/her field “subjects” are considered to be essential for a successful project outcome. Subjects are usually called “partners” in this research model, because they are of equal status to the researcher who negotiates a contract to engage their cooperation and active contribution to the research process. Rogers’ concept of “congruence” is often used to describe the relationship between researcher and field researcher, just as he used it to describe the counselor-client relationship. Evaluation research does not require or generally advocate the use of a control group, because it asks a different question from that asked by experimental researchers: “Does this program, curriculum or product make a cost-effective difference?” Evaluation research involves a decision-oriented social encounter, rather than a conclusion-oriented approach to answering research questions. Given these paradoxes of research methodology between the experimental and evaluation research paradigms we have asked a very simple question: “how does the evaluation research paradigm explain the Hawthorne effect?” We will answer this question by providing a radical new interpretation of the Hawthorne effect that now validates the action researcher to perform social experiments within his or her own natural setting.