Final answer:
Observation as a data collection method provides authentic information due to its realistic setting, but it faces challenges like observer bias and the limitation of correlational data. It does not allow for experimental control and may require significant time and resources, but is valuable for understanding cultural and social practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The advantage of observation over interview as a data collection technique is that it typically provides the researcher with the opportunity to collect data in a realistic setting, which tends to yield more honest and true-to-life information. During an observation, the researcher can take notes on events, activities, people, and so on, which may provide a more complete picture of the subject being studied than an interview could. Observations can be single or multiple visits, depending on the research question, and preliminary work can help define the scope and expectations of these sessions. However, observer bias and the issue of not establishing cause and effect due to reliance on correlational data are potential challenges. Researchers need clear criteria for recording behaviors and often employ inter-rater reliability to combat bias.
Despite the benefits of observation, it is important to recognize that this method does not allow for much experimental control, could be time-intensive, and may require significant resources. Yet, for understanding cultural practices, roles for individuals and groups, and social facts, field researchers find observational methods especially enriching as they strive to record observations accurately. In the end, Both observation and interview methods have their unique strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them should be guided by the nature of the research question.