Final answer:
Anatomic research is not well suited to the participant observer role, which is more appropriate for anthropological studies that require immersion in a culture. Anatomic research is more detached and relies on controlled, precise methods. The benefit of naturalistic observation studies is the collection of authentic data, despite the method's time and resource intensity.
Step-by-step explanation:
Anatomic research would not be well suited for the participant observer role because this method is more aligned with anthropological research, whereby the observer immerses themselves in the culture they are studying. Instead, anatomic research involves a more detached and objectified approach to studying the human body and its structures, typically requiring precise measurement and a controlled environment.
The benefit of naturalistic observation studies includes a. the honesty of the data that is collected in a realistic setting. Naturalistic observation is valuable for the collection of valid, true-to-life information from realistic situations but does not offer much control and often is neither quick nor particularly easy. It provides reliability and validity in the data collected, yet it's costly in terms of time and resources.
However, experiments can indeed be done on humans, as long as ethical standards are met, and they typically require larger sample sizes to improve the accuracy of the results.