“參與觀察”是一個很基本的人類學概念，甚至可說是一個很通俗的人類學術語，其含意似乎不應該具有複述的價值；但是自我檢視從事田野工作及撰寫民族誌的經驗後，很慚愧地發現往往在自以為做的是參與觀察時，其實大部分的觀察並無“參與”的成份，更嚴重的是僅搜集到一些訪談資料也含混地視同參與觀察。 經過在蘭嶼一年對雅美文化的真正參與觀察後，乃憬悟以前之錯誤。在閱讀文獻時，更覺訝異的是一方面有些人類學者在研究異文化時，竟然捨棄參與觀察的方法，僅在田野點做“參加觀察”；另一方面有不少人也同樣地誤將田野工作即視同參與觀察，造成“參與觀察”一詞被浮濫地使用。 本文即是以個人從事臺灣土著社會文化研究的田野工作經驗與心得，來檢視僅靠參加觀察對瞭解異文化產生誤導的可能，並提出從事參與觀察的階段與深度，以檢討不同參與方式與研究主題的關係。

　　　　　"Participant observation" has long served as a core, perhaps the core, construct for what anthropolgy should be about. Still, and though fieldwork has itself been subject to considerable reflection, participant observation has been seldom scrutinized. My own experience during a one-year stint of intensive fieldwork in Botel Tobago has led me to conclude, not without regret, that what I had previously thought was participant observation had in fact been long on observation but short on participation. My interest perked, I spent some time reading the writings of other fieldworkers, some of whom are anthropologists and some of whom are not, and concluded that participant observation is more asserted than lived up to. This essay is an effort on my part to look back upon my years of fieldwork in very different cultures of Taiwan and use those personal experiences focus in on some of the potential errors that may arise through the pursuit of a too observer biased fieldwork practice as well as to focus in on the efficacy of a more participant-oriented fieldwork practice.