griffith

1

Observations of Social Interaction in an Elizabeth City Coffee Shop

Shaquanna Griffith

Liberty University

CJUS750_B01_202640

Melvin Richards

September 25 2026

Observations of Social Interaction in an Elizabeth City Coffee Shop

In a public environment, people may gather for various reasons and need to manage their behaviors in a way that is compatible with each other. One example of such a place is the coffee shop. People can buy drinks, work alone, chat with others and even baby-sit in the same space. The aim of this qualitative observation is to look at how visible patterns of communication, movement, and use of space occurred at Muddy Waters Coffeehouse in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The question to guide the session is: How do customers and staff members work together and adjust to each other in the same coffee shop? Qualitative inquiry focuses on behavior and setting but has a focus that is more on close attention than on behavior being separate from the setting (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The account thus separates actions from interpretations and does not take it for granted that what one observes is an expression of what is going on in the participants' minds.

Observation Setting and Field Notes

The field notes submitted for this observation indicate Friday, September 25, 2026, 3:00-5:00 p.m., at Muddy Waters Coffeehouse at 100 West Main Street, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909. The notes depict a storefront, featuring large windows, a service counter close to the entrance, and tables set up for people and groups. Ambient sounds heard were an espresso machine, dishes, and overlapping conversations. This information provides a background for the simultaneous commercial and social interaction. In general, customers went in, walked up to the counter, ordered, waited for their beverages and then either left or sat down. There seemed to be three counter staffers dividing up the work. One was in charge of taking orders and collecting the money; another was in charge of making the espresso drinks; and another was in charge of the cups, cleaning the counter, and announcing completed orders. As the line got longer than six customers, those waiting lined up in a queue. Some looked at their cell phones, others at the menu. As the service drove the movement of the line, customers moved forward and further ahead as they waited for service.

One interaction demonstrated the order taking procedure. A customer dressed in navy coat ordered something, and the employee asked to repeat the order for confirmation. The customer then took the drink and sat up by a window and started to type on a laptop computer. Two customers were seated at another table, opposite each other. Both spoke and gesticulated, one of them writing in a notepad. They appeared to be talking and taking notes, but it does not appear that the topic of their conversation was recorded. An adult in the vicinity poured milk into a child's cup as the child sat upright in a stroller. This brought other care giving activity to the various uses of the room. There were also a few other small movements that were used in the scene. One customer waited for her order of two beverages, while checking her watch, then another customer was heard ordering a drink across the room from an empty chair while also glancing at his phone. The rest of the people got pastries and one customer got a muffin in a paper bag. Individuals were rearranging chairs and items as they were seating themselves at tables or shuffling through the area. Some customers remained in line to pick up their orders, others. Recorded activities thus ranged from short handling to longer periods of sitting activity.

Analysis and Interpretation

In this observation it was noted that there are three patterns. First, the exchanges between customers and employees were predictable and consisted of a sequence of ordering, confirming, paying, waiting, collecting. The employee repeated the order, which was an observable action that could have helped to facilitate the transaction. The observation was sufficient enough to determine the employee's intent and that the customers required clarification when ordering. The sequence is more likely considered to be a typical practical process in the recorded context rather than as evidence that every transaction proceeded exactly the same way. Secondly, the coffee shop was hosting multiple activities simultaneously. One customer was seated on a laptop computer to work on her own, two were sitting to talk while writing and the stroller pusher was attending to one child. But that's not necessarily because a customer was waiting for someone, who placed a drink in front of an empty seat. It is certain that the same physical space was able to provide for solitary activities, interaction among customers, giving care, and the buying of food and drink. The social nature of the setting was then not confined to conversation, but extended to people working, waiting, moving and caring for others.

Thirdly, customers and employees made minor changes in their use of space. There was a queue, waiting for orders, moving chairs and objects, and moving around while people were sitting. Staff were rotated between making beverages, delivering them, cleaning and ordering. These are overt behaviors that indicate a level of coordination in the same space. However, any depiction of behavior as "accommodation" is a statement of interpretation as to what people actually said or did, rather than what they actually thought or intended. No interviews were carried out, and no physical conversations done in order provide explanation by the participants.

Limitations

This account does not provide any indication of whether the patterns observed are common at other times or other coffee shops. Limited information is also provided in the field notes on the frequency and duration of each activity. No interviews were conducted, therefore the motivations for checking phones or checking watches, seat selection, and task selection are unknown. Further, location and observations have not been independently checked. Qualitative interpretation needs to stay within the bounds of the evidence and not go beyond it, and these limits are important because they matter (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Future observations may be made with contemporised notes over several days and hours, noting the length of time spent on various activities, and checking if similar interaction patterns reappear.

The field notes describe the coffee shop as a common space where service and work are interwoven, in which conversation and care are delivered. The ordering and collection patterns are most obvious; the presence of multiple activities; and minor changes people make in regular space. The observations provide a preliminary description of the organization of social interaction in this context. More substantiated observations would be required to make definite conclusions about the regularity of these patterns and to make conclusions about how customers and employees negotiate their activities.

References

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.