The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

and like many, have a stereotypical knowledge of Sherlock Holmes. Therefore, by
combining both the position of a participant and an observer I can “maintain the balance
between „insider‟ and „outsider‟” (Brewer, 2000, p. 59), and in turn am able to observe
and academically research the contributing factors, such as social context, to my fan
experience. For this research, or for any wishing to capture the audience experience, I
believe being a participant is crucial. “Scholars failing to display an adequate level of
knowledge about the fan cultures and texts they explore raise suspicion amongst their
peers and fans alike” (Sandvoss, 2005, p. 5). Similarly, I cannot research fandom solely
from an observant position, as fans immerse themselves in the text of their choice. De
Certeau (as cited in Jenkins, 1992) describes fans as “poachers” (p. 62): “Poachers do
not observe from the distance (be it physical, emotional, or cognitive); they trespass
upon others‟ property; they grab it and hold onto it; they internalise its meaning and
remake these borrowed terms” (Jenkins, 1992, p. 62). However, I must retain my
academic distance, and in order to achieve this, my observant participation is to remain
outside of the fan community and not engage with other fans. Jenkins (1992) finds that
“academic distance has thus allowed scholars either to judge or to instruct but not to
converse with the fan community, a process which requires greater proximity and the
surrender of certain intellectual pretensions and institutional privileges” (p. 6).
Therefore, the integrity of this journey will rest on my documentation and critical
introspection.
Ethnographic journal: Field notes
Sandvoss (2005) believes “fandom functions as a mirror [and that] we must not forget
that what we see will ultimately depend upon our angle of vision” (p. 10). As mentioned
earlier, my position is that of fan and academic, participant and observer. Therefore, I
designed an ethnographic journal, in which field notes are divided into three columns:
substantive, analytic, and thick description. Brewer (2000) recommends that a
researcher should “not confuse observation and interpretation; record what is seen and
heard (called „substantive field notes‟) and keep this separate from one‟s interpretation
of it (called „analytic field notes‟)” (p. 88). Thick description, however, privileges the
fan perspective; “thick description represents a thorough account taking in the context
of the phenomena described, the intentions and meanings that organise them, and their
subsequent evolution or processing” (Brewer, 2000, p. 39). Thick description, originally
an anthropology term, “„enjoined [researchers] to describe phenomena from the natives‟
point of view” (Brewer, 2000, p. 39). Bailey (2005), who often researched areas with a
27