View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

obscure or miss altogether the knowledge that may be contained in that experience. It is
hard to better the argument of Wolcott (1990, p. 19),
The more critical the observer’s role and subjective assessment, the more
critical to have that acknowledged in the reporting.
My choice in response to this view is to move at times between persons, but to
undertake to limit, to signal and to give reasons for these moves. Examples will arise
when I get to some of the ‘sticky moments’ in the course of the semester that are
discussed in the synchronic analyses (in Chapters Five to Nine). In these, I may write as
‘I’ when I am describing my direct experience in the situation under study. I may take
the position of ‘the researcher’ or ‘the observer’ when I wish to withdraw to some
extent from direct involvement with my own experience. I may write from an
impersonal and universal perspective when I want to maximise the distance between
those directly involved (including myself) and the reader, and to imply that more
general propositions are being articulated.
Finally, regarding grammatical tense, a number of writers have considered the use of the
‘ethnographic present’, the convention of reporting observations as though they
continue to happen currently (Agar, 1996; Van Maanen, 1988). This use of the present
tense can, at worst, leave ‘subjects’ or ‘respondents’ trapped in a continuation of their
interaction and unable to move on. At the same time, it can also convey vividly how it
feels to be present and participating, even if only as a bystander. This last feature, vivid
experience of participation, is particularly important for the establishment, maintenance
and enhancement of trustworthiness of the data. To conclude this consideration of
position, person and tense, I will change tense from time to time. However, this will
happen only when I have previously signalled my intention, and usually the change will
be intended to facilitate the achievement of trustworthiness.
xx