But as discuss below, this was (and is) not happening as often or as fully as one might expect. Those who explored the construction of ethnographic texts noticed that being were using such as verisimilitude, demonstrating there, and writing in the ethnographic present. I will explore these for temporary as well as traditional ethnographies. Verisimilitude An attempt is often made in ethnography at verisimilitude (the appearance of truth).
Though it is quite widely accepted now that our understanding of the social world will always involve some amount of interpretation, and though many authors have come to acknowledge that ethnographers do not simply write up all there is to know about a topic or group, instead selecting which bits to report and which not, there is still a tendency to write with unquestioned authority. What makes ethnographers believable is often the way they write, rather than being convincing via a methodology section that they have a right to make the claims they make or that they can support the findings. Nor are they believed because they pack texts with facts, details, contexts, data (like scientists do and as Malinowski attempted to do), because they don't. What you will notice as you read ethnographies is that findings are often presented as if they are facts not as interpretations. Most people do not use phrases such as "it seemed to me that', 'I think maybe or 'perhaps we can interpret this as an instance of They are much more likely to use phrases such as 'To Azande the