In reply to Muriel Swijghuisen Reigersberg.

I routinely do case studies. We are currently examining self-knowledge in the last American split brain patient capable of responding to our inquiries. So, I have no qualms with ethnography in principle nor do I feel otherwise with respect to your comment: "Much can be gleaned theoretically, methodologically and otherwise from context-specific case-studies."

My point is extremely simple. Trappings and nuance can be discussed -- they are all vital -- but they are NOT germane to the focal issue (and thus, in the present case, tend to distract more than illuminate).

To wit: Total destruction of data (whether mandated for some odd reason by a particular IRB) renders the available "ethnography" indistinguishable from fiction.

It may not be. Interpretation of any text is inevitable as is observation of the behavior grounding the text.

BUT, absent ANY record that the interpretations were made, there is NO way to know the status of the book's content beyond the author's "trust me its real".

Without ANY notes or ANY pieces thereof, there is NO way for anyone to (a) know the "adventure" took place, or (b) examine the "data" (even if subjectively "tainted" -- as are all social science data; and, some would argue, more objective data of the "hard" sciences) and make their own interpretations based on the original transcripts (and not a book whose content, of contingent necessity, forever must be regarded as potentially fictional.