The objective of the author is to increase insight and knowledge into the drugs trade while allowing for the reader to see the intimate side of daily life and those involved. 

   The author appears periodically to provide context to descriptions in relation to the research specifically. First, they appear to introduce their relation to the field site; namely as the adopted son to my adopted father, local ‘big-shot’ and ‘prominent leader’ Tom Liam, who I know as Daddy Tom’. Then, in an introduction to the chapter, the author explicitly asserts themselves as the author: ‘In this chapter I move away from efficacy testing…’, ‘During the course of this chapter, I compare…’. I have highlighted not just the first-person reference ‘I’ – which not only places any upcoming claims as property of the author, but also places the author as responsible for any shortcomings/contentions readers might have – but also the actions the author asserts they will take during the chapter, which gives the author a sense of authority going forward. Later, the author also provides a personal account of ‘Pokies Night’ in the first-person, taking up the roles of both narrator of and character in the story.

   Much of the chapter portrays the author as a researcher (see first question), and even personal accounts like the ‘Pokies Night’ are told partially from the viewpoint of Tom Liam. In this sense, the author becomes an outsider. However, the author’s relation to the other participants in the chapter (including Tom Liam) makes it difficult not to acknowledge the author as an insider – or as having some of the authority of an insider, at least.

  While (some) participants are referenced/addressed as individuals, with individual characters, they are described as representative of broader theories of culture. Accounts of participant behaviour and informants information are posed as examples of applied theory (pre-existing theory or new ideas presented by the author).

  The objective of the author in this chapter, specifically, is made clear by their stating of their objectives in the introduction (see second question). More broadly, the author’s objectives appear to be to consolidate past research with the author’s own observations and to attempt to provide an explanation for them. This ethnography is very much not and autoethnography/biography, but an active attempt by the author to contribute to a discourse.

Read writes with alluring description, in lulling story-like fashion, pulling and pushing the reader as he so wishes between the settings, senses and social structures he experiences first-hand. The author appears right away placing himself as the outsider in a familiar us and them scenario. Read’s thoughts and opinions of the power organisations and social roles are distinguishably his own, he mentions when he has been told that things are ‘in-fact’. The relationships he has to the people he writes about are central to his storytelling and do well to vivify his interactions within the community. Read separates individuals in some instances when he knows them well and groups them when he does not, for example his theorising on the types of strong men. Although Makis may to exterior communities appear as the representative participant, Read does well to show that Makis is as much a participant, be it a frequent one, as any of the others. 

·      The author appears all-through-out the ethnography and it is made clear that this is his experience. 

·      The author appears more like a bumbling foreigner, seemingly innocent but understanding where his peers are coming from. 

·      Read begins very clearly as an outsider, but as he builds relationship with Makis he becomes more involved and accepted but aware of his alienness

·      The participants are described as individuals but I get the sense they are meant to be representative. 

At the beginning of the paragraph Kenneth talks about his arrival into the village, e.g. by a jeep, and describes his initial encounters with the villagers. He describes that from the offset he was intrigued by one villager in particular, which was Makis. During this chapter, Kenneth is seen to be an insider in the community and he adopts this role willingly. At the start of the chapter, we see him joining on a three week patrol alongside Makis and another community member. A house is also built for him within the community. He quickly earned the name of “Goroha Gipo”, translated to younger brother, and an honorary position in Makis’s family. Kenneth even named one of Maki's daughters. He describes that towards the end of his experience, he felt feelings of anonymity, as he became more and more integrated into the community. This allowed him to observe more critically like a fly in the wall.

However, he was not always able to maintain an anonymous position. During the child birth of one of Makis wives, he was encouraged to interfere and to aid them with Western medicinal knowledge. This troubled him as a researcher but he felt obliged to help. He was then told that if the woman was to die, he would be estranged from the community. Luckily for him the women did not die, and it wasn’t till then that he felt fully integrated into the community. This act earned him respect and a place within the Gahuku society. Other times where Kenneth experienced problems as a researcher was when women would come to him upset, asking for his sympathy and support. However he was unsure of the right reaction, as he felt inappropriate to interfere in these situations.  

Kenneth also experienced feelings of an outsider during his research. When he visited nearby villagers, he noted that some locals suggested a competition to see which white researcher could learn their language first. In addition, some villagers anticipated his rejection when they offered food to him. This shows some feelings of foreignness between the locals and the white researcher. As mentioned above Kenneth focused on Makis, and his daily experiences, to show the functioning of Gahuku society and the Gahuku culture. For example, Kenneth describes Makis’s treatment of his daughter Tobo, which is representative of society's desire to have male children e.g. in order to continue a male lineage. Makis treats Tobo as a surrogate son, and this is depicted in the clothes she wears and how she behaves. Kenneth also describes Makis' relationship with his wives, to show that in this society polygynous marriages are preferred but also to describe the problems experienced within these. On the other hand, Makis is described in an individual way, as Kenneth extensively describes his physical appearance, the clothes he wears and his behaviours e.g. “his face and figure possessed a quality of ancient beauty”. Makis was important for the researcher as he gave him a gateway into the Gahuku culture and society, and helped establish his place in society. 

I think that the objective of Kenneth in this ethnography was to help readers understand the Gahuku culture, and he does this by focusing on one individual man within society e.g. Makis. He shows how society works e.g. he notes that “Gahuku are materialists… concerned… with the acquisition of wealth”, and also he recognises the different meanings that people give to things e.g. in the Gahuku culture, strength and equivalence are desiredI also believe that the research was beneficial for the local community, as Kenneth noted that Makis wants to bridge a barrier between the two cultures and to strengthen the relationship. 

-existing literature is blended into the flow of the writing

-he includes himself only when necessary to context

-Tom Liam described in 3rd person and is a big focus - as his informant?

-Under the protection and cover of his adopted father big-men - this kind of makes him an insider as well as an outsider

-participants described as individuals

-where does this opinion come from? Something that the ethnographer has gathered or something someone has told him?