Ethnography uses multiple rhetorical strategies. They are needed because representation is the key function of ethnography, representing an unfamiliar culture to readers from a different culture. The task of making culture revealing and interpretable to the reader in their terms is a difficult one. One of the important things to achieve in this process is establishing the researchers' credibility. Authors use multiple textual strategies to establish their credibility in the ethnographic context and their ability to understand and interpret culture for others.
One such prominent strategy is using contextual details to signal intimacy to the field. When the researcher provides more details, the reader assumes that it is no way possible for the researchers to get these details other than the horse's mouth. The details the researchers represent in writing are also carefully selected to represent the nuances of their observations in the field. Therefore, an old shouting woman becomes a wrinkled-faced older hag, wearing a matching saree, torn as if to give more vents for her high screaming noises to reach more people. A barking dog becomes a middle-sized dog with louder barking compared to its size, sufficient enough to scare the strangers but not annoy the villagers.
Without visiting the village, how can the fieldworker know the loudness of the dog barking? Without spending sufficient time in the village, how can the researcher know that it is barking at different voices at the strangers and at the villagers? The ethnographers typically use this textual strategy to accomplish their credibility among the readers. This is not difficult for the ethnographers as long-term fieldwork is the hallmark of ethnography, and such observations are plenty in their field notes. The textual strategies for adequate representation are the only ones they need to ponder on.