How much should ethnographers involve themselves with the people, places, and processes they study? One answer has become increasingly popular: invert the standard method of participant observation into observant participation. This article draws on an ethnography of ambulance work to consider the trade-offs between these approaches. My fieldwork included “ride-alongs” with labor and management at a private ambulance firm in California (participant observation) and short-term employment as a novice emergency medical technician at the same company (observant participation). Beyond a simplistic distinction in “empirical depth,” I identify three issues at stake between participant observation and observant participation: field positioning, analytic gaze, and data assembly. Where participant observation presents more opportunities for mobile positioning, outward gazing, and inscription, observant participation presents more opportunities for fixed positioning, inward gazing, and incarnation. In addition to justifying such contrasts, I consider the advantages of mixing these styles into a hybrid approach when feasible.

人种志研究者应让自己参与研究的人员，地点和过程的多少？一个答案变得越来越流行：将参与者观察的标准方法转化为观察性参与。本文借鉴了救护车的民族志，以考虑这些方法之间的权衡。我的现场工作包括在加利福尼亚的一家私人救护车公司与员工一起进行“骑行”和管理（参与者观察），以及在同一家公司担任新手紧急医疗技术人员的短期工作（观察参与者）。除了“经验深度”上的简单区分之外，我还确定了参与者观察与观察者参与之间的三个关键问题：场定位，分析注视和数据组装。参与者的观察为移动定位，向外凝视和题字提供了更多的机会，而观察者的参与为固定位置，向内凝视和化身提供了更多的机会。除了证明这种对比的合理性之外，我还考虑了在可行时将这些样式混合到混合方法中的优点。