The methodological "I". Being implicit and explicit examined through field surveys.

Four arguments, often interwoven, are put forward to legitimize the exponentially growing use of the first person in social science: the modernity of writing, the constitution of an alternative epistemology, the search for a more moral posture and methodological validation. It is more particularly this last point which is being looked at in this article. Is the radical implication of anthropology in this field a methodological requirement ? And how exactly should it be more explicit in relation to its own posture during the research process ? If non-implication and the lack of being explicit are apparently hardly defensible today, a study of several typical cases of strong implication does not in fact make it possible to rule conversely, in other words, in favour of there being a methodological advantage in maximum personal investment strategies, in comparison to more common forms of empathy or immersion, specific to prolonged surveys. Furthermore, the arguments in favour of a systematic intent to be explicit which surpasses a moderate use of reflexivity are not much more convincing either. If being in the field gives the researcher the scope for greater affective investment, what he says about his/her personal relationship with local actors is not as methodologically interesting as some would claim.