In Analysing Documentary Realities, Paul Atkinson and Amanda Coffey introduce the idea of

"documentary realities" in contemporary ethnographic research. They argue that in today’s

literate, organization-heavy societies, documents play a fundamental role in daily life and should
be treated as central sources of data rather than mere background information. Historically,
ethnographic work was often conducted in non-literate societies or among oral subcultures
within literate societies, where documents were largely absent. Today, however, much research
takes place in settings that document themselves—organizations and professions where written
records are crucial for both self-representation and daily functioning.

Atkinson and Coffey emphasize that modern organizations rely heavily on documentation,
whether for internal purposes like record-keeping, or for public-facing materials like annual
reports and websites. Such documents are not straightforward reflections of reality; instead,
they construct their own versions of reality, shaped by conventions and institutional norms. As
“social facts,” documents are produced and consumed within structured social contexts. This
insight challenges researchers to go beyond seeing documents as simple reflections of
organizational routines, decision-making, or interactions. Documents are shaped by the social
processes that produce them, which makes them rich sites for investigation.

The authors argue that these records should be analyzed for their own value, as they reflect
specific conventions and roles within organizations. Approaching documents in this way can
illuminate not only the content but also the cultural values and social functions embedded in
them. Furthermore, they caution researchers against treating documents as secondary data or
mere cross-checks for oral accounts. Atkinson and Coffey advocate for a methodological
framework that gives documents due importance and enables researchers to explore their role
in shaping the “reality” of the social settings studied.

In their view, analyzing documentary data involves understanding the genres, language use,
and sign systems that give these documents their unique characteristics. The authors propose
that ethnographic research should draw from semiotic approaches to examine how documents
function as structured systems of meaning. They stress that ethnographers should recognize
documents as integral elements of social interaction and organizational life, warranting
thoughtful and systematic analysis in their own right.

The text explains that documentary representation of reality, like official reports or evaluations,
relies on specific uses of language tailored to different audiences and purposes. Just as
different types of documents (genres) have unique styles and language, so too do bureaucratic
documents, which often employ formal and specialized language that distinguishes them from
everyday speech. This unique language is not meant to deceive but to serve specific
organizational functions, like establishing credibility and maintaining standardization across
documents.

One example provided is the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), an audit of research
quality in universities. The RAE has a standardized format, with instructions guiding academics
on what to include in their submissions, such as research income and staff information. This
uniformity allows for consistent comparison across institutions and reflects broader "audit
culture" trends in which organizations constantly measure and report on their activities.

Such documents create a "documentary reality" that shapes how universities, departments, and
even research are perceived. The use of specific language, formatting, and categorization helps
present information in a way that is understood within academia but may be opaque to
outsiders. For example, academic terms like "social scientific framework" or "research-active
staff" are clear to those within the field but may be confusing to the general public.

Moreover, documents like these are interconnected; one report supports or relates to another,
building a web of references that reinforce a particular narrative or reality. This concept of
intertextuality (relationships between texts) means that documents do not stand alone but are
part of a larger ecosystem of organizational reporting. Ultimately, this system of documentation
is essential to modern organizational life, helping standardize, measure, and justify actions in
structured, bureaucratic forms.

In his analysis, the author explores how documents exist not in isolation but are deeply
interconnected with other texts and systems of documentation, a concept known as
"intertextuality." He suggests that in organizational contexts, especially within record-keeping
systems, documents reference both real-world contexts and other documents. This interplay
helps form a "documentary reality" that creates meaning through relationships and shared
formats among documents.

Using the example of audit processes in UK academia, the author explains how auditors, like
accountants, rely on an "audit trail" that establishes links between documents, creating a
sequence of verification. This procedural linking reflects the organized, hierarchical structure of
an institution. Auditors trace documents to ensure decisions and records follow systematic,
authorized pathways. By examining relationships among documents, auditors reveal the
bureaucratic structures within an organization.

The author extends this idea by comparing it to literary intertextuality, where texts refer implicitly
or explicitly to other texts. In academic settings, official documents like meeting minutes or
self-assessment reports are constructed in ways that mirror each other in structure, tone, and
terminology. These formats help create a coherent, bureaucratic narrative over time, but also
detach the events from everyday experience. Consequently, official documents produce an
institutional or "documentary" time rather than reflecting lived experiences.

Through this process, documents shape organizational identity and authority, often more
decisively than the events they report. Once written, documents gain a life of their own,
sometimes superseding other records, similar to how scientific papers or audit reports become
definitive "facts" beyond their original context.

The author highlights the roles of implied authorship and readership within documents. In official
records, authorship may be anonymous, reinforcing authority by removing personal voice and
creating an impersonal "implied author." This abstraction aims to give documents an objective,
authoritative status. Additionally, documents are designed with an assumed audience in mind,
often requiring specialized knowledge to be fully understood.

The author emphasizes that while anyone may read a document, its significance may only be
fully grasped by those with specific insider knowledge, like professionals or academics familiar
with the organization's language and practices. This insider knowledge shapes how documents
are read and interpreted, revealing yet another layer of intertextuality within bureaucratic
structures.

In this chapter, the authors have shown that documents are not mere reflections of social reality,
but actively shape it through their own conventions, formats, and rhetorical techniques.
Documents should be understood as constructed texts with their own reality, rather than
straightforward representations of the social world. Instead of simply questioning whether a
document is accurate or truthful, it’s more insightful to analyze its form, language, and the
assumptions it makes about authorship and readership. This perspective reveals how
documents assert authority or objectivity, and how they rely on established rhetorical strategies
to convey a certain view or claim.

The chapter also emphasizes the concept of intertextuality, showing that in organized and
bureaucratic contexts, documents often refer not just to events or people but to each other,
creating a network of interrelated texts that collectively reinforce a particular version of social
reality. This perspective, rooted in literary theory, isn't the only approach to understanding
documents but provides a powerful framework for analyzing their unique role in society. By
recognizing these themes, researchers can better examine the ways documents construct,
rather than merely reflect, the reality they describe.