There is not one way to write up the results.  Just like people paint in different styles, the results of fieldwork can be presented in different styles.  Take a look at the following book:

Van Maanen, John (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Regards, Bruce

The main point of difference between ethnography per se and critical ethnography is the point of focus. Critical ethnography, like all critical methods, concerns itself with power. As such it is generally not simply a report of what was observed in the field, but takes an approach that looks at various powerful discourses (managerial, cultural, professional, etc.) and how those discourses impact people's understandings and lived lives. 

There is no one way to write ethnography. There's everything from more objective realist tales, all the way through to autoethnographic writing. Part of it is personal choice. Some of it also has to do with the strictures places upon us by academic writing. (Itself a form of power.)

Van Maanen's book is a very good start. I would also suggest HL Goodall's Writing the New Ethnography: https://www.amazon.com/Writing-New-Ethnography-Ethnographic-Alternatives/dp/0742503399/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1491769489&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=goodall+the+new+ethnography

Have a look at Paul Little's Political Ecology as ethnography. Link below:

http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0104-71832007000100012

I believe every field has its fads and fancies that shift over time.  There are some people who are "retro."  They might like vintage films, music and clothing.  You might enjoy looking at a copy of Clifford Shaw, The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boy's Own Story.  This is an old book, but it is still being printed. It is a classic.  Long before we heard about "critical ethnography," people were in fact doing critical ethnography.  The "Chicago School" put aside known theories and sent researchers out to study people living in cities.  Many of these studies were of people from the lower classes. Later, Blumer coined the name "Symbolic Interactionism." 

I do field research in the business area.  The early field studies examined incentive pay systems.  Differences were found between "what should be" and "what is."  Massive output restriction was found by Mathewson (1931) and Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939).  The workers could have made much more money, but based on harsh experiences, they were afraid of layoffs and the incentive rate being cut (and expectations for output being raised), so they restricted output.  Virtually all of these early studies were looking at who was trying to exert control, how other below reacted, and what reasons there were for these situations. Regards, Bruce

Dear,

In my thesis, I read the following texts:

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall/Englewood Cliffs.

Floersch, J., Langhofer, J., & Suskewicz, J. (2014). The use of ethnography in social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 2014, 13:3.