How do we discover what the poor/oppressed do do? We look and we listen.

What do we do then? We write:

From Geertz's pessimism (1976), back to Malinowski's certainty ([1922] 1961), and forward to Garfinkel insistence on the here and now.

But the chief virtue of this method is that it closely follows the technique of field-work. The ethnographer has to see and to hear; he has personally to witness the rites, ceremonies and activities, and he has to collect opinions on them. The active, personal and visual side are the main concern of the descriptive chapters. The conversations, comments and grammatical apparatus are given here. (Malinowski, 1935: 3-4)

Thus, this process makes us the potential subject of sociologists of science. And thus, as a physicist said in response to one of Garfinkel's papers about scientific discovery:

What Professor Garfinkel's implicit challenge seems to be is this: our whole
network of ideas on how science works is really useless if we don't get the
description of the basic work-done-on-a-given-night right in the first place. We
must be grateful that he is not disposed to tell us how to do our part of the work,
either as philosophers or as scientists. But I predict his ideas will come back, will
suddenly tum up again, in the minds of many of us as we study these encounters
between the scientist and the event that has captured his attention. Professor
Garfinkel will suddenly stand before us, and make us ask ourselves what it was
that the scientist really saw and did. As I said: Professor Garfinkel is a dangerous
man. (Holton, Comments on Garfinkel's 1981 paper on discovering pulsars)

And so, reflexively, we look, listen and write (for example in a seminar for students in anthropology)