Clarification on yesterday's blog

I feel compelled to clarify the last part of yesterday's post. In chapter 9 (Piantanida and Garman, 2009) Experiential text (example 9.1.1, page 107) is a text "written to capture a situational moment" This example seems to model what I would write in a paper from analyzing the text that I collected from my observations, interviews, and fieldnotes. I would want to put the reader in the moment and have the reader "see" the exchange and also feel the tension (if there was tension, or another emotion, or whatever the tone or feeling) of the moment. This type of writing for me is extremely natural and almost effortless. However, the theoretic interpretation (example 9.1.3, p.110) grounds the exchange in the literature by using citiations, and it also unpacks the exchange and explains the tensions and positionalities of the participants within the exchange. This type of writing, although extremely informative and highly academic, is something that I am striving for, as it is very difficult for me. I see the need for bringing the situational text to the theoretical. Making that connection is easier said than done. I was asking if we could present findings both ways. Can you mesh both experiential and theoretic interpretation without confusing the reader?