Thick Description

Methodological Critique and Epistemological Debate

From a methodological point of view, such an approach marks an important departure from traditional assumptions. What is explicitly criticized is the empirical “thinness” of some research traditions—such as behavioralism—which largely overlook what makes sense to the social actors studied. A typical reproach from the advocates of thick description is that in many sectors of the social sciences, there is too much abstract theorization and not enough serious field research. Interpretivists are notably skeptical about “armchair scholars” who delegate the collection of data to polling organizations or junior assistants and concentrate on the more noble tasks of calculation and theory building. To some extent, this opposition coincides with the endless debates between researchers who use quantitative indicators that are deemed reliable insofar as they are replicable and those who resort instead to direct observation or long interviews because they believe that only intense immersion into particular settings will yield the information required. Within the first (positivist) tradition, the norm is to handle “objective” data or at least evidence that is not excessively dependent on what might be seen as the researcher's subjective reading; moreover, all sorts of highly sophisticated analytical instruments (correlation coefficients, causal modeling based on econometric techniques, etc.) are seen to guarantee “true science.” On the other (interpretivist) side, serious doubts are harbored about the reliability of the procedures and the outcomes these procedures, which are often influenced by the questions asked.

At the epistemological level, it is claimed that thick description leads, for better or worse, to contextualism. Rich information is a leading hallmark of thick descriptive qualitative research—not in the sense of pooling superficial comparable data from many places but in amassing many contextually relevant details. This richness may be seen as commendable in the context of monographs; however, it is somewhat problematic when theoretical ambitions or even comparisons are involved. Once again, here, we are at the core of hotly debated axiomatic beliefs. Many social scientists share the view that it is incumbent on them to emulate the natural sciences and provide universal laws. Any “excessive empiricism” is consequently viewed as a posture making it difficult to develop necessary generalizations. On the contrary, in the other camp, it is held that the chief merit of in-depth field studies lies precisely in making us understand that efforts to explain the social world with grand theories held to be ubiquitously valid amount to denying important sources of difference and complexity. In political science, contextual analysis—referring to historical, cultural, psychological, and demographic dimensions and others—is sometimes taken quite seriously (see Robert Goodin & Charles Tilly, 2008). However, the question arises as to what extent context matters and whether the main goal of the discipline should, or should not, remain the defense of abstract and homogenizing models, even at the price of glossing over important contextual dimensions.

...