Singinsilence

También da una particular versión de la noción de descripción de grosor (GEERTZ 1973). Clifford GEERTZ's formulation of that term is susceptible to multiple interpretations and can be translated into various research practices. Some vulgar simplifications of it refer—trivially and erroneously—merely to the richness of detail and concreteness of cultural descriptions on which ethnographic work rests. More sophisticated versions refer to the over-determined character of culture, with multiple frames of reference and perspective. My own gloss is to suggest that whatever else "thick description" could mean, it should include systematic reference to the multiple forms of cultural life, producing cultural descriptions that preserve those distinctive forms. It thus takes GEERTZ's "textual" approach to cultural analysis seriously, by insisting that the "texts" need to be analysed in terms of their material and conventional properties. It also transforms the emphasis on "culture" into an equal stress on social action. [ 21 ]

This approach can be extended to a commentary on versions of grounded theory (GLASER & STRAUSS 1967). Again, there are multiple versions of grounded theory, and they have been thoroughly documented. It is noticeable, however, that most of them are more articulate on what being "grounded" means than on the proper analysis of different types of data. In some quarters, therefore, analysis seems to consist of glorified content analysis, translated into different kinds of thematic and theoretical "coding". While grounded theory is clearly not intended to be restricted to any one category of data—and is not even restricted to qualitative research—in practice it used to describe a somewhat amorphous notion of qualitative data, usually field notes and interview transcripts. There is normally little attempt to preserve the narrative structures or other forms of representation. At their worst, vulgar versions of "grounded theory" can result in a kind of analytic blender, generating blandly homogenised categories and instances. We believe that in one sense all productive sociological and anthropological analysis is "grounded": it depends on processes of abductive reasoning in the creative interplay between data and ideas, concrete instances and generic concepts. In a more specific sense, we believe that analyses should be "grounded" in the multiple forms and representations of social life, and should remain sensitive to those forms. In that sense, therefore, grounded theory would be grounded in the multiple layers of codes, conventions, structures and texts of everyday social life. It would preserve their distinctive character and their orderings, not wash out their intrinsic properties. [ 22 ]

What is needed is a radical renewal of our sensitivity to forms and modes of organisation that interactionist and interpretative sociology has in principle been addressing for the past eighty years and more (ATKINSON & HOUSLEY 2003). We can retrieve some sense of that analytic tradition by connecting it with contemporary notions of complexity. Contemporary complexity theory provides a powerful set of analytic metaphors for comprehending the emergent properties of social phenomena and their diverse levels of order and meaning. It recalls classic interactionist and interpretative ideas of social emergence and the processes of social life. A contemporary ethnography that is sensitive to the indigenous orders of action, meaning and representation can provide a reflexive and complex vehicle for exploring social organisation and the fluidity of late modernity. Indeed, I want to insist that we continue to need formal methods and formal analyses precisely because they allow us to grasp the complex orders of representation, action, organisation and meaning that constitute contemporary social life. [ 23 ]

Whatever the epistemological validity of theories of postmodernism in general, it seems to me that the interpretation of postmodernism in the current methodological literature is in many ways unhelpful, even pernicious. Too many advocates of postmodern qualitative research, and its equivalents, repeatedly rob social life—and hence its investigation—of any sense of order . It is clearly not necessary to espouse anything resembling a positivist intellectual stance in order to recognise that social life has its principles of order, and that those orders can be examined in principled ways. Methodological approaches that wash out those indigenous orders of action and representation empty the social world of many of its most significant (and signifying) phenomena. It would be a pity if the very obvious success of qualitative research in many fields were to result in a weakened version of social science by failing to pay due attention to its disciplinary roots, and its disciplined attention to social forms. [ 24 ]

This is intellectual work that can and should be undertaken with especial vigour in Europe. In no spirit of general anti-American feeling, I note that the global production of qualitative methods is dominated by American perspectives. Now the American traditions have undoubtedly provided many of the main foundations for qualitative research. But there are also profound weaknesses in the general climate of American methodology at the present time. Too often, for instance, the social and the political are translated into the personal . Likewise, the restless search for new paradigms and innovation has resulted in a proliferation of methodological pronouncements and prescriptions, that often break free of any disciplinary basis. Qualitative research in such a context is too often treated as a self-justifying activity, rather than amounting to a general approach to doing systematic social science, and addressing intrinsically significant research topics. In Europe, it is possible to develop collective understandings of qualitative research that can re-assert some of the shared strengths of our social-science traditions and disciplines, drawing on the best of Anglo-American work, but also avoiding some of the self-indulgent and ill-disciplined work that too often spoils it. In Europe, it is possible to develop collective understandings of qualitative research that can re-assert some of the shared strengths of our social-science traditions and disciplines, drawing on the best of Anglo-American work, but also avoiding some of the self- indulgent and ill-disciplined work that too often spoils it. [ 25 ]