Qualitative Research-Ethnographic Research-the Aspect of Thick Description
The Qualitative Report Volume 11 Number 3 September 2006 538-549 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/ponterotto.pdf
Brief Note on the Origins, Evolution, and Meaning of the Qualitative Research Concept “Thick Description”
Joseph G. Ponterotto
Fordham University, New York, New York
The origins, cross-disciplinary evolution, and definition of “thick description” are reviewed. Despite its frequent use in the qualitative literature, the concept of “thick description” is often confusing to researchers at all levels. The roots of this confusion are explored and examples of “thick description” are provided. The article closes with guidelines for presenting “thick description” in written reports. Key Words: Thick Description, Ethnography, Grounded Theory, Phenomenology, Thick Interpretation, Thick Meaning, and Qualitative Writing
One of the most important concepts in the lexicon of qualitative researchers is “thick description.” In fact, the Subject Index of virtually every major textbook on qualitative methods published during the last three decades includes one or more entries under either “thick description,” or “description, thick” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Creswell, 1998; Denzin, 1989; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Patton, 1990, to name but a few). Despite the widespread use and acceptance of the term “thick description,” in qualitative research, there appears to be some confusion over precisely what the concept means (Holloway, 1997; Schwandt, 2001). Personally, I can relate to this confusion on two levels. First, in my own qualitative research and writing over the years, I have at times struggled to fully understand the concept of “thick description.” Second, in my experience teaching and supervising qualitative research, I find that students and colleagues struggle in their attempts to understand and practice “thick description” in their work. It was this set of struggles that led me to study the concept of “thick
Brief Note on the Origins, Evolution, and Meaning of the Qualitative Research Concept “Thick Description”
Joseph G. Ponterotto
Fordham University, New York, New York
The origins, cross-disciplinary evolution, and definition of “thick description” are reviewed. Despite its frequent use in the qualitative literature, the concept of “thick description” is often confusing to researchers at all levels. The roots of this confusion are explored and examples of “thick description” are provided. The article closes with guidelines for presenting “thick description” in written reports. Key Words: Thick Description, Ethnography, Grounded Theory, Phenomenology, Thick Interpretation, Thick Meaning, and Qualitative Writing
One of the most important concepts in the lexicon of qualitative researchers is “thick description.” In fact, the Subject Index of virtually every major textbook on qualitative methods published during the last three decades includes one or more entries under either “thick description,” or “description, thick” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Creswell, 1998; Denzin, 1989; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Patton, 1990, to name but a few). Despite the widespread use and acceptance of the term “thick description,” in qualitative research, there appears to be some confusion over precisely what the concept means (Holloway, 1997; Schwandt, 2001). Personally, I can relate to this confusion on two levels. First, in my own qualitative research and writing over the years, I have at times struggled to fully understand the concept of “thick description.” Second, in my experience teaching and supervising qualitative research, I find that students and colleagues struggle in their attempts to understand and practice “thick description” in their work. It was this set of struggles that led me to study the concept of “thick
References: Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Greenblatt, S. (1997). The touch of the real. Representations, 59, 14-29. Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. London: Blackwell Science. Liebow, E. (2003). Tally’s corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Joseph G. Ponterotto 548 Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250-260. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137-145. Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (in press). Effectively communicating qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist. Ryle, G. (1949). Concept of the mind. London: Hutchinson and Company. Ryle, G. (1971). Collected papers. Volume II collected essays, 1929-1968. London: Hutchinson. Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. Vasquez, M. J. T. (2001). Reflections on unearned advantages, unearned disadvantages, and empowering experiences. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 64-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Author Note Joseph G. Ponterotto, Ph.D., is professor of counseling psychology in the Graduate School of Education at Fordham University, New York City. His primary teaching and research interests are in the area of multicultural counseling. At Fordham he teaches a qualitative research course and is an active mentor of both qualitative and quantitative doctoral dissertations. He recently co-edited a special issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology (2005, 52 [2]) devoted to qualitative and mixed method designs. His most recent co-authored book is Preventing Prejudice: A Guide for Counselors, Educators, and Parents (2nd ed., 2006, Sage Publications). Correspondence concerning this articled should be addressed to Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educational Services, Fordham University at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th Street, Room 1008, New York, NY 10023-7478; Telephone: 212-636-6480; Email: JPonterott@aol.com Copyright 2006: Joseph G. Ponterotto and Nova Southeastern University 549 The Qualitative Report September 2006 Article Citation Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description”. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538-549. Retrieved [Insert date], from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/ ponterotto.pdf