Editing Thick description (section)

== Interpretive turn ==
Geertz is revered for his pioneering field methods and clear, accessible prose writing style ([[cf.]] Robinson's critique, 1983). He was considered "for three decades...the single most influential [[cultural anthropologist]] in the United States."{{sfnp|McCloskey|1988|p=?}}

Interpretive methodologies were needed{{cn|date=August 2024}} to understand culture as a [[system]] of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected{{cn|date=August 2024}} with "a massive cultural shift"{{cn|date=August 2024}} in the social sciences - referred to as the ''[[interpretive turn]]''.{{sfn|Bachmann-Medick|2016|p=54}} The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in the methodology of [[cultural anthropology]]. A shift occurred from using structural approaches (as an interpretive lens) towards meaning. With the interpretive turn, contextual and textual information took the lead in understanding reality, language, and culture. This was all under the assumption that a better anthropology included understanding the particular behaviors of the communities being studied.{{sfnp|Bachmann-Medick|2016|p=?}}{{sfnp|Hodder|Shanks|1997|p=?}}

Geertz's thick-description approach, along with the theories of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], has become increasingly recognized as a method of [[symbolic anthropology]],{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}}{{sfnp|Yon|2003|p=?}} enlisted as a working antidote to overly [[Technocracy|technocratic]], [[mechanistic]] means of understanding cultures, organizations, and historical settings. Influenced by [[Gilbert Ryle]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], [[Max Weber]], [[Paul Ricoeur]], and [[Alfred Schütz]], the method of descriptive ethnography that came to be associated with Geertz is credited{{cn|date=August 2024}} with resuscitating field research from an endeavor of ongoing objectification—the focus of research being "out there"—to a more immediate undertaking, where participant observation embeds the researcher in the enactment of the settings being reported. However, despite its dissemination among the disciplines, some theorists<ref>e.g. {{Harvcoltxt|Munson|1986}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Robinson|1983}}</ref> pushed back on thick description, skeptical about its ability to somehow interpret meaning by compiling large amounts of data. They also questioned how this data was supposed to provide the totality of a society naturally.{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}}