102 MEANING AND METHODOLOGY
overall quality of a research study and the degree to which others—scholars, laypeople, policy
actors—can build on its analysis.
“Reflexivity,” the third term, has diverse roots. “Reflection” and “reflexivity” are central themes
in phenomenology and critical theory, respectively. This practice entered the criteria literature
through Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) recommended technique of keeping a “reflexive journal,”
defined as “a kind of diary in which the investigator on a daily basis, or as needed, records a
variety of information about the self (hence the term ‘reflexive’) and method” (Lincoln and Guba
1985, 327, emphasis in original). This recommendation institutionalized a practice long recog-
nized in ethnographic and participant-observer research; it received renewed attention from femi-
nist philosophers of science (Harding 1991; E. Anderson 1995) and methodologists (Reinharz
1992), who drew critical attention to the gendered nature of research selves. The connotations of
this term, then, have grown far beyond Lincoln and Guba’s connecting it to daily diary writing to
suggest an overall scholarly attitude, that is, a keen awareness of, and theorizing about, the role of
the self in all phases of the research process. The literature developing this concept in relation to
interpretive research is extensive (Schwandt 2001), such that “reflexivity” has become an ex-
pected characteristic of interpretive work. Texts have been written on its philosophical status
(Bartlett 1992), the role of emotion therein (Carter and Delamont 1996), and practical techniques
for accomplishing it (Finlay and Gough 2003).
Finally, “triangulation” is understood, most broadly, as trying to understand a phenomenon
using at least three different analytic tools. The term has its origins in the use of trigonometry for
the purpose of surveying, whether on land or sea. In this usage, it is a method of locating an
unknown point using two known points at the vertices of a triangle. It is notable as one of the few
techniques endorsed by both positivist and interpretive methodologists. Adapted for social sci-
ence research within variables-oriented methods, it has the status of a supplementary technique
and commonly refers to the use of multiple indicators in operationalizing a complex concept
(W.L. Neuman 1997), although it also increasingly refers simply to the use of different methods
for accessing and generating data in the same study (Jones and Olson 1996). Qualitative methods
texts now routinely distinguish among several types of triangulation, including multiple data
sources (persons, times, places), multiple methods of access (observation, interviews, documents—
this is the most commonly understood meaning), multiple researchers (such as teams of ethnog-
raphers studying a single site), and even multiple theories or paradigms in a single research project
(for an example, see Papa, Auwal, and Singhal 1995).
What accounts for the widespread acceptance of these four terms? I suggest that their rhetori-
cal character, while communicating substantive concerns, is a major factor explaining their ap-
peal. “Thick description” gains some of its power from its silent partner, the “thin description” of
numerical indexes such as the Gross Domestic Product, summary tables reporting regression
results, or Arthur Banks’s Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive (critiqued by McHenry, chap-
ter 10, this volume). “Thick description”—the “piled up structures of inference and implication”
(Geertz 1973a, 7)—implies the use of words, adjectives even, in such a way that readers expect to
read about, and researchers are given permission to impart, the “lived experiences” of the people
they study. Seemingly quite simple on the face of it, thick description communicates a standard
for research practice easily understood by both the scholars producing the research and those
reading it.^14 By contrast, Lather’s (1993) “rhizomatic validity” is less likely to attract widespread
usage quickly because “rhizomatic” is not transparent in its reference and does not readily bring
to mind a desired practice.
“Trustworthiness” draws rhetorical power from its relational quality: If “I trust you” or “I trust
this study,” it follows that something more can be done than would otherwise be the case. For