Abstract
Thick description was originally proposed to overcome the limitations of quantitative research and ground anthropological observations in concrete people’s expectations, rather than in normative theories. The ultimate objective was to account for the emotional aspects of worldviews and value-orientations that would otherwise be left tacit or implicit by quantitative investigations. The present paper aimed at reviewing the conceptual framework that has characterized this relational turn and has made possible a deeper understanding of the subjective experience. The primary objective is thus to make explicit the assumptions upon which thick description relies and discuss how these renewed conditions allow meaning to emerge in interpersonal relationships. We argue that both these objectives would be theoretically attainable if primarily centered on the exploration of the possibility space and on the patient’s experience as driven by the power of counterfactual thinking. Under these conditions, human subjects may be led to recognize the contextual and semiotic dimension of boundaries and, in so doing, become aware of the beneficial effects of weaving past and new experiences in meaningful relationships.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akkerman, S. & Niessen, T. (2012). Dialogical theories at the boundary. In Dialogicality in focus: Challenges to theory, method and application. Märtsin, M., Wagoner, B., Aveling, E.-L., Kadianaki, I. & Whittaker, L. (Eds.). Novinka/Nova Science Publishers. pp. 53–64.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. A necessary unity. Dutton.
Bruner, J. (2008). Culture and mind: Their fruitful incommensurability. Ethos, 36(1), 29–45.
Bueno-Guerra, N. (2018). How to apply the concept of Umwelt in the evolutionary study of cognition. Frontiers Psychology, 9, 2001.
Campbell, C., Olteanu, A., & Kull, K. (2019). Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 47(3/4), 352–381.
Crittenden, P. M., & Landini, A. (2015). Attachment relationships as semiotic scaffolding systems. Biosemiotics, 8, 257–273.
Cropley, A. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: A practice-oriented introduction for students of psychology and education. Zinātne.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. Routledge.
De Luca Picione, R., & Freda, M. F. (2014). Catalysis and morphogenesis: The contextual semiotic configuration of form, function, and fields of experience. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalyzing mind: Beyond models of causality (pp. 149–163). Springer.
De Luca Picione, R., & Valsiner, J. (2017). Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 532–547.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 1–32.
Duhn, I., & Grieshaber, S. (2016). Imagining otherwise: A (brief) Darwinian encounter with quality standards. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 54–64.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.
Español, A., Marsico, G., & Tateo, L. (2018). Maintaining borders: From border guards to diplomats. Human Affairs, 28(4), 443–460.
Español, A., de la Mata, M., & Cornejo, M. (2021). Border identities: Theoretical approach to the study of self from bordering processes. Theory & Psychology, 31(5), 675–691.
Espino, O., Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2020). Possibilities and the parallel meanings of factual and counterfactual conditionals. Memory & Cognition, 48, 1263–1280.
Fabbrichesi, R. (2018). Semiotics and the something. European Journal of Pragmatism American Philosophy X-1, 1.
Favareau, D. F. (2010). Essential readings in Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 3. Springer Science.
Favareau, D. F. (2015a). Symbols are grounded not in things, but in scaffolded relations and their semiotic constraints (or how the referential generality of symbol scaffolding grows minds). Biosemiotics, 8, 235–255.
Favareau, D. F. (2015b). Creation of the relevant next: How living systems capture the power of the adjacent possible through sign use. Progress Biophysics Molecular Biology, 119(3), 588–601.
Geertz, C. (1973a). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, Inc.
Geertz, C. (1973b). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 310–323). Basic Books, Inc.
Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Duquesne University Press.
Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). American Psychological Association.
Hagen, K. (2018). Conspiracy theorists and monological belief systems. Argumenta, 3(2), 303–326.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. University of Scranton Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (1996). Investigations: The nature of autonomous agents and the worlds they mutually create. SFI working paper # 96–08–072. Santa Fe Institute.
Kotov, K., & Kull, K. (2011). Semiosphere is the relational biosphere. In K. Kull & C. Emmeche (Eds.), towards a semiotic biology (pp. 179–194). World Scientific Publishing.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Locher, C., Meier, S., & Gaab, J. (2019). Psychotherapy: A world of meanings. Frontiers Psychology, 10, 460.
Maitner, A. T., & Summerville, A. (2022). “What was meant to be" versus “what might have been”: Effects of culture and control on counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000295
Marcus, E. G. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie dela perception. Gallimard.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Le visible et l’invisible. Editions Gallimard.
Mittelmark, M. B., Bauer, G. F., Vaandrager, L., Pelikan, J. M., Sagy, S., Eriksson, M., Lindström, B. & Magistretti, C. M. (eds) (2022). The Handbook of Salutogenesis, 2nd edn. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Morin, E. (1986). Methods 3. La connaissance de la connaissance. Seuil.
Nilsson, A. (2014). Personality psychology as the integrative study of traits and worldviews. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 18–32.
Polák, M., & Marvan, T. (2018). Neural correlates of consciousness meet the theory of identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1269.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136.
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.
Proctor, R. W. & Capaldi, E. J. (2006). Why science matters: Understanding the methods of psychological research. Blackwell Pub..
Revlin, R., Calvillo, D. P., & Mautone, P. (2003). Counterfactual reasoning: How to organize a possible world. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 25, 994–999.
Rivera, G. N., Christy, A. G., Kim, J., Vess, M., Hicks, J. A., & Schlegel, R. J. (2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 113–126.
Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 133–148.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge University Press.
Ryle, G. (1968). The thinking of thoughts: What is ‘le penseur’ doing? Collected papers 1929–1968 (pp. 494–510). Routledge.
Schiffer, F. (2019). The physical nature of subjective experience and its interaction with the brain. Medical Hypotheses, 125, 57–69.
Seto, E., Hicks, J. A., Davis, W. E., & Smallman, R. (2015). Free will, counterfactual reflection, and the meaningfulness of life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 243–250.
Siddique, S. (2010). In the thick of it: how the anthropological methodology of 'thick description' can offer a new way of making meaning with counseling research. BACP's 16th Annual Research conference was entitled 'Research impacts'. Methodological Innovation.
Siddique, S. (2011). Being in-between: The relevance of ethnography and auto-ethnography for psychotherapy research. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 11(4), 310–316.
Stenner, S. (2015). A transdisciplinary psychosocial approach. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and new directions for social sciences (pp. 308–324). John Wiley & Sons.
Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109645.
Tateo, L., & Marsico, G. (2021). Signs as borders and borders as signs. Theory & Psychology, 31(5), 708–728.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–232.
van der Helm, R. (2006). Towards a clarification of probability, possibility and plausibility: How semantics could help futures practice to improve. Forsight, 8(3), 17–27.
Vehkavaara, T., & Sharov, A. (2017). Constructive aspects of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 10, 145–156.
Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Catapano, R. (2019). It’s not going to be that fun: Negative experiences can add meaning to life. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 11–14.
Willig, C. (2019). What can qualitative research contribute to psychological knowledge? Psychological Methods, 24(6), 796–804.
Woodward, J. (2004). Counterfactuals and Causal Explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(1), 41–72.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank two anonymous referees for their useful suggestions and constructive criticism
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally to the present research study by sharing reference search, participating in extensive discussions and editing and proofreading.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests that could undermine the objectivity of the present work.
Ethics Approval
No ethical approval was required for this research study.
Consent to Participate
All authors agreed to participate in this research study.
Consent for Publication
All authors agreed to submit this manuscript for publication.
Additional Request
Authors use the automatic line numbering function to number the lines.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fanali, A., Tramonti, F. & Giorgi, F. Towards a More Effective Thick Description: A Biosemiotic Approach to Meaning in Psychotherapy. Biosemiotics 15, 519–530 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09500-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09500-z