Jump to content

Thick description: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Overview: condensed language & clarified ideas.
Changing short description from "Description of human social action" to "Description of human social action, with context"
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Description of human social action, with context}}
{{Anthropology |methods}}
{{Anthropology |methods}}


In the social science fields of [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], [[history]], [[religious studies]], [[human-centered design]] and organizational development, a '''thick description''' results from a scientific observation of any particular human behavior that describes not just the behavior, but its context as well, so that the behavior can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.
In the [[social science]]s and related fields, a '''thick description''' is a description of human [[social action]] that describes not just physical behaviors, but their context as interpreted by the actors as well, so that it can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.


The term was introduced by the 20th-century [[philosopher]] [[Gilbert Ryle]]. [[Anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] later developed the concept in his ''[[The Interpretation of Cultures]]'' (1973) to characterise his own method of doing [[ethnography]].{{sfnp|Geertz|1973|pp=5-6, 9-10}}. Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained currency in the [[social science]]s and beyond. Today, thick description is used in a variety of fields, including the type of [[literary criticism]] known as [[New Historicism]].
The term was first introduced by 20th-century [[philosopher]] [[Gilbert Ryle]]. However, the predominant sense in which it is used today was developed by [[anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] in his book ''[[The Interpretation of Cultures]]'' (1973) to characterise his own method of doing [[ethnography]].{{sfnp|Geertz|1973|pp=5-6, 9-10}} Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained widespread currency, not only in the social sciences but also, for example, in the type of [[literary criticism]] known as [[New Historicism]].


== Overview ==
== Gilbert Ryle ==
Thick description was first introduced by British philosopher Gilbert Ryle in 1949 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting". Originally, Ryle introduced two types of descriptions: thin and thick. Thin description included surface-level observations of behavior while thick description added context. To explain this context required grasping individuals' motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well. This method emerged at a time when the ethnographic school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.{{sfnp|Yon|2003|p=?}} Similarly [[Bronisław Malinowski]] put forth the concept of a "native point of view" in his 1922 work, ''[[Argonauts of the Western Pacific]]''. Malinowski felt an anthropologist should try to understand the perspectives of ethnographic subjects in relation to their own world.


Thick description was first introduced by the British philosopher [[Gilbert Ryle]] in 1968 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting".<ref>Ryle, Gilbert. [1968] 1996. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20080410232658/http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?]" ''Studies in Anthropology'' 11:11. {{ISSN|1363-1098}}. Archived from the [http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html original] on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2008.</ref>
Following Ryle's work, American anthropologist [[Clifford Geertz]] re-popularized the concept. Known for his symbolic and interpretative anthropological methods, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. He was against comprehensive theories of human behavior; rather, he advocated methodologies highlighting culture from the perspective of how people looked at and experienced life. His 1973 article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" synthesizes his approach.


# thin, which includes surface-level observations of behaviour; and
Thick description differed from past anthropological methodologies in that it emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary mode of practice. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced.
# thick, which adds context to such behaviour.


To explain such context required grasping individuals' motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well.
The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called ''Mélange of descriptors''. As {{Harvcoltxt|Lincoln|Guba|1985}} indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they are the result of taking meaning to the materials, concepts, or persons being "thickly described" as a process of interpretation.


This method emerged at a time when the [[Ethnography|ethnographic]] school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.{{sfnp|Yon|2003|p=?}} Similarly [[Bronisław Malinowski]] put forth the concept of a ''native point of view'' in his 1922 work, ''[[Argonauts of the Western Pacific]]''. Malinowski felt that an anthropologist should try to understand the perspectives of ethnographic subjects in relation to their own world.
== The Geertz article, "Thick Description" ==
{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}} takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge [[Edward Burnett Tylor]]'s concepts of culture as a "most complex whole" that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.{{sfnp|Thompson|2001}}


== Clifford Geertz ==
Geertz pushes for a search for a "web of meaning". These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}} of different populations under the guise of [[Race (human categorization)|Race]] categorization and categorizing the "other".{{citation needed|date=July 2019}} To Geertz, culture should be treated as symbolic, allowing for observations to be connected with greater meanings.


Following Ryle's work, the American anthropologist [[Clifford Geertz]] re-popularized the concept. Known for his [[Interpretive anthropology|symbolic and interpretive anthropological]] work, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. He was against comprehensive theories of human behavior; rather, he advocated methodologies that highlight culture from the perspective of how people looked at and experienced life. His 1973 article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture", synthesizes his approach.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>
This approach brings about its own difficulties. Studying communities via large-scale anthropological interpret will bring about discrepancies in understanding. As cultures are dynamic and changing, Geertz also emphasizes the importance of speaking ''to'' rather than speaking ''for'' the subjects of ethnographic research and recognizing that cultural analysis is never complete. This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. As such, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.


Thick description emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary approach. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced. The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called ''mélange of descriptors''. As Lincoln & Guba (1985) indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they result from analyzing the materials, concepts, or persons that are "thickly described."<ref>Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. {{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/naturalisticinqu00linc|title=Naturalistic Inquiry|year=1985|isbn=9780803924314|url-access=registration}} SAGE. {{ISBN|9780803924314}}.</ref>
==Adoption==
Interpretive methodologies were needed to understand culture as a system of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected with  “a massive cultural shift” in the social sciences referred to as the interpretive turn. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from 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=?}}


{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}} takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge [[Edward Burnett Tylor]]'s concepts of culture as a "most complex whole" that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.{{sfnp|Thompson|2001}}
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 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 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 thick description's 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=?}}


Geertz pushes for a search for a "web of meaning". These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}} of different populations under the guise of [[Race (human categorization)|Race]] categorization and categorizing the "other."{{citation needed|date=July 2019}} To Geertz, culture should be treated as symbolic, allowing for observations to be connected with greater meanings.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>
Geertz is revered for his pioneering field methods and clear, accessible prose writing style (compare Robinson's [1983] critique). He was considered "for three decades...the single most influential cultural anthropologist in the United States."{{sfnp|McCloskey|1988|p=?}}

This approach brings about its own difficulties. Studying communities via large-scale anthropological interpretation will bring about discrepancies in understanding. As cultures are dynamic and changing, Geertz also emphasizes the importance of speaking ''to'' rather than speaking ''for'' the subjects of ethnographic research and recognizing that cultural analysis is never complete. This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. As such, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>

== 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 to understand culture as a system of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected with "a massive cultural shift" in the social sciences referred to as the ''[[interpretive turn]]''. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from 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 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=?}}


==See also==
==See also==
Line 40: Line 48:


===Bibliography===
===Bibliography===
*{{Cite book|last=Bachmann-Medick|first=Doris|year=2016|title=Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g4hlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT103|isbn=9783110403077|language=en}}
*{{Cite journal
*{{Cite journal
|last=Barth
|last=Barth
Line 55: Line 64:
|last=Geertz
|last=Geertz
|first=Clifford
|first=Clifford
|authorlink=Clifford Geertz
|author-link=Clifford Geertz
|year=1973
|year=1973
|chapter=Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture
|chapter=Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture
Line 61: Line 70:
|place=New York
|place=New York
|publisher=Basic Books
|publisher=Basic Books
|pages=3-30
|pages=3–30
|ref=harv
}}
}}
*{{Cite book
*{{Cite book
|last=Hodder
|last1=Hodder
|first=Ian
|first1=Ian
|last2=Shanks
|last2=Shanks
|first2=Michael
|first2=Michael
Line 73: Line 81:
|publisher=Psychology Press
|publisher=Psychology Press
|isbn=9780415157445
|isbn=9780415157445
|url=https://books.google.com/?id=IFKNL65TwcEC&pg=PA48&e
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IFKNL65TwcEC&pg=PA48
|language=en
|language=en
|ref=harv
}}
}}
*[[Martyn Hammersley|Hammersley]], M. (2008) 'On thick description: Interpreting Clifford Geertz', in ''Questioning Qualitative Inquiry: Critical Essays'', London, Sage.
*{{Cite book
*{{Cite book
|last=Lincoln
|last1=Lincoln
|first=Yvonna S.
|first1=Yvonna S.
|last2=Guba
|last2=Guba
|first2=Egon G.
|first2=Egon G.
|year=1985
|year=1985
|title=Naturalistic Inquiry
|title=Naturalistic Inquiry
|url=https://books.google.com/?id=2oA9aWlNeooC&
|url=https://archive.org/details/naturalisticinqu00linc
|url-access=registration
|publisher=SAGE
|publisher=SAGE
|isbn=9780803924314
|isbn=9780803924314
|ref=harv
}}
}}
*{{citation
*{{citation
|last=McCloskey
|last=McCloskey
|first=Deirdre
|first=Deirdre
|authorlink=Deirdre McCloskey
|author-link=Deirdre McCloskey
|year=1988
|year=1988
|chapter=Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought
|chapter=Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought
Line 98: Line 106:
|place=Cambridge
|place=Cambridge
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|pages=245-57
|pages=245–57
|ref=harv
}}
}}
* {{cite journal |last=Munson |first=Henry |date=1986 |title=Geertz on Religion: The Theory and the Practice |work=Religion |volume=16 |pages=19-32}}
*{{Cite book
* {{cite news |last=Robinson |first=Paul |title=From Suttee to Baseball to Cockfighting |newspaper=The New York Times |date=September 25, 1983}}
|last=Bachmann-Medick
|first=Doris
|year=2016
|title=Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture
|publisher=Walter de Gruyter
|url=https://books.google.com/?id=g4hlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT103&dq=
|isbn=9783110403077
|language=en
|ref=harv
}}
* Munson, Henry. 1986. "Geertz on Religion: The Theory and the Practice". Religion 16: 19-32.
* Robinson, Paul. 1983. "From Suttee to Baseball to Cockfighting". The New York Times September 25, 1983.
*{{Cite journal
*{{Cite journal
|last=Thompson
|last=Thompson
Line 126: Line 122:
|jstor=4532522
|jstor=4532522
|doi=10.1023/A:1010353113519
|doi=10.1023/A:1010353113519
|s2cid=153151073
|ref=harv
}}
}}
*{{Cite journal
*{{Cite journal
Line 139: Line 135:
|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449
|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449
|issn=0084-6570
|issn=0084-6570
}}
|ref=harv}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==

Latest revision as of 02:45, 28 June 2024

In the social sciences and related fields, a thick description is a description of human social action that describes not just physical behaviors, but their context as interpreted by the actors as well, so that it can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.

The term was first introduced by 20th-century philosopher Gilbert Ryle. However, the predominant sense in which it is used today was developed by anthropologist Clifford Geertz in his book The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) to characterise his own method of doing ethnography.[1] Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained widespread currency, not only in the social sciences but also, for example, in the type of literary criticism known as New Historicism.

Gilbert Ryle

[edit]

Thick description was first introduced by the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle in 1968 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting".[2]

  1. thin, which includes surface-level observations of behaviour; and
  2. thick, which adds context to such behaviour.

To explain such context required grasping individuals' motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well.

This method emerged at a time when the ethnographic school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.[3] Similarly Bronisław Malinowski put forth the concept of a native point of view in his 1922 work, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Malinowski felt that an anthropologist should try to understand the perspectives of ethnographic subjects in relation to their own world.

Clifford Geertz

[edit]

Following Ryle's work, the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz re-popularized the concept. Known for his symbolic and interpretive anthropological work, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. He was against comprehensive theories of human behavior; rather, he advocated methodologies that highlight culture from the perspective of how people looked at and experienced life. His 1973 article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture", synthesizes his approach.[4]

Thick description emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary approach. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced. The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called mélange of descriptors. As Lincoln & Guba (1985) indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they result from analyzing the materials, concepts, or persons that are "thickly described."[5]

Geertz (1973) takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge Edward Burnett Tylor's concepts of culture as a "most complex whole" that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.[6]

Geertz pushes for a search for a "web of meaning". These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations[7] of different populations under the guise of Race categorization and categorizing the "other."[citation needed] To Geertz, culture should be treated as symbolic, allowing for observations to be connected with greater meanings.[8]

This approach brings about its own difficulties. Studying communities via large-scale anthropological interpretation will bring about discrepancies in understanding. As cultures are dynamic and changing, Geertz also emphasizes the importance of speaking to rather than speaking for the subjects of ethnographic research and recognizing that cultural analysis is never complete. This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. As such, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.[9]

Interpretive turn

[edit]

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."[10]

Interpretive methodologies were needed to understand culture as a system of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected with "a massive cultural shift" in the social sciences referred to as the interpretive turn. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from 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.[11][12]

Geertz's thick description approach, along with the theories of Claude Lévi-Strauss, has become increasingly recognized as a method of symbolic anthropology,[7][3] enlisted as a working antidote to overly 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 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[13] 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.[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Geertz (1973), pp. 5–6, 9–10.
  2. ^ Ryle, Gilbert. [1968] 1996. "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" Studies in Anthropology 11:11. ISSN 1363-1098. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2008.
  3. ^ a b Yon (2003), p. ?.
  4. ^ Geertz (1973)
  5. ^ Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. ISBN 9780803924314. SAGE. ISBN 9780803924314.
  6. ^ Thompson (2001).
  7. ^ a b c Barth (2007), p. ?.
  8. ^ Geertz (1973)
  9. ^ Geertz (1973)
  10. ^ McCloskey (1988), p. ?.
  11. ^ Bachmann-Medick (2016), p. ?.
  12. ^ Hodder & Shanks (1997), p. ?.
  13. ^ e.g. Munson (1986), Robinson (1983)

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]