Perhaps the currency of social sciences should be anecdotes with full context (of which you can obviously get only a limited number unless you have unlimited budget) rather than collecting extensive data points on a limited number of variables. While physical systems can be approximated (or some independent variables dropped) without affecting the aspect being studied (think perfectly spherical objects), when it comes to humans, there are no independent variables. Approximation or simplified models are much harder.
I think looking for statistical patterns (e.g. in literature) is perfectly good science as long as you are cognizant that patterns merely invite more study an should not be used to reach conclusions, also being aware that patterns might disappear when you expand your data set.
Finally, as someone trained in the physical sciences, I used to look down on social scientists. I no longer do this. At least they're brave enough to tackle a complex monster with the limited tools at their disposal, stumbling and even enduring ridicule from the hard sciences. We ignore the human mind and collections thereof, because it's too complex and prefer the relative comfort of simple, predictable systems. I don't believe that's good.
As someone in the behavioral/population sciences, I think there's an underlying, interesting question of "when, if ever, should quantitative methods not be applied to an area of empirical inquiry?" The article doesn't seem to address this though.
As for the social and behavioral sciences, another way of approaching it is: if you have a phenomenon, is it better to try to be scientific in explaining it or not? If not, you cede that realm to the nonscientific, with all that implies. If you do approach it scientifically, how do you do that? If your explanation or theory involves some quantity of some sort, shouldn't you then attempt to specify a model of it, and test it against observations?
Most science seeks broad principles, but I kind of like the OP's suggestion that a depth-focused approach of detailed anecdotes, possibly from multiple different points of view, could provide an interesting form of alternate data.
I think looking for statistical patterns (e.g. in literature) is perfectly good science as long as you are cognizant that patterns merely invite more study an should not be used to reach conclusions, also being aware that patterns might disappear when you expand your data set.
Finally, as someone trained in the physical sciences, I used to look down on social scientists. I no longer do this. At least they're brave enough to tackle a complex monster with the limited tools at their disposal, stumbling and even enduring ridicule from the hard sciences. We ignore the human mind and collections thereof, because it's too complex and prefer the relative comfort of simple, predictable systems. I don't believe that's good.