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.
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?