Maximal interpretation according to the literature we have read during the course is the thing that scholars should seek. In different epistemic modes, it can be achieved in different ways but the main difference between maximal and minimal interpretation is that the former one can provide an understanding of the meaning of the social fact or action. An explanation is always based on the theory and evidence and Reed offers to search for motives and mechanisms instead of reasons and position in the structure. As it is written in the given citation, interpretation and identification of causal links are possible when we are trying to find motivations and mechanisms of social action. The interpretive mode offered by Reed allows combining theories to understand the motives and mechanisms from different points of view. However, the interpretation made in this way always depends on the conditions as its meaning is explained through several theories connected to certain situations. This approach collects and forms a landscape of meaning and an interpretation of the motives and mechanisms depends on the landscape itself. It forms maximal interpretation of the social fact and action that is dependent on several factors included in the landscape of meaning. I think that nowadays almost all scholars are trying to form a landscape of meaning for an understanding of the causal links between social facts in sociology. 

I want to present the work of Livingstone and Markham who were trying to figure out an association between media usage and political participation (Livingstone & Markham, 2008). I was working with their research during the preparation of my thesis paper and I can explain the difficulty scholars in social sciences meet with in their studies. A desired goal of the research is usually to clarify causal connections between facts existing in society. However, it is almost impossible in modern society because we cannot control all the factors influencing actions. Though these scholars estimated the level of political participation as well as media consumption and to control external variables they also included demographic, social, and political predictors. Even though researchers are trying to control the influence of other variables it is complicated to cover all the things that can change causal links. Almost every research has its limitations because its results can be noticeable only in particular conditions. For example, in this case, we can try to generalize results to a bigger population because the sample was representative but still we do not know the inside motives of the action. Political participation can be influenced by various factors such as location, political system, attitude to politics, socio-demographic variables, etc. That is why scholars include some control variables but also limit their research to the particular case or to the particular landscape of meaning. It all shows that in social sciences it is difficult to find motives and mechanisms and therefore achieve maximal interpretation of the social action. The subjectivity of the results in social sciences is caused exactly for the reason described above. Counterfactual reasoning appears here because of the limitation of the research to prior determining conditions. The citation also demonstrates that this narrowing to one landscape of meaning creates discussions for further investigation and allows us to think about more factors that can help to establish causal links between social facts. So for example, Livingstone and Markham offer to pay attention to cognitive factors as they can provide a more comprehensive explanation about the link between political participation and media usage. 

References: Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2008). The contribution of media consumption to civic participation1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00197.x Reed, I. (n.d.). Interpretation and Social Knowledge. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo11636599.html