Accuracy of Evidence:
– Further evidence can be used to check if initial evidence is correct. I suppose things can be agreed, disagreed, or more nuanced / complex by comparing multiple sources of information. I’m really interested in this idea of what is real – I find in many areas of life once someone decides something is true it may be hard to convince them otherwise. In Aquaponics I’ve heard it often that ‘it just doesn’t work’ then refuted of course by those with a different experience… I guess I prefer to think of this kind of truth more as a web of interacting components with different weights or gravities. I’m not sure what epistemology that would tie me to… I digress…
– Generate Conceptual Categories.
“A concept may be generated from one fact, which then becomes merely one of a universe of many possible diverse indicators for, and data on, the concept. These indicators are then sought for comparative analysis.”
Another element of this nuanced web of truth – is – to understand how generally it is understood. Do all / some / a certain group…believe this?
Who is and isn’t affected?
“Accuracy is not at stake as much as establishing the structural boundaries of a fact: where is the fact an accurate description?”
Some categories will emerge as having a wider generality – i.e. are… more transferable that others – it may be that these provide more useful elements for a broader theory – that is accessible to more people.
Specifying the unit of analysis:
When talking about a specific unit – you can use comparative analysis to explain what you are not studying / what is distinctive about your unit of analysis – in my case – differentiating soilless from normal agricultural practices or explaining what agritecture means to me by comparing it with things that I don’t think fit in this concept area.
Whilst typing this the thought came to mind (again – it isn’t new) – I am examining agritecture as a disruptive technology. I want to explore this idea more – will start a new post to this end.
“Evidence is invariably used as a test of his hypothesis”
When theory emerges from data, it’s essential accuracy and verification are not… the point – the point is that there are conditions or realities that fit / work with this theory (and from which this theory emerged). New evidence brings new perspective – and adds to the theory – improves it – even if it seems to contradict it.
“His job is not to provide a perfect description of an area but to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behaviour”
Barney G. Glaser & Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. P23-31