Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [121]
A female deity, perhaps with worshippers represented in her own image, is an attractive possibility. While the once-fashionable assumption that the prehistoric Aegean peoples worshipped a ‘Great Mother’ goddess is demonstrably simplistic, there can be no doubt that some explanation is needed to account for the fact that the majority of Cycladic figures are in the form of a naked female, and a female deity remains a possible identification (69). [Includes not just another authority’s claim but also the supporting evidence]
The theories put forth by Fitton and Thimme seem to be most confirming since other interpretations, including substitute mother, nurse mother, concubine, and magical midwife are weakened by our knowledge that, for the first two mother theories, there was a rarity of child tombs and, with the last two sexual/procreative theories, the inclusion of figurines in graves occurred irrespective of the individual’s sex. [Writer uses empirical evidence to dismiss claims of authorities conflicting with those he is advocating.] In respect to the particular figurines examined above, the presence of ears suggests a divine being who was designed to listen to prayers, a point to reinforce the validity of a female mother goddess theory. [Writer uses more empirical evidence to justify chosen claim]
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
An anecdote is a little story (a narrative), a piece of experience. The word comes from a Greek term meaning “things unpublished.” At its best, anecdotal evidence involves the close examination of particular instances. At its worst, it misrepresents fairly isolated anecdotes as if they were truly representative instances, but without any substantiating evidence. In effect, these inadequately contextualized examples take cheap shots at others’ positions—a common practice during political campaigns.
Often it includes the writer/researcher’s own experience with whatever he or she is studying. So, for example, a historian wishing to understand the origins and development of the Latino community in a small east coast American city might use as a large part of her evidence interviews that she has conducted with local Latino residents.
Anecdotal evidence is in some ways at the opposite extreme from statistical evidence. Statistical research often attempts to locate broad trends and patterns by surveying large numbers of instances and tries to arrive at reliable information by deliberately controlling the kind and amount of questions it asks. In fact, one of the most important tasks for someone using statistical research is the careful crafting of the questions to guarantee that they don’t, for example, predispose the respondent to choose a particular response. By contrast, the kind of thinking based on anecdotal evidence is less concerned with verifiable trends and patterns than with a more detailed and up-close presentation of particular instances.
Given the difficulty of claiming that a single case (anecdote) is representative of the whole, researchers using anecdotal evidence tend to achieve authority through a large number of small instances, which begin to suggest a trend. Authority can also be acquired through the audience’s sense of the analytical ability of the researcher—her skill, for example, at convincingly connecting the evidence with the claim.
Sometimes, statistical and anecdotal evidence operate hand-in-hand; they tend to need each other. A certain number of closely examined particular instances may be necessary in order to determine what questions to ask for a larger statistical survey. Statistical evidence is occasionally seen as incomplete and can even be misleading without more in-depth examination. Thus, for example, one of the most popular research tools in both business and the academic world is the combining of a questionnaire with follow-up discussion by a focus group. The focus group usually consists of a representative