ABSTRACT
There is always a temptation in a case study like this to search for and highlight similarities, while smoothing over or omitting altogether the cases of sharp dissimilarity. There are plenty of examples of that already in this book. Finding, for example, that most of those we allotted to a group labelled ‘the Church-goers’ shared an interest in astronomy is deceptive for reasons which go far beyond the smallness of the sample and the likelihood of finding consensual interests amongst any group that meets quite often, and may in this case exchange opinions after church on Sunday. Ignoring individual cases that seem beyond the common run might even be thought of as a wise statistical move. We might claim that it is only by presenting evidence for features held in common by a sizeable group that we can hope to achieve useful results which are generalisable to those living in other towns. Who cares about this or any other market town that remains nameless? We need broad findings which can be used, if not just anywhere, at least in towns that seem similar enough to deliver a possible starting point for deeper analysis.
