cont.

division = divides a concept into areas

In the research literature on EPB, there are at least two different ways to think about the term "complexity." There is the sense in which the decision-making process of the practitioner is considered too complex to reduce to the EPB's stringent, deductive criteria  (Kemm, 2006). But it is also used in the pejorative sense to show how the strategies to discredit sound scientific judgement are becoming ever more sophisticated (Rosenstock & Lee, 2002). 

more and less = presenting information in terms of size

Overwhelmingly, the rejoinder from the qualitative camp is that EBP research is too reductive, that is, because its criteria are too narrow to include many individuals that the research de facto  applies to (Lenne & Waldby, 2011). On of the things that more qualitative, or at least mixed methods research does is increase a research program's scope: in other words, these researchers argue for a broad and generousness sense of complexity that refers to the richness of life, plus the attitude of being unwilling or unable to reduce it to deductive terms (Martin & Sturmberg, 2009).

space = sets for the parameters of work; tries to see things "next to" or 'beside" other things (in any way it can)

Interestingly, as soon as one extends the reach of EBP into the realm of public health, we immediately begin to see the limits of its usefulness. In other words, it can be argued that EBP is better at home in the context of medical research, that is, used by and for other medical researchers. But, as soon as practitioners in public health try to re-purpose this knowledge for lay consumption, it begins to break down. Surely, there is a scientific way to determine what the best method for breast feeding is, but, as what happens when we try to apply that knowledge at an inner city women's center (in Aveyard 2014)? It's not that it does't apply. But additional research is needed to determine what epistemic supplements EBP needs to be effective in context.