This is a fascinating picture of science. I like it as an emendation to the Baconian/Popperian cycles (described in the original article), but I do not like the final version, in which this cycle is simply plopped into a circle called "context." This gives no flavour for how context interacts with the cycle elements.
Then again, no one has yet done a good job of that, so I should not criticize.
More from the original:
There are twelve possible pathways for methodological influence of one task type to lead to results in another, plus the four pathways of self-correction and revision. It seems quite feasible to think that observation might be influenced by theoretical assumptions and expectations, or that we might develop classifications on the basis of our experience and the classification systems, neural and analytic, we apply to such data.