24
2.4.3 Parsimony or Complexity
The choice between complexity and parsimony is important in the selection of analytical perspective (Hay 2002, p 29). A parsimonious model is as simple as possible
but explains as much as possible. However, at some point the merits of parsimony
may be outweighed by greater complexity (Hay 2002, p 32). At one end of a spectrum pure description may capture real complexity without explaining much;
whereas at the other end, abstract theoretical reasoning may be forceful in explaining and predicting a lot without capturing layers, nuances and crucial details (Hay
2002, p 35).
Seeking to preserve complexity while capturing specificity, constructivist, and
institutionalists proceed with theory in close dialogue with data and details to piece
together theoretically informed and empirically grounded historical narratives (Hay
2002, p 47). They suggest or establish the pre-conditions, conditions, and mechanisms of change by studying the interplay between ideas, institutions including their
values, and interests pursued by actors. In so doing, they are inclined to acknowledge complexity, identify sequencing, and consider timing – all of which are
enabled by methods of process-tracing, process-elucidation and a general openended approach to processes (Hay 2002, p 11). In sustainability science, constructivists and institutionalists are prone to locate and analyse the political aspects of the
environment by considering how to value, prioritise, and sequence different social
goals and sustainability pathways.
Acquiring and interpreting data implies a series of theoretical and methodological choices. Rather than taking regularity as a given and a basis for prediction, a
constructivist or institutionalist would explore the conditions for and existence of
both regularities and irregularities (Hay 2002, p 48). In such research considering
whether conflict or cooperation is the norm in society is obviously important. And
again, proponents of using indicators may have a tendency to seek readily observable data while also seeking regularity and stability in society, whereas those who
emphasise the role of values may assume that society is divided by conflict and
interests – and thus seek other types of data.
2.5 Ways of Understanding Agency, Behaviour,
and Interaction
One important dividing line in the social sciences is how to define, explain, and
understand human agency and behaviour, i.e. how people act and perform, the scope
and limits of our agency, and based on what reasons people make decisions. As a
starting point, structuralism tends to reduce social outcome to the workings of institutions and structures beyond the control of actors and their agency, whereas actororiented theory such as intentionalism (Hay 2002, p 55, Dessler 1989) tends to
account for observable effects in purely agential terms.
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson
2.4.3 Parsimony or Complexity
The choice between complexity and parsimony is important in the selection of analytical perspective (Hay 2002, p 29). A parsimonious model is as simple as possible
but explains as much as possible. However, at some point the merits of parsimony
may be outweighed by greater complexity (Hay 2002, p 32). At one end of a spectrum pure description may capture real complexity without explaining much;
whereas at the other end, abstract theoretical reasoning may be forceful in explaining and predicting a lot without capturing layers, nuances and crucial details (Hay
2002, p 35).
Seeking to preserve complexity while capturing specificity, constructivist, and
institutionalists proceed with theory in close dialogue with data and details to piece
together theoretically informed and empirically grounded historical narratives (Hay
2002, p 47). They suggest or establish the pre-conditions, conditions, and mechanisms of change by studying the interplay between ideas, institutions including their
values, and interests pursued by actors. In so doing, they are inclined to acknowledge complexity, identify sequencing, and consider timing – all of which are
enabled by methods of process-tracing, process-elucidation and a general openended approach to processes (Hay 2002, p 11). In sustainability science, constructivists and institutionalists are prone to locate and analyse the political aspects of the
environment by considering how to value, prioritise, and sequence different social
goals and sustainability pathways.
Acquiring and interpreting data implies a series of theoretical and methodological choices. Rather than taking regularity as a given and a basis for prediction, a
constructivist or institutionalist would explore the conditions for and existence of
both regularities and irregularities (Hay 2002, p 48). In such research considering
whether conflict or cooperation is the norm in society is obviously important. And
again, proponents of using indicators may have a tendency to seek readily observable data while also seeking regularity and stability in society, whereas those who
emphasise the role of values may assume that society is divided by conflict and
interests – and thus seek other types of data.
2.5 Ways of Understanding Agency, Behaviour,
and Interaction
One important dividing line in the social sciences is how to define, explain, and
understand human agency and behaviour, i.e. how people act and perform, the scope
and limits of our agency, and based on what reasons people make decisions. As a
starting point, structuralism tends to reduce social outcome to the workings of institutions and structures beyond the control of actors and their agency, whereas actororiented theory such as intentionalism (Hay 2002, p 55, Dessler 1989) tends to
account for observable effects in purely agential terms.
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson