3.4 Analysis
111
security issues, while Respondent 12 spoke of the ‘incredibly valuable phosphates’
being a source of income.
The prime empirical focus in all the respondents’ recommended actions is the
supply of order and welfare maximisation (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009) by
the municipality and, to a certain extent, the TNC. In this regard, the locus of agency
is top-down (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009), which means that the municipality
and the TNC are, or should be, the change agents that address the various problems
(i.e. the lack of education, water insecurity and pollution in the uMngeni) experienced by the stakeholders (i.e. the people, communities, the private sector) within
the municipality’s boundaries and beyond (i.e. the uMngeni River basin).
Moreover, a prevalent structuralist ontology (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009)
is present in the respondents’ recommended actions. This relates to the municipality
as a structure of rule and the notion that, as a state entity, it is more powerful for constituting change than individuals are. People view the municipality as an entity with
vast financial and knowledge resources, and as being the sole enabler and enforcer of
bylaws and other legislative aspects, like SuDS. From the discussion on the potential
formation of a water fund, we see that Respondent 9 also places a lot of emphasis
on a feasibility study to ascertain the viability of the fund. This shows that the ethics
around the water fund and its feasibility study is of a positivist nature. Ethics is
defined here as the relationship between the subject (altered river catchments) and
the researcher (municipal officials and/or UKZN researchers), together with the influence of research (feasibility studies) on the population (eThekwini’s residents and
private sector entities) (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018).
Furthermore, the ‘hegemony’ of research in the answers given by Respondents
9 and 11 is a positivistic sign. Lincoln et al. (2011, 2018) describe research hegemony as the influence of researchers and their research on others. For Respondent
9, the purpose of the assessments (feasibility studies) is clear, namely, to determine
the financial costs and benefits of the water fund. This also goes for Respondent
6’s explanation of the planned study to investigate the benefits of the River Horse
project. For Respondent 11, Duncan Hay is a voice of authority and reason on matters
pertaining to the poor water quality of the uMngeni River.
The recommended actions are, moreover, in line with the positivist view, namely,
that objectivity should guide the municipality’s actions to bring about change in
Durban’s water security aspirations. In other words, the dictum of ‘science speaking
truth to power’ (Eriksson 2014) (see pp. 33–34) is of relevance. According to Eriksson
(2014: 96) ‘[t]his notion of “speaking truth to power” expresses a strong belief in
the enlightenment function of scholarship [or research] and implies a traditional
fact/value distinction’. Put differently, the research should be ‘speaking truth’ to the
municipality in the formulation of policies around the water fund, the River Horse
project, community participation and the deplorable state of the uMngeni River.
This is also applicable to Respondent 7’s recommended action, when he spoke
about the role of the epistemic community in investigating and communicating the
benefits to a wider audience. He is asking researchers to conduct more studies on
the social benefits of green infrastructure initiatives, thereby invoking the role of
the epistemic community to find the ‘truth’ about this and to communicate it to the
111
security issues, while Respondent 12 spoke of the ‘incredibly valuable phosphates’
being a source of income.
The prime empirical focus in all the respondents’ recommended actions is the
supply of order and welfare maximisation (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009) by
the municipality and, to a certain extent, the TNC. In this regard, the locus of agency
is top-down (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009), which means that the municipality
and the TNC are, or should be, the change agents that address the various problems
(i.e. the lack of education, water insecurity and pollution in the uMngeni) experienced by the stakeholders (i.e. the people, communities, the private sector) within
the municipality’s boundaries and beyond (i.e. the uMngeni River basin).
Moreover, a prevalent structuralist ontology (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007, 2009)
is present in the respondents’ recommended actions. This relates to the municipality
as a structure of rule and the notion that, as a state entity, it is more powerful for constituting change than individuals are. People view the municipality as an entity with
vast financial and knowledge resources, and as being the sole enabler and enforcer of
bylaws and other legislative aspects, like SuDS. From the discussion on the potential
formation of a water fund, we see that Respondent 9 also places a lot of emphasis
on a feasibility study to ascertain the viability of the fund. This shows that the ethics
around the water fund and its feasibility study is of a positivist nature. Ethics is
defined here as the relationship between the subject (altered river catchments) and
the researcher (municipal officials and/or UKZN researchers), together with the influence of research (feasibility studies) on the population (eThekwini’s residents and
private sector entities) (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018).
Furthermore, the ‘hegemony’ of research in the answers given by Respondents
9 and 11 is a positivistic sign. Lincoln et al. (2011, 2018) describe research hegemony as the influence of researchers and their research on others. For Respondent
9, the purpose of the assessments (feasibility studies) is clear, namely, to determine
the financial costs and benefits of the water fund. This also goes for Respondent
6’s explanation of the planned study to investigate the benefits of the River Horse
project. For Respondent 11, Duncan Hay is a voice of authority and reason on matters
pertaining to the poor water quality of the uMngeni River.
The recommended actions are, moreover, in line with the positivist view, namely,
that objectivity should guide the municipality’s actions to bring about change in
Durban’s water security aspirations. In other words, the dictum of ‘science speaking
truth to power’ (Eriksson 2014) (see pp. 33–34) is of relevance. According to Eriksson
(2014: 96) ‘[t]his notion of “speaking truth to power” expresses a strong belief in
the enlightenment function of scholarship [or research] and implies a traditional
fact/value distinction’. Put differently, the research should be ‘speaking truth’ to the
municipality in the formulation of policies around the water fund, the River Horse
project, community participation and the deplorable state of the uMngeni River.
This is also applicable to Respondent 7’s recommended action, when he spoke
about the role of the epistemic community in investigating and communicating the
benefits to a wider audience. He is asking researchers to conduct more studies on
the social benefits of green infrastructure initiatives, thereby invoking the role of
the epistemic community to find the ‘truth’ about this and to communicate it to the