3.4 Analysis
115
the presence of theoretical assumptions, theory classes and causal mechanisms in
the interviews. Before I do so, I would like to mention a methodological challenge.
3.4.2.2 Methodological Conundrum
When identifying the perspectives contained in the respondents’ answers, I was
confronted by a peculiar methodological challenge. It is unlikely that the respondents
have heard of theories like ‘agential power’ or ‘social constructivism’; however, the
elements of these perspectives that are represented in Fig. 3.16 above are known to me,
and I identified them when analysing the respondent’s answers by using PULSE
3 .
Since I can identify the theoretical elements, and the respondents are unaware of
them, there is no exact match between them and the respondents’ answers as they
appear in scholarly texts. How then can one relate the respondents’ answers to a
scholarly text? Eisner (2017: 4) gave some ideas on this when he asserted that it is
quite important to emphasise ‘voice’ in qualitative research, not for the mere sake
thereof, but because it ‘serve[s] epistemological interests’. He went on to explain
that:
What we look for, as well as what we see and say, is influenced by the tools we know how to
use and believe to be appropriate. The language of propositions, that language fundamental
to the empirical sciences…cannot take the impress of the life of feeling. For feeling to be
conveyed, the “language” of the arts must be used, because it is through the form a symbol
displays that feelings is given virtual life. The point, therefore, of exploiting language fully
is to do justice to what has been seen; it is to help readers come to know… Arnheim believes
that most knowledge is visual in nature and that propositions and visual art are two ways of
representing what has been conceptualized. Goodman argues that there are as many worlds
as there are ways of describing them, and that the worlds we know, are the worlds we make.
I would therefore like to argue that the theoretical elements that were identified
during the analysis of the respondents’ answers, serve a particular epistemological
interest: they contain the thinking process and the relationship between what the
respondents know and what they see (Lincoln et al. 2018). For me, the theoretical
elements that I have identified over the many years of reading theory are the most
appropriate tools, and I believe that they are useful for analysing the respondents’
answers. The scholarly texts are a language of propositions that are fundamental to
the empirical and social sciences. Theoretical reflection is therefore relevant, in its
broader social purpose, (Selby 2018) for explaining and understanding the world
around us. Furthermore, I believe that theories are like paintings, in that they give us
a glimpse of the world that is captured within a bounded frame. The utterances of
the respondents during the interviews are also theoretical frames, since they describe
their world when they work with green or ecological infrastructures.
There is, therefore, a common denominator at play here, namely, the theoretical
frames that are contained in the analysed answers and those represented by PULSE
3 .
Both the PULSE
3 theories and the respondents’ answers, which conform closely to
the theories, are conceptualisations of the many worlds that we know, whether it
115
the presence of theoretical assumptions, theory classes and causal mechanisms in
the interviews. Before I do so, I would like to mention a methodological challenge.
3.4.2.2 Methodological Conundrum
When identifying the perspectives contained in the respondents’ answers, I was
confronted by a peculiar methodological challenge. It is unlikely that the respondents
have heard of theories like ‘agential power’ or ‘social constructivism’; however, the
elements of these perspectives that are represented in Fig. 3.16 above are known to me,
and I identified them when analysing the respondent’s answers by using PULSE
3 .
Since I can identify the theoretical elements, and the respondents are unaware of
them, there is no exact match between them and the respondents’ answers as they
appear in scholarly texts. How then can one relate the respondents’ answers to a
scholarly text? Eisner (2017: 4) gave some ideas on this when he asserted that it is
quite important to emphasise ‘voice’ in qualitative research, not for the mere sake
thereof, but because it ‘serve[s] epistemological interests’. He went on to explain
that:
What we look for, as well as what we see and say, is influenced by the tools we know how to
use and believe to be appropriate. The language of propositions, that language fundamental
to the empirical sciences…cannot take the impress of the life of feeling. For feeling to be
conveyed, the “language” of the arts must be used, because it is through the form a symbol
displays that feelings is given virtual life. The point, therefore, of exploiting language fully
is to do justice to what has been seen; it is to help readers come to know… Arnheim believes
that most knowledge is visual in nature and that propositions and visual art are two ways of
representing what has been conceptualized. Goodman argues that there are as many worlds
as there are ways of describing them, and that the worlds we know, are the worlds we make.
I would therefore like to argue that the theoretical elements that were identified
during the analysis of the respondents’ answers, serve a particular epistemological
interest: they contain the thinking process and the relationship between what the
respondents know and what they see (Lincoln et al. 2018). For me, the theoretical
elements that I have identified over the many years of reading theory are the most
appropriate tools, and I believe that they are useful for analysing the respondents’
answers. The scholarly texts are a language of propositions that are fundamental to
the empirical and social sciences. Theoretical reflection is therefore relevant, in its
broader social purpose, (Selby 2018) for explaining and understanding the world
around us. Furthermore, I believe that theories are like paintings, in that they give us
a glimpse of the world that is captured within a bounded frame. The utterances of
the respondents during the interviews are also theoretical frames, since they describe
their world when they work with green or ecological infrastructures.
There is, therefore, a common denominator at play here, namely, the theoretical
frames that are contained in the analysed answers and those represented by PULSE
3 .
Both the PULSE
3 theories and the respondents’ answers, which conform closely to
the theories, are conceptualisations of the many worlds that we know, whether it