240
4 Discussion
4.3.2 Systemic Constructivism
The social construction of the ‘green and ecological infrastructure’ concept falls
within a positivist ontology and epistemology. Because of this, apart from agential
constructivism, another social constructivist type is visible in the policy landscape,
namely, systemic constructivism. Many of the respondents were clear about the
meaning of the term ‘green’ and ‘ecological’ infrastructures, by structuring them in
a specific way and for a specific reason. For instance, Respondent 3 said that she
prefers the concept ‘ecological infrastructure’ over ‘green infrastructure’ and her
answer was framed within certain terms that were based on the SANBI definition
(p. 90). We also see this in how Respondents 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 frame the concepts.
They coin them in such a way that their structured meaning avoids confusion. In other
words, their advocacy around the meaning of the concept is to keep the research
object (nature) at bay, for empirical objective purposes, so that other researchers can
independently and objectively study it with the view to empirically informing the
policy processes.
The pursuit of truth stands central here, with truth being viewed as a one-to-one
mapping between reality and the respondents’ statements (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018;
Meissner 2017). This means that objectivity informs the hegemonic position of the
municipal officials and researchers in the framing of the concepts. However, I did
not detect that the respondents took a domineering position when they talked about
the conceptualisation of green and ecological infrastructures. In fact, the criticism
levelled against the terms by Respondent 4 and, to a certain extent also by Respondent
11, indicates that the concepts are not ‘holy cows’, so to speak, but that they can be
‘slaughtered’ in the name of scientific progress and better policy formulation, in line
with the empirically visible problems.
This is important, from a policy perspective. Since the respondents are not domineering in their views on how other actors should speak about and use the concepts,
it is conducive for opening up a dialogue between a plurality of views. However, it
could be detrimental when investigating it from a group-think perspective.
4.4 Group-Think
When returning to the exclusive epistocracy mentioned above, we see that there
are several actors who direct the green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. These actors are most notably the municipal officials, in their capacity as the
implementers of the infrastructure types, and their epistemic NGO partners. Both
actor types play an important role in buttressing the policy landscape through their
respective research endeavours.
The danger with this is that a hegemonic ‘in-group’ could be operating, which
could perceive itself to be immune to criticism because it is part of the group-think. A
4 Discussion
4.3.2 Systemic Constructivism
The social construction of the ‘green and ecological infrastructure’ concept falls
within a positivist ontology and epistemology. Because of this, apart from agential
constructivism, another social constructivist type is visible in the policy landscape,
namely, systemic constructivism. Many of the respondents were clear about the
meaning of the term ‘green’ and ‘ecological’ infrastructures, by structuring them in
a specific way and for a specific reason. For instance, Respondent 3 said that she
prefers the concept ‘ecological infrastructure’ over ‘green infrastructure’ and her
answer was framed within certain terms that were based on the SANBI definition
(p. 90). We also see this in how Respondents 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 frame the concepts.
They coin them in such a way that their structured meaning avoids confusion. In other
words, their advocacy around the meaning of the concept is to keep the research
object (nature) at bay, for empirical objective purposes, so that other researchers can
independently and objectively study it with the view to empirically informing the
policy processes.
The pursuit of truth stands central here, with truth being viewed as a one-to-one
mapping between reality and the respondents’ statements (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018;
Meissner 2017). This means that objectivity informs the hegemonic position of the
municipal officials and researchers in the framing of the concepts. However, I did
not detect that the respondents took a domineering position when they talked about
the conceptualisation of green and ecological infrastructures. In fact, the criticism
levelled against the terms by Respondent 4 and, to a certain extent also by Respondent
11, indicates that the concepts are not ‘holy cows’, so to speak, but that they can be
‘slaughtered’ in the name of scientific progress and better policy formulation, in line
with the empirically visible problems.
This is important, from a policy perspective. Since the respondents are not domineering in their views on how other actors should speak about and use the concepts,
it is conducive for opening up a dialogue between a plurality of views. However, it
could be detrimental when investigating it from a group-think perspective.
4.4 Group-Think
When returning to the exclusive epistocracy mentioned above, we see that there
are several actors who direct the green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. These actors are most notably the municipal officials, in their capacity as the
implementers of the infrastructure types, and their epistemic NGO partners. Both
actor types play an important role in buttressing the policy landscape through their
respective research endeavours.
The danger with this is that a hegemonic ‘in-group’ could be operating, which
could perceive itself to be immune to criticism because it is part of the group-think. A