2.2 Conceptual Building Blocks
29
beliefs, concepts, models and/or theories constituting a general prescriptive, intellectual framework or approach to scientific activities (e.g. ideologies like liberalism,
Marxism, nationalism, apartheid, fascism, feminism, globalism, environmentalism
and Darwinism)’.
As noted earlier, scholars describe the substance, role and function of paradigms
in various ways. Cloete and de Coning (2018) equated them with ideologies and
add positivism, relativism, developmentalism, capitalism, socialism, liberalism and
conservatism to their list of examples. It is not surprising that they do this because they
later discuss the nature of a ‘policy paradigm’, which, for them, ‘… is a prescriptive
approach to public policy that is either promoted or discouraged on normative grounds
(e.g. evidence-informed versus opinion-informed policy making)’ (Cloete and de
Coning 2018: 34).
For Cloete and de Coning (2018), ideologies play an important part when ‘thinking
about policy challenges’ (Béland and Cox 2013: 193). In the context of ‘thinking’
and ‘policy challenges’, Blyth (2013: 211) stated that: ‘Mere facts will (sometimes)
not be allowed to get in the way of a good ideology’ where ‘the “truth” about the
[economic] crisis and the ideas that made it possible really does depend upon what
the most powerful members of a group (or society) consent to believe’ (emphasis
added).
From the various definitions, we can see that there are several elements that delimit
a ‘paradigm’. We also notice that the ontological and epistemological elements reflect
how we see reality and produce knowledge about actuality. The philosophies that
guide actions happen in a specific setting, that is, in either a research or scientific
environment. The beliefs of scientists guide their actions through epistemological,
methodological and ontological assumptions.
A paradigm deals with the way in which researchers generate knowledge, by
guiding their investigative action from a cognitive perspective that is constituted
by their ontological, epistemological and methodological notions. These elements
are invisible in a research-informed policy (Meissner 2017). If we could make the
invisible visible, we would be able to understand how science influences policy
processes.
This does not mean that it is only researchers or scientists who produce, acquire
and utilise paradigms. I would go so far as to say that paradigms are omnipresent in
the lives of most individuals, either implicitly or explicitly, when assessing a situation
or issue. As Guba (1990) and Warner et al. (2002) argued, this means that paradigms
guide our management practices and, taking it a step further, they are the building
blocks of our practices (Meissner 2017). The central characteristic of a research
paradigm is about having a basic belief about the various aspects when generating
knowledge.
Although we can identify numerous policy paradigms over a certain period
and within a specific context (p. 22), as far as I know, there are at present only
five research paradigms available to natural and social scientists. I use Lincoln
et al.’s (2011, 2018) paradigm typology, namely, positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theory and the participatory paradigm, as the foundation for PULSE
3 (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018; Meissner 2017). These paradigms
29
beliefs, concepts, models and/or theories constituting a general prescriptive, intellectual framework or approach to scientific activities (e.g. ideologies like liberalism,
Marxism, nationalism, apartheid, fascism, feminism, globalism, environmentalism
and Darwinism)’.
As noted earlier, scholars describe the substance, role and function of paradigms
in various ways. Cloete and de Coning (2018) equated them with ideologies and
add positivism, relativism, developmentalism, capitalism, socialism, liberalism and
conservatism to their list of examples. It is not surprising that they do this because they
later discuss the nature of a ‘policy paradigm’, which, for them, ‘… is a prescriptive
approach to public policy that is either promoted or discouraged on normative grounds
(e.g. evidence-informed versus opinion-informed policy making)’ (Cloete and de
Coning 2018: 34).
For Cloete and de Coning (2018), ideologies play an important part when ‘thinking
about policy challenges’ (Béland and Cox 2013: 193). In the context of ‘thinking’
and ‘policy challenges’, Blyth (2013: 211) stated that: ‘Mere facts will (sometimes)
not be allowed to get in the way of a good ideology’ where ‘the “truth” about the
[economic] crisis and the ideas that made it possible really does depend upon what
the most powerful members of a group (or society) consent to believe’ (emphasis
added).
From the various definitions, we can see that there are several elements that delimit
a ‘paradigm’. We also notice that the ontological and epistemological elements reflect
how we see reality and produce knowledge about actuality. The philosophies that
guide actions happen in a specific setting, that is, in either a research or scientific
environment. The beliefs of scientists guide their actions through epistemological,
methodological and ontological assumptions.
A paradigm deals with the way in which researchers generate knowledge, by
guiding their investigative action from a cognitive perspective that is constituted
by their ontological, epistemological and methodological notions. These elements
are invisible in a research-informed policy (Meissner 2017). If we could make the
invisible visible, we would be able to understand how science influences policy
processes.
This does not mean that it is only researchers or scientists who produce, acquire
and utilise paradigms. I would go so far as to say that paradigms are omnipresent in
the lives of most individuals, either implicitly or explicitly, when assessing a situation
or issue. As Guba (1990) and Warner et al. (2002) argued, this means that paradigms
guide our management practices and, taking it a step further, they are the building
blocks of our practices (Meissner 2017). The central characteristic of a research
paradigm is about having a basic belief about the various aspects when generating
knowledge.
Although we can identify numerous policy paradigms over a certain period
and within a specific context (p. 22), as far as I know, there are at present only
five research paradigms available to natural and social scientists. I use Lincoln
et al.’s (2011, 2018) paradigm typology, namely, positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theory and the participatory paradigm, as the foundation for PULSE
3 (Lincoln et al. 2011, 2018; Meissner 2017). These paradigms