2.2 Conceptual Building Blocks
33
An example of ‘everyday’ theory is the advice that we receive from colleagues,
friends and family (Lynham 2002; Meissner 2017). Should we act on their advice,
the theory is implicit in the specific action that we decide upon. Their guidance gives
us a sense of what we could potentially do; it extends our cognitive abilities, because
others have already done the reasoning and are imparting their knowledge to us as
advice. This is one of the ways that experience assists us in creating opportunities,
solving problems or deepening our understanding of reality (Meissner 2017). In this
sense, Gay (1979: 178) notes that ‘theory provides the practitioner with a means of
describing, interpreting and guiding … activities’.
With productive usefulness in mind, we are constantly calculating the observed
rules and patterns through the cognitive processes that govern the characteristics of
the tangible world, as well as the complex relationships that we have with one another
and the natural environment (McGann 2008; Meissner 2017). We do not merely determine the rules, patterns and relationships for pleasure. Rules and patterns are important elements of day-to-day tasks, and associations entail the production of theories,
as well as their use, in various situations and contexts (Meissner 2017). Paradigms
and theories provide us with practical knowledge, and with practical knowledge we
ask, ‘How should I, we, or they act?’ (Reus-Smit 2013: 589). Paradigms and theories
play a central, albeit invisible, role in how we generate our knowledge into an action.
To answer the question of how we should perform, we need an appreciation
of the world in which we would like to act (the empirical dimension) and have
some sense of the goals that we want to achieve (the normative element) (Reus-Smit
and Snidal 2008). Paradigms and theories are both empirical and normative, and
there is an inherent interconnectedness between the two dimensions. What is more,
scientific disciplines and practical occupations (for instance, consulting, engineering,
environmental management, and public administration) contain a milieu of ideas.
Paradigms and theories, infused with empirical and normative elements, inform our
deeply interconnected ideas (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008), which suggests that we
cannot easily separate the empirical from the normative.
To explain this further, every paradigm and theory is, simultaneously, about
what the world is like and what it ought to resemble. Because theories hold these
features concurrently, paradigm and theory utilisation is a practical discourse that is
concerned about ‘How should we act?’ (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008). For instance,
Hans Morgenthau, who is considered to be the pioneer of the IR theory, concerned
himself with the right and duty of theorists to,
exercise academic freedom as a critic of government power… For Morgenthau, the responsibility to hold governments to account by reference to the “higher laws” that underpin and
legitimize democracy in its truest form, was a key function of the theorist in society (Molloy
2019: 1).
This means that the normative aspect of theory, or using theory to critique a
government’s actions, should be applied to the empirical elements of upholding a
democracy. That said, theory and certain paradigms, like interpretivism and critical
theory, have a central function as a critical practice in academia and society—armed
with a theory, a theorist can assume the role of a dissident (Molloy 2019).
33
An example of ‘everyday’ theory is the advice that we receive from colleagues,
friends and family (Lynham 2002; Meissner 2017). Should we act on their advice,
the theory is implicit in the specific action that we decide upon. Their guidance gives
us a sense of what we could potentially do; it extends our cognitive abilities, because
others have already done the reasoning and are imparting their knowledge to us as
advice. This is one of the ways that experience assists us in creating opportunities,
solving problems or deepening our understanding of reality (Meissner 2017). In this
sense, Gay (1979: 178) notes that ‘theory provides the practitioner with a means of
describing, interpreting and guiding … activities’.
With productive usefulness in mind, we are constantly calculating the observed
rules and patterns through the cognitive processes that govern the characteristics of
the tangible world, as well as the complex relationships that we have with one another
and the natural environment (McGann 2008; Meissner 2017). We do not merely determine the rules, patterns and relationships for pleasure. Rules and patterns are important elements of day-to-day tasks, and associations entail the production of theories,
as well as their use, in various situations and contexts (Meissner 2017). Paradigms
and theories provide us with practical knowledge, and with practical knowledge we
ask, ‘How should I, we, or they act?’ (Reus-Smit 2013: 589). Paradigms and theories
play a central, albeit invisible, role in how we generate our knowledge into an action.
To answer the question of how we should perform, we need an appreciation
of the world in which we would like to act (the empirical dimension) and have
some sense of the goals that we want to achieve (the normative element) (Reus-Smit
and Snidal 2008). Paradigms and theories are both empirical and normative, and
there is an inherent interconnectedness between the two dimensions. What is more,
scientific disciplines and practical occupations (for instance, consulting, engineering,
environmental management, and public administration) contain a milieu of ideas.
Paradigms and theories, infused with empirical and normative elements, inform our
deeply interconnected ideas (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008), which suggests that we
cannot easily separate the empirical from the normative.
To explain this further, every paradigm and theory is, simultaneously, about
what the world is like and what it ought to resemble. Because theories hold these
features concurrently, paradigm and theory utilisation is a practical discourse that is
concerned about ‘How should we act?’ (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008). For instance,
Hans Morgenthau, who is considered to be the pioneer of the IR theory, concerned
himself with the right and duty of theorists to,
exercise academic freedom as a critic of government power… For Morgenthau, the responsibility to hold governments to account by reference to the “higher laws” that underpin and
legitimize democracy in its truest form, was a key function of the theorist in society (Molloy
2019: 1).
This means that the normative aspect of theory, or using theory to critique a
government’s actions, should be applied to the empirical elements of upholding a
democracy. That said, theory and certain paradigms, like interpretivism and critical
theory, have a central function as a critical practice in academia and society—armed
with a theory, a theorist can assume the role of a dissident (Molloy 2019).