34
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Every paradigm and theory emphasises a different issue that demands action
(Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008), with some theories leaning more to the ‘What is?’
question and others to the ‘What ought?’ subject. Within any occupation, theorists
formulate diverse conclusions about the different actions (Reus-Smit and Snidal
2008) that are required to address the issues. Whatever actions scholars demand,
they are all concerned with the practical question of how we should act, in order
to improve the human condition (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008). That said, ‘How
we should act?’ is the common ontological, epistemological and methodological
denominator of paradigms and theories.
It is within this logic that a separation between ‘empirical’ and ‘normative’ theory
is artificial, and this has a debilitating influence on the practical application of these
constitutive and causal instruments. After all, paradigms and theories influence how
we perceive and handle phenomena. The unwillingness of scientists to address ethical
considerations, such as normative aspects, when utilising positivism, demonstrates
that they frequently have little to say about significant present-day problems (ReusSmit and Snidal 2008). These cognitive instruments often help us to question the
accepted views about aspirations and needs (Seale 1998) and how to act on them.
Problem analysis rests on both our ability to ask what can possibly be done, from an
empirical perspective, and on our judgement as to who can act, and with what rights
and obligations. If we want fields of inquiry to be practical, we need to ground our
analyses on both an empirical and a normative foundation. ‘Answering the question
of “How we should act?” in terms of the values that we seek to realise, demands an
appreciation of “How we can act?”, in terms of the context of the action that we face’
(Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008: 20). Reus-Smit and Snidal (2008: 20–21) continued,
by arguing that:
Answering the question how we should act requires empirical knowledge production that
examines the causal, constitutive, and discursive structures and processes that frame political
action. But it also requires normative knowledge production that examines who the “we” is
that seeks to act, what principles we seek to realize, and what resources we are prepared to
sacrifice to achieve our ends… With practical discourses, therefore, knowledge production
cannot be confined to the “scientific” realm of empirical theory [only]; it is necessarily more
expansive, encompassing normative inquiry just as centrally.
As mentioned earlier, the function of a theory is to explain and understand, through
simplification (Grover and Glazier 1986; Kerlinger 1986; Koh 2013; Meissner 2017).
From a scholarly perspective, paradigms and theories are important in every scientific
discipline and research activity (Alderson 1998; Oliver 1998; Owusu 2016). The point
is that, when using theory, it is not only necessary to focus on the empirical side, at
the expense of the normative, and vice versa. For the purposes of this book, it is not
so much how we describe the concepts ‘paradigm’ and ‘theory’ that is significant.
What is essential is to realise that there are multiple paradigms and theories to explain
phenomena (Seale 1998; Walt 1998, 2005), for practical purposes.
To reaffirm an earlier argument, where paradigms play a structural role in the
sciences, the general purpose of theory is to create new empirical and normative
knowledge by explaining the meaning, nature and challenges of the phenomena that
we experience within the paradigm systems. We use such knowledge to act practically
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Every paradigm and theory emphasises a different issue that demands action
(Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008), with some theories leaning more to the ‘What is?’
question and others to the ‘What ought?’ subject. Within any occupation, theorists
formulate diverse conclusions about the different actions (Reus-Smit and Snidal
2008) that are required to address the issues. Whatever actions scholars demand,
they are all concerned with the practical question of how we should act, in order
to improve the human condition (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008). That said, ‘How
we should act?’ is the common ontological, epistemological and methodological
denominator of paradigms and theories.
It is within this logic that a separation between ‘empirical’ and ‘normative’ theory
is artificial, and this has a debilitating influence on the practical application of these
constitutive and causal instruments. After all, paradigms and theories influence how
we perceive and handle phenomena. The unwillingness of scientists to address ethical
considerations, such as normative aspects, when utilising positivism, demonstrates
that they frequently have little to say about significant present-day problems (ReusSmit and Snidal 2008). These cognitive instruments often help us to question the
accepted views about aspirations and needs (Seale 1998) and how to act on them.
Problem analysis rests on both our ability to ask what can possibly be done, from an
empirical perspective, and on our judgement as to who can act, and with what rights
and obligations. If we want fields of inquiry to be practical, we need to ground our
analyses on both an empirical and a normative foundation. ‘Answering the question
of “How we should act?” in terms of the values that we seek to realise, demands an
appreciation of “How we can act?”, in terms of the context of the action that we face’
(Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008: 20). Reus-Smit and Snidal (2008: 20–21) continued,
by arguing that:
Answering the question how we should act requires empirical knowledge production that
examines the causal, constitutive, and discursive structures and processes that frame political
action. But it also requires normative knowledge production that examines who the “we” is
that seeks to act, what principles we seek to realize, and what resources we are prepared to
sacrifice to achieve our ends… With practical discourses, therefore, knowledge production
cannot be confined to the “scientific” realm of empirical theory [only]; it is necessarily more
expansive, encompassing normative inquiry just as centrally.
As mentioned earlier, the function of a theory is to explain and understand, through
simplification (Grover and Glazier 1986; Kerlinger 1986; Koh 2013; Meissner 2017).
From a scholarly perspective, paradigms and theories are important in every scientific
discipline and research activity (Alderson 1998; Oliver 1998; Owusu 2016). The point
is that, when using theory, it is not only necessary to focus on the empirical side, at
the expense of the normative, and vice versa. For the purposes of this book, it is not
so much how we describe the concepts ‘paradigm’ and ‘theory’ that is significant.
What is essential is to realise that there are multiple paradigms and theories to explain
phenomena (Seale 1998; Walt 1998, 2005), for practical purposes.
To reaffirm an earlier argument, where paradigms play a structural role in the
sciences, the general purpose of theory is to create new empirical and normative
knowledge by explaining the meaning, nature and challenges of the phenomena that
we experience within the paradigm systems. We use such knowledge to act practically