2.2 Conceptual Building Blocks
35
in a perceived, effective and informed manner (Lewin 1951; Whetten 1989; Strauss
and Corbin 1990, Gioia and Pitre 1990; Lynham 2002; Meissner 2017). However,
what is at stake is to what extent our practical knowledge is empirical or normative.
Combining paradigms and theories, as multiple inquiry systems, is a way of affecting
empiricism and normativity simultaneously.
2.3 Paradigms and Theories as Multiple Inquiry Systems
2.3.1 Epistemological and Practical Value
Since paradigms and theories provide a deeper comprehension, through explanation
and understanding, they open the possibility of developing multiple inquiry systems.
With the role of paradigms and theories in mind, I argue that scientists should first
confront social issues, at a worldview level, before they go into the specific theorising of an issue, since paradigms contain several theories. This is a subliminal act,
with the paradigms that we have acquired through our training and experience acting
as our background knowledge. Christians (2018) argue that, in this sense, the issue
of method plays a secondary part in the debate surrounding social matters, with the
questions around paradigms coming first. Closer to the topic of this book, and emphasising the link between paradigms and practice, Katzenstein (1976: 13) declared that
paradigms ‘… should be viewed not simply as a constant but as a variable which is
closely interrelated with [government] policy’. The relationship between theory and
day-to-day practices is also explained at an individual level by Chernoff (2007: 37),
when he pronounced that: ‘Decision-makers may choose a policy when they have a
set of factual beliefs about conditions; a set of cause-and-effect beliefs about how
[actors] interact…; and a set of objectives, goals, or values, which may be part of the
theory’. As already alluded to by Katzenstein (1976), the epistemological value of
paradigms and theories, as well as their influence on policy, are dynamic.
2.3.2 Actions and Situations
How we generate knowledge has a bearing on the way we solve problems and create
opportunities. This means that paradigms and theories are the ‘bricks and mortar’ of
a policy and its associated practice. It is not always possible to conduct an experiment
to solve a problem. Without having a formal scientific method, cognition can also
accomplish problem resolution and create opportunity creation. As researchers, we
do not only have one ‘dependable’ way of knowing (Eisner 1990) and informing
practice, but we have multiple techniques that are contained in paradigms. Consequently, it is possible to act based on multiple paradigms (Pretty 1994) and theories,
but I would argue that it is a necessity. As Pretty (1994: 38) noted:
35
in a perceived, effective and informed manner (Lewin 1951; Whetten 1989; Strauss
and Corbin 1990, Gioia and Pitre 1990; Lynham 2002; Meissner 2017). However,
what is at stake is to what extent our practical knowledge is empirical or normative.
Combining paradigms and theories, as multiple inquiry systems, is a way of affecting
empiricism and normativity simultaneously.
2.3 Paradigms and Theories as Multiple Inquiry Systems
2.3.1 Epistemological and Practical Value
Since paradigms and theories provide a deeper comprehension, through explanation
and understanding, they open the possibility of developing multiple inquiry systems.
With the role of paradigms and theories in mind, I argue that scientists should first
confront social issues, at a worldview level, before they go into the specific theorising of an issue, since paradigms contain several theories. This is a subliminal act,
with the paradigms that we have acquired through our training and experience acting
as our background knowledge. Christians (2018) argue that, in this sense, the issue
of method plays a secondary part in the debate surrounding social matters, with the
questions around paradigms coming first. Closer to the topic of this book, and emphasising the link between paradigms and practice, Katzenstein (1976: 13) declared that
paradigms ‘… should be viewed not simply as a constant but as a variable which is
closely interrelated with [government] policy’. The relationship between theory and
day-to-day practices is also explained at an individual level by Chernoff (2007: 37),
when he pronounced that: ‘Decision-makers may choose a policy when they have a
set of factual beliefs about conditions; a set of cause-and-effect beliefs about how
[actors] interact…; and a set of objectives, goals, or values, which may be part of the
theory’. As already alluded to by Katzenstein (1976), the epistemological value of
paradigms and theories, as well as their influence on policy, are dynamic.
2.3.2 Actions and Situations
How we generate knowledge has a bearing on the way we solve problems and create
opportunities. This means that paradigms and theories are the ‘bricks and mortar’ of
a policy and its associated practice. It is not always possible to conduct an experiment
to solve a problem. Without having a formal scientific method, cognition can also
accomplish problem resolution and create opportunity creation. As researchers, we
do not only have one ‘dependable’ way of knowing (Eisner 1990) and informing
practice, but we have multiple techniques that are contained in paradigms. Consequently, it is possible to act based on multiple paradigms (Pretty 1994) and theories,
but I would argue that it is a necessity. As Pretty (1994: 38) noted: