2.3 Paradigms and Theories as Multiple Inquiry Systems
37
knowledge, the mind, intelligence and cognition (Eisner 1990, 2017; Pretty 1995;
Meissner 2017). Should we have multiple paradigms and theories in hand, we could
uncover what was previously hidden in the conceptual elements. This notion relates
to the impact of research that Selby (2018: 340) described as investigations that
identify ‘…flaws within, or at least limitations to, existing socio-political knowledge
and/or practice’. According to Schickore (2014), it is through the possession and
visibility of multiple paradigms and theories, along with practices, that scientific
discovery becomes possible. Nevertheless, I am not only concerned about scientific
knowledge and its production.
If we recognise that all paradigms and theories are important for crafting knowledge, there could be consequences for our strategies and visions, as well as the way
we evaluate practices and evidence-based policy. This also applies to the norms,
or standards, of appropriate behaviour (Eisner 1990; Klotz 1995; Meissner 2004),
since individuals experience the world in unique ways. These, in turn, constitute new
forms of knowledge that influence their experiences and produce novel knowledge
by means of an endless loop of knowledge production (Eisner 1990, 2017; Meissner
2016b, 2017).
If one brings policies into the equation, their content and intent express messages
about how role players are supposed to act, how they view issues, as well as the nature
of their beliefs and action expectations. Policy content also conveys an application of
epistemology. As such, policies are not only ‘a set of ideas reflecting certain values
and beliefs that are created to guide decision-making’ (Eisner 1990: 95), but they
can also act as communication media that express certain attributes about an issue,
as well as the thinking behind the construction of a problem, and the way in which
practitioners go about creating change. Our policies are shaped by the ‘beliefs about
the kind of knowledge one can trust, and the kind of methods one can use to get
such knowledge’ (Eisner 1990: 96). That said, paradigm and theory configurations
constitute policies through a complex array of observations, conceptualisations and
interpretations. We can also add to this the function, interests and values of policy
developers and implementers. This means that, should policy developers not trust a
certain type of knowledge generation, it is likely that they will resist using it and view
it as unreliable or illegitimate. The level of trust or suspicion is, equally, a construction
of the human mind that is influenced by external factors, such as a practitioner’s
education, which concretises his/her biases over time. The psychological aspect of
practitioners is potentially one of the most significant variables that influence the
recognition of alternative paradigms and theories and how to integrate them with
their dominant paradigms and theories.
2.3.4 Insightful Consequences
Recognising other paradigms and theories, and integrating them with those that
are familiar, could have insightful consequences for policy processes. Considering
and employing alternative paradigms could be a foundation for investigating the
37
knowledge, the mind, intelligence and cognition (Eisner 1990, 2017; Pretty 1995;
Meissner 2017). Should we have multiple paradigms and theories in hand, we could
uncover what was previously hidden in the conceptual elements. This notion relates
to the impact of research that Selby (2018: 340) described as investigations that
identify ‘…flaws within, or at least limitations to, existing socio-political knowledge
and/or practice’. According to Schickore (2014), it is through the possession and
visibility of multiple paradigms and theories, along with practices, that scientific
discovery becomes possible. Nevertheless, I am not only concerned about scientific
knowledge and its production.
If we recognise that all paradigms and theories are important for crafting knowledge, there could be consequences for our strategies and visions, as well as the way
we evaluate practices and evidence-based policy. This also applies to the norms,
or standards, of appropriate behaviour (Eisner 1990; Klotz 1995; Meissner 2004),
since individuals experience the world in unique ways. These, in turn, constitute new
forms of knowledge that influence their experiences and produce novel knowledge
by means of an endless loop of knowledge production (Eisner 1990, 2017; Meissner
2016b, 2017).
If one brings policies into the equation, their content and intent express messages
about how role players are supposed to act, how they view issues, as well as the nature
of their beliefs and action expectations. Policy content also conveys an application of
epistemology. As such, policies are not only ‘a set of ideas reflecting certain values
and beliefs that are created to guide decision-making’ (Eisner 1990: 95), but they
can also act as communication media that express certain attributes about an issue,
as well as the thinking behind the construction of a problem, and the way in which
practitioners go about creating change. Our policies are shaped by the ‘beliefs about
the kind of knowledge one can trust, and the kind of methods one can use to get
such knowledge’ (Eisner 1990: 96). That said, paradigm and theory configurations
constitute policies through a complex array of observations, conceptualisations and
interpretations. We can also add to this the function, interests and values of policy
developers and implementers. This means that, should policy developers not trust a
certain type of knowledge generation, it is likely that they will resist using it and view
it as unreliable or illegitimate. The level of trust or suspicion is, equally, a construction
of the human mind that is influenced by external factors, such as a practitioner’s
education, which concretises his/her biases over time. The psychological aspect of
practitioners is potentially one of the most significant variables that influence the
recognition of alternative paradigms and theories and how to integrate them with
their dominant paradigms and theories.
2.3.4 Insightful Consequences
Recognising other paradigms and theories, and integrating them with those that
are familiar, could have insightful consequences for policy processes. Considering
and employing alternative paradigms could be a foundation for investigating the