2.3 Paradigms and Theories as Multiple Inquiry Systems
39
By including subjectivity in the explanation of policy processes, researchers could
dilute the mystery of the influence of emotions on their beliefs and give credence
to explaining aspects of policy progressions (Meissner 2017), which positivist- and
postpositivist-type theories are unable to explain. Such a theory is rational choice,
which assumes that human actors choose alternatives by evaluating their likely
outcomes. Prior preferences and well-structured self-interests inform the instrumental rationality of the actors. Such actors ‘…are capable of comparing and calculating policy alternatives and choose the one that maximises their interests’ (Qin and
Nordin 2019: 5). Bringing intuition and emotion into the loop complicates matters,
which means that a rational choice kicks these variables out and, by doing so, sketches
an oversimplified representation of reality.
2.3.5 Science Speaking Truth to Power
The use of positivism and postpositivism puts these paradigms in a hegemonic position, with regard to scholars and their research products, and they act as a medium
between the paradigm and the policy process. As a result, ‘science speaking truth
to power’ (Wildavsky 1979; Bäckstrand 2004; Braun and Kropp 2010) becomes a
central adage that guides research quests and influences government policy processes.
It is inevitable that researchers try to influence government policy through the gathering of empirical evidence or by discovering the empiricism of the truths about
social reality (Ruane 2018). Even so, as Ruane (2018) rightly observes, we need to
recognise that there are many ‘truths’, and not just one truth (i.e. objectivity). We can
learn valuable lessons from a concrete example of ‘truth construction’. I will take an
example from the history of foreign affairs in South Africa, when an expert in this
domain apparently fell victim to science by ‘speaking truth to power’, when other
scholars called for ‘truths’ in both his analyses and the South African foreign policies
during the 1980s. Although this example is far removed from eThekwini’s green and
ecological infrastructure policy landscape, it highlights the serious academic repercussions when scholars link analyses to policy outcomes by ‘speaking truth to power’
through the mechanism of science.
Professor Deon Geldenhuys, who has now retired from the University of Johannesburg’s Department of Politics and International Relations, is one of South Africa’s
foremost experts on the country’s foreign policy (Chan 1989). Over the years, he has
authored and published copious peer-reviewed articles and books on the subject, such
as The Diplomacy of Isolation. Chan (1989: 374) notes the following about this book:
‘In this work he [Geldenhuys] unveils the policy processes which have been secret
and secretive. It has been, however, the very secretive nature of foreign policy formulation that has made Geldenhuys’s published work so visible by contrast’. Because of
the State’s aggressive military intervention in southern African countries in the early
1980s, Geldenhuys became the target of international criticism, with some academics
attributing a cause-and-effect relationship between his published works and South
Africa’s foreign policy exploits. According to Chan (1989: 374), some academics
39
By including subjectivity in the explanation of policy processes, researchers could
dilute the mystery of the influence of emotions on their beliefs and give credence
to explaining aspects of policy progressions (Meissner 2017), which positivist- and
postpositivist-type theories are unable to explain. Such a theory is rational choice,
which assumes that human actors choose alternatives by evaluating their likely
outcomes. Prior preferences and well-structured self-interests inform the instrumental rationality of the actors. Such actors ‘…are capable of comparing and calculating policy alternatives and choose the one that maximises their interests’ (Qin and
Nordin 2019: 5). Bringing intuition and emotion into the loop complicates matters,
which means that a rational choice kicks these variables out and, by doing so, sketches
an oversimplified representation of reality.
2.3.5 Science Speaking Truth to Power
The use of positivism and postpositivism puts these paradigms in a hegemonic position, with regard to scholars and their research products, and they act as a medium
between the paradigm and the policy process. As a result, ‘science speaking truth
to power’ (Wildavsky 1979; Bäckstrand 2004; Braun and Kropp 2010) becomes a
central adage that guides research quests and influences government policy processes.
It is inevitable that researchers try to influence government policy through the gathering of empirical evidence or by discovering the empiricism of the truths about
social reality (Ruane 2018). Even so, as Ruane (2018) rightly observes, we need to
recognise that there are many ‘truths’, and not just one truth (i.e. objectivity). We can
learn valuable lessons from a concrete example of ‘truth construction’. I will take an
example from the history of foreign affairs in South Africa, when an expert in this
domain apparently fell victim to science by ‘speaking truth to power’, when other
scholars called for ‘truths’ in both his analyses and the South African foreign policies
during the 1980s. Although this example is far removed from eThekwini’s green and
ecological infrastructure policy landscape, it highlights the serious academic repercussions when scholars link analyses to policy outcomes by ‘speaking truth to power’
through the mechanism of science.
Professor Deon Geldenhuys, who has now retired from the University of Johannesburg’s Department of Politics and International Relations, is one of South Africa’s
foremost experts on the country’s foreign policy (Chan 1989). Over the years, he has
authored and published copious peer-reviewed articles and books on the subject, such
as The Diplomacy of Isolation. Chan (1989: 374) notes the following about this book:
‘In this work he [Geldenhuys] unveils the policy processes which have been secret
and secretive. It has been, however, the very secretive nature of foreign policy formulation that has made Geldenhuys’s published work so visible by contrast’. Because of
the State’s aggressive military intervention in southern African countries in the early
1980s, Geldenhuys became the target of international criticism, with some academics
attributing a cause-and-effect relationship between his published works and South
Africa’s foreign policy exploits. According to Chan (1989: 374), some academics