2.3 Paradigms and Theories as Multiple Inquiry Systems
41
the quality of a practitioner’s deliberations, as analysts use multiple-informing
paradigms and theories. For instance, the purpose of research, from an interpretivist/constructivist perspective with its inherent understanding function, moves from
being prescriptive, to helping practitioners widen their thinking (Cronbach 1975;
Eisner 1990) and to deepening their understanding of reality.
2.4 Pulse 3
In this section, I present and justify the analytical framework of PULSE
3 as an
alternative way of analysing and conducting research, by using a paradigmatic and
theoretical integrative mechanism. The framework is a tool that identifies paradigms
and theories that influence policies and strategies, as well as their remedial action
(Meissner 2014, 2016a, 2017, 2018). In this regard, PULSE
3 clarifies in visual form,
the nature and extent of paradigmatic and theoretical puzzles that are at play within
a policy arena. Beyer (2015: 489) noted that puzzles relate to one’s collective and
individual consciousness, and she argued that if one examines the interaction between
global and individual consciousness, one could ‘[c]ompare this to pieces of a puzzle.
If we think of puzzle pieces as individual pieces, they do not amount to much. But
if they are put in an integrated order, they produce something that is larger than the
sum of them, without an order’.
This is the case with the paradigms and theories that can be uncovered by using
PULSE
3 . The paradigms and theories contained in the analysed information resemble
puzzle pieces that, together, help to explain how the information forms a whole. If
one knows the nature of the puzzle pieces (e.g. the paradigms and theories), one
will be able to deepen the understanding of the decision-makers on the issues that
are expressed in the analysis. PULSE
3 enables the systematic reading of concepts
and framings, and it offers a broad and robust review for assessing and aggregating a
body of literature (Meissner 2017). The ensemble of knowledge provides researchers
and practitioners with a spectrum of comprehension (Malacalza 2020), ranging from
explanations to understanding.
In this section, I will outline the rationale of PULSE
3 , which I will base on the
dominant bias that researchers have towards positivism, as has already been indicated
above. I will then describe the characteristics and capabilities of the framework by
presenting its components, namely, the research paradigm assessment, the ethos of
analytic eclecticism, the repertoire of theories, the causal mechanisms as well as the
problem-solving and critical theory typology.
2.4.1 Rationale
As has already been argued, a single paradigm and/or theory has difficulty in dealing
with fundamental social processes, ambiguities, uncertainties, paradoxes, contradictions and causal relationships. It is necessary to have a healthier appreciation of these,
41
the quality of a practitioner’s deliberations, as analysts use multiple-informing
paradigms and theories. For instance, the purpose of research, from an interpretivist/constructivist perspective with its inherent understanding function, moves from
being prescriptive, to helping practitioners widen their thinking (Cronbach 1975;
Eisner 1990) and to deepening their understanding of reality.
2.4 Pulse 3
In this section, I present and justify the analytical framework of PULSE
3 as an
alternative way of analysing and conducting research, by using a paradigmatic and
theoretical integrative mechanism. The framework is a tool that identifies paradigms
and theories that influence policies and strategies, as well as their remedial action
(Meissner 2014, 2016a, 2017, 2018). In this regard, PULSE
3 clarifies in visual form,
the nature and extent of paradigmatic and theoretical puzzles that are at play within
a policy arena. Beyer (2015: 489) noted that puzzles relate to one’s collective and
individual consciousness, and she argued that if one examines the interaction between
global and individual consciousness, one could ‘[c]ompare this to pieces of a puzzle.
If we think of puzzle pieces as individual pieces, they do not amount to much. But
if they are put in an integrated order, they produce something that is larger than the
sum of them, without an order’.
This is the case with the paradigms and theories that can be uncovered by using
PULSE
3 . The paradigms and theories contained in the analysed information resemble
puzzle pieces that, together, help to explain how the information forms a whole. If
one knows the nature of the puzzle pieces (e.g. the paradigms and theories), one
will be able to deepen the understanding of the decision-makers on the issues that
are expressed in the analysis. PULSE
3 enables the systematic reading of concepts
and framings, and it offers a broad and robust review for assessing and aggregating a
body of literature (Meissner 2017). The ensemble of knowledge provides researchers
and practitioners with a spectrum of comprehension (Malacalza 2020), ranging from
explanations to understanding.
In this section, I will outline the rationale of PULSE
3 , which I will base on the
dominant bias that researchers have towards positivism, as has already been indicated
above. I will then describe the characteristics and capabilities of the framework by
presenting its components, namely, the research paradigm assessment, the ethos of
analytic eclecticism, the repertoire of theories, the causal mechanisms as well as the
problem-solving and critical theory typology.
2.4.1 Rationale
As has already been argued, a single paradigm and/or theory has difficulty in dealing
with fundamental social processes, ambiguities, uncertainties, paradoxes, contradictions and causal relationships. It is necessary to have a healthier appreciation of these,