42
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
in order to address the challenges that are being faced by the various policy sectors.
With complexity in mind, Cilliers (2000: 27) warns us ‘that a theory of complexity
cannot help us to take in specific positions, or to make accurate predictions’. In addition, the natural environment shapes and affects the changes that influence human
society and the way we live in our environment (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Giddens
1984; Kooiman and Bavinck 2005; Gillings 2010). This dichotomous assertion may
seem straightforward, but there is more than a mere relationship between humans
and the environment. Certainly, relationships are one characteristic of a system, but
another distinguishing factor is that society and the environment consist of multiple
components, which, together with the relationships, in effect, make them complex
systems (Urry 2005). If we see it in this way, we can conceptualise complexity as the
interaction (Vasileiadou and Safarzy´ nska 2010) that takes place between the components, or agents, of a system, indicating that there is variation, without being random
(Byrne 1998). It is within the ambit of explaining and understanding complexity
that the inclusion of postpositivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories,
as well as the participatory paradigm, becomes relevant, due to the large number of
components and the relationships between them. The addition of other paradigms
is likely to assist in improving our understanding of events and the practicalities
associated with situations (Meissner 2014, 2016a, 2017, 2018), which is the main
foundation of PULSE
3 .
I developed PULSE
3 in order to add value to research endeavours, to gain a deeper
understanding of issues and phenomena and, ultimately, to assist in the creation of
opportunities. This is where PULSE
3 fills a paradigm and theory niche, by assisting
practitioners to deepen their understanding of real-world challenges. Its purpose is
not to make point predictions or to impose control over policy processes, but to assist
practitioners in understanding phenomena, situations, issues and relationships. It also
helps to explain the impact of the environment on human actions, and vice versa, in the
face of changes, ambiguities, uncertainties, paradoxes and contradictions (Meissner
2017). With this rationale in mind, PULSE
3 consists of various components.
2.4.2 Components
PULSE
3 has two characteristics. The first, and most obvious, is that it is not devoid
of theory, nor does it deny the existence of theory. As previously mentioned, these
ideational instruments have a role to play in practice, and by acknowledging, and
emphasising, the role of the relationship between various paradigms and theories,
PULSE
3 enriches theory and practice. Secondly, PULSE
3 does not take a positivist
stance, although the paradigm permeates the methodology of the framework.
PULSE
3 can analyse practices, plans, projects and programmes on a paradigmatic
and theoretical level, in order to highlight their inherent meta-theoretical and theoretical elements and, by implication, the gaps. When considering this, Grant (2018)
asserts that the world feels a little different with the passing of time, as new issues
and actors emerge. He goes on to say that, as times change ‘…some drivers of change
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
in order to address the challenges that are being faced by the various policy sectors.
With complexity in mind, Cilliers (2000: 27) warns us ‘that a theory of complexity
cannot help us to take in specific positions, or to make accurate predictions’. In addition, the natural environment shapes and affects the changes that influence human
society and the way we live in our environment (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Giddens
1984; Kooiman and Bavinck 2005; Gillings 2010). This dichotomous assertion may
seem straightforward, but there is more than a mere relationship between humans
and the environment. Certainly, relationships are one characteristic of a system, but
another distinguishing factor is that society and the environment consist of multiple
components, which, together with the relationships, in effect, make them complex
systems (Urry 2005). If we see it in this way, we can conceptualise complexity as the
interaction (Vasileiadou and Safarzy´ nska 2010) that takes place between the components, or agents, of a system, indicating that there is variation, without being random
(Byrne 1998). It is within the ambit of explaining and understanding complexity
that the inclusion of postpositivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories,
as well as the participatory paradigm, becomes relevant, due to the large number of
components and the relationships between them. The addition of other paradigms
is likely to assist in improving our understanding of events and the practicalities
associated with situations (Meissner 2014, 2016a, 2017, 2018), which is the main
foundation of PULSE
3 .
I developed PULSE
3 in order to add value to research endeavours, to gain a deeper
understanding of issues and phenomena and, ultimately, to assist in the creation of
opportunities. This is where PULSE
3 fills a paradigm and theory niche, by assisting
practitioners to deepen their understanding of real-world challenges. Its purpose is
not to make point predictions or to impose control over policy processes, but to assist
practitioners in understanding phenomena, situations, issues and relationships. It also
helps to explain the impact of the environment on human actions, and vice versa, in the
face of changes, ambiguities, uncertainties, paradoxes and contradictions (Meissner
2017). With this rationale in mind, PULSE
3 consists of various components.
2.4.2 Components
PULSE
3 has two characteristics. The first, and most obvious, is that it is not devoid
of theory, nor does it deny the existence of theory. As previously mentioned, these
ideational instruments have a role to play in practice, and by acknowledging, and
emphasising, the role of the relationship between various paradigms and theories,
PULSE
3 enriches theory and practice. Secondly, PULSE
3 does not take a positivist
stance, although the paradigm permeates the methodology of the framework.
PULSE
3 can analyse practices, plans, projects and programmes on a paradigmatic
and theoretical level, in order to highlight their inherent meta-theoretical and theoretical elements and, by implication, the gaps. When considering this, Grant (2018)
asserts that the world feels a little different with the passing of time, as new issues
and actors emerge. He goes on to say that, as times change ‘…some drivers of change