44
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
and ‘What do they feel is just compensation for local communities’? (Meissner 2004,
2005, 2016c). If interest groups oppose the dam, what necessary steps should the
government take, in order to decide on the future of the dam and its influence on
humans and the natural environment? These are ethical or normative questions that
have practical relevance and implications, not only for the future of the dam, but also
for the wider society that it is supposed to serve.
This means that PULSE
3 recognises entities, such as individuals, interest groups,
scientists and private companies, as being powerful actors alongside a state, its
governing apparatus and its leaders. It values all of these entities, their role in society,
as well as the fundamental social processes that they produce. PULSE
3 also recognises psychological elements, such as emotions, and their importance in driving an
action. Acknowledging psychological elements might assist researchers and practitioners to move away from one-sided paradigmatic and theoretical explanations,
and towards a more inclusive research agenda that acknowledges a foundation of
critical and interpretivist knowledge production. Such an appreciation could play a
role in the development of scenarios that are not dominated by state entities and their
leaders and that, simultaneously, bring to the fore normative elements to guide the
practices. If we focus on the explanatory value of theories, we might better understand the drivers behind phenomena and situations, and how they shape society and
various issues. This might assist in developing more emphatic policies, programmes
and projects, while predicting the outcome of these actions be of lesser importance
(Meissner 2017).
To recap, paradigms are not permanent features of the scientific landscape (Kuhn
1962). They get torn down when scholars replace them with alternative paradigms
(Eisner 1990; Weber 2004; Lake 2011; Meissner 2014, 2017, 2018). For Eisner
(1990: 89), alternative paradigms are ‘…views of mind and knowledge that reject
the idea that there is only one single epistemology and that there is an epistemological
supreme court that can be appealed to settle all issues concerning Truth’. However,
a specific paradigm can persist for some time, which could lead to the paradigm
becoming the dominant worldview that influences policy-related actions through
active substantiation. Active substantiation, or confirmation bias, is a tendency to
look for, and interpret, information in a way that is consistent with existing beliefs or
expectations (Marks and Fraley 2006) in line with social stereotypes, attitudes and
self-serving conclusions (Frey 1981; Holton and Pyszczynski 1989; Johnston 1996;
Lundgren and Prislin 1998; Jonas et al. 2001). Active substantiation applies across
a range of social settings, issues, situations, processes and relations in investigations
ranging from scientific research to aircraft accident inquiries (ASC 2002; Robertson
2012). PULSE
3 aims to improve active substantiation.
2.4.2.1 Paradigm Assessment
The foundation of PULSE
3 rests on the difference between positivism, postpositivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories and the participatory
paradigm, as outlined by Lincoln et al. (2011, 2018) (Table 2.1). With this differen-
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
and ‘What do they feel is just compensation for local communities’? (Meissner 2004,
2005, 2016c). If interest groups oppose the dam, what necessary steps should the
government take, in order to decide on the future of the dam and its influence on
humans and the natural environment? These are ethical or normative questions that
have practical relevance and implications, not only for the future of the dam, but also
for the wider society that it is supposed to serve.
This means that PULSE
3 recognises entities, such as individuals, interest groups,
scientists and private companies, as being powerful actors alongside a state, its
governing apparatus and its leaders. It values all of these entities, their role in society,
as well as the fundamental social processes that they produce. PULSE
3 also recognises psychological elements, such as emotions, and their importance in driving an
action. Acknowledging psychological elements might assist researchers and practitioners to move away from one-sided paradigmatic and theoretical explanations,
and towards a more inclusive research agenda that acknowledges a foundation of
critical and interpretivist knowledge production. Such an appreciation could play a
role in the development of scenarios that are not dominated by state entities and their
leaders and that, simultaneously, bring to the fore normative elements to guide the
practices. If we focus on the explanatory value of theories, we might better understand the drivers behind phenomena and situations, and how they shape society and
various issues. This might assist in developing more emphatic policies, programmes
and projects, while predicting the outcome of these actions be of lesser importance
(Meissner 2017).
To recap, paradigms are not permanent features of the scientific landscape (Kuhn
1962). They get torn down when scholars replace them with alternative paradigms
(Eisner 1990; Weber 2004; Lake 2011; Meissner 2014, 2017, 2018). For Eisner
(1990: 89), alternative paradigms are ‘…views of mind and knowledge that reject
the idea that there is only one single epistemology and that there is an epistemological
supreme court that can be appealed to settle all issues concerning Truth’. However,
a specific paradigm can persist for some time, which could lead to the paradigm
becoming the dominant worldview that influences policy-related actions through
active substantiation. Active substantiation, or confirmation bias, is a tendency to
look for, and interpret, information in a way that is consistent with existing beliefs or
expectations (Marks and Fraley 2006) in line with social stereotypes, attitudes and
self-serving conclusions (Frey 1981; Holton and Pyszczynski 1989; Johnston 1996;
Lundgren and Prislin 1998; Jonas et al. 2001). Active substantiation applies across
a range of social settings, issues, situations, processes and relations in investigations
ranging from scientific research to aircraft accident inquiries (ASC 2002; Robertson
2012). PULSE
3 aims to improve active substantiation.
2.4.2.1 Paradigm Assessment
The foundation of PULSE
3 rests on the difference between positivism, postpositivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories and the participatory
paradigm, as outlined by Lincoln et al. (2011, 2018) (Table 2.1). With this differen-