54
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
tiation in hand, we can profile knowledge construction that is intrinsic to policies,
programmes and practices, or any written document, for that matter (Meissner 2017).
The paradigm assessment tool that is described in Table 2.1 considers the way
by which researchers or practitioners generate knowledge and express agency, using
the five paradigms. In other words, the main objective of PULSE
3 is to study the
knowledge content of a situation, as it is expressed in written form. I define ‘agency’
as any action that involves human activity and that sets into motion general or specific
ideas, operations or recommendations. It will suffice to include a note on the ‘positivist’ way of determining the influence of paradigms and of identifying them in
analysed information. So far, I have argued for a move away from positivism to a
more inclusive ontological, epistemological and methodological view of studying
reality. Because of this argument, when some commentators look at the paradigm
assessment component of PULSE
3 , they might accuse me of double standards. I
believe that methodological pluralism is the way to go if we want to understand the
ontologically complex social and biophysical environments. Quantitative methods
can point us to interesting patterns of observable data (Meissner 2017). However, in
order for us to explain the patterns of data, a qualitative approach is necessary because
it highlights the causal processes that take place in a more distinct manner (Kurki
2006; Meissner 2017). Having said that, PULSE
3 utilises a quantitative formulation to identify paradigms, theories, causal mechanisms, as well as problem-solving
and critical theories, in a text, after which the researcher then uses a qualitative
methodology to interpret the results (Meissner 2017).
In this way, the framework forces a mixed-method approach, which Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue, is likely to enable more effective research. They based
their reasoning on a dynamic research environment that is more interdisciplinary and
complex and that compels researchers to compliment one method with another. What
is more, with the outbreak of ‘paradigm peace’, epistemological and ontological
issues are less prominent than they were during the ‘paradigm wars’, which was
characterised by the debate between qualitative and quantitative research. The dispute
saw qualitative and quantitative researchers pitted against each other who often used
competing methods, which were based on fundamentally distinct research principles
(Bryman 2006). Beach and Kaas (2019) founded the popularity of multimethod
research on the complex nature of the disciplines. This means that multifaceted issues
are ripe for a mixed-method approach because of their multifarious epistemological
and ontological nature.
To determine the extent of a research paradigm (Table 2.1) for underpinning
policy-related knowledge, I use a simple scoring method that I have described in
previous publications (Meissner 2014, 2017, 2019). I received funding from the
National Research Foundation (NRF) to conduct research on eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. This enabled me to contract a CSIR
software developer, Dr. Marc Pienaar, to develop a digital version of PULSE
3 , based
on the R software package, which utilises Java as its programming language. The
software enables statistical computing and graphics generation, which are presented
in Chap. 3. In short, PULSE
3 employs a scoring system that counts the absence,
or presence, of a paradigm’s metatheatrical assumptions within a text (Meissner
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
tiation in hand, we can profile knowledge construction that is intrinsic to policies,
programmes and practices, or any written document, for that matter (Meissner 2017).
The paradigm assessment tool that is described in Table 2.1 considers the way
by which researchers or practitioners generate knowledge and express agency, using
the five paradigms. In other words, the main objective of PULSE
3 is to study the
knowledge content of a situation, as it is expressed in written form. I define ‘agency’
as any action that involves human activity and that sets into motion general or specific
ideas, operations or recommendations. It will suffice to include a note on the ‘positivist’ way of determining the influence of paradigms and of identifying them in
analysed information. So far, I have argued for a move away from positivism to a
more inclusive ontological, epistemological and methodological view of studying
reality. Because of this argument, when some commentators look at the paradigm
assessment component of PULSE
3 , they might accuse me of double standards. I
believe that methodological pluralism is the way to go if we want to understand the
ontologically complex social and biophysical environments. Quantitative methods
can point us to interesting patterns of observable data (Meissner 2017). However, in
order for us to explain the patterns of data, a qualitative approach is necessary because
it highlights the causal processes that take place in a more distinct manner (Kurki
2006; Meissner 2017). Having said that, PULSE
3 utilises a quantitative formulation to identify paradigms, theories, causal mechanisms, as well as problem-solving
and critical theories, in a text, after which the researcher then uses a qualitative
methodology to interpret the results (Meissner 2017).
In this way, the framework forces a mixed-method approach, which Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue, is likely to enable more effective research. They based
their reasoning on a dynamic research environment that is more interdisciplinary and
complex and that compels researchers to compliment one method with another. What
is more, with the outbreak of ‘paradigm peace’, epistemological and ontological
issues are less prominent than they were during the ‘paradigm wars’, which was
characterised by the debate between qualitative and quantitative research. The dispute
saw qualitative and quantitative researchers pitted against each other who often used
competing methods, which were based on fundamentally distinct research principles
(Bryman 2006). Beach and Kaas (2019) founded the popularity of multimethod
research on the complex nature of the disciplines. This means that multifaceted issues
are ripe for a mixed-method approach because of their multifarious epistemological
and ontological nature.
To determine the extent of a research paradigm (Table 2.1) for underpinning
policy-related knowledge, I use a simple scoring method that I have described in
previous publications (Meissner 2014, 2017, 2019). I received funding from the
National Research Foundation (NRF) to conduct research on eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. This enabled me to contract a CSIR
software developer, Dr. Marc Pienaar, to develop a digital version of PULSE
3 , based
on the R software package, which utilises Java as its programming language. The
software enables statistical computing and graphics generation, which are presented
in Chap. 3. In short, PULSE
3 employs a scoring system that counts the absence,
or presence, of a paradigm’s metatheatrical assumptions within a text (Meissner