2.4 Pulse 3
55
2017). After counting the meta-theoretical assumptions, the software programme
produces a bar graph, which ranks the paradigms according to their scores (Fig. 3.3).
I employ the same scoring method to determine the presence or absence of theoretical
perspectives, causal mechanisms and problem-solving and critical theories.
Why undertake a paradigm assessment? Empirical research is based on a conceptual inquiry (Wight 2006; Kurki 2008; Kurki and Wight 2013). This means that it is
necessary to have an adequate understanding of the concepts, as theoretical building
blocks that we use in evidence-based policy formulation, in order to know why we
use certain notions over others and to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the
definitions. In the absence of such an understanding, peers will not adequately justify
the research and will perceive it as mere ‘fact-finding’. It also means that we will not
appreciate how and why researchers engage in research and use the same paradigms
and theories, which could have an undesirable influence on a constructive debate
with those who have different perspectives (Kurki 2008: 9). Be that as it may, herein
lies the crux of the paradigm assessment, according to Kurki (2008: 9):
‘…whenever we make factual, explanatory or normative judgements about…’ [the world
around us] ‘…important meta-theoretical filters [or meta-theoretical assumptions] are at
work in directing the ways in which we talk about the world around us, and these filters are
theoretically, linguistically, methodologically, and also potentially politically consequential’.
Arguing from a certain paradigm ‘…creates intellectual blinders and institutional
barriers’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2011: 481), which is one of the reasons why academics
are side-lined when it comes to practical problems (Nye 2009; Sil and Katzenstein
2011; Lake 2011). According to Kurki (2008), this could have a spill-over effect on
policy formulation and implementation. The paradigm assessment assists in identifying potential red flags and, furthermore, it highlights where current research
or policy formulation is focusing its attention and where the potential pitfalls for
practicalities lie. Kurki (2006: 213) went on to say that:
…metatheoretical framings of explanatory frameworks have direct effects on the kinds
of explanations we advance for concrete…political processes: indeed, theoretical and
conceptual lenses “constrain and enable”…the kinds of explanations we can construct.
Therefore, investigating which paradigm is dominant could enable us to generate
more holistic and open explanations (Kurki 2006), with regard to the challenges
that practitioners experience. That being said, the meta-theoretical assumptions that
are utilised to assess the paradigmatic stance of knowledge are important, because
they show us not only how practitioners think about issues, but also how they
construct a way of dealing with problems or creating opportunities (Meissner 2017).
In summary, the paradigm assessment counts the meta-theoretical filters that are at
work in how we describe a situation (Kurki 2008), as well as the actions contained
in such explanations.
55
2017). After counting the meta-theoretical assumptions, the software programme
produces a bar graph, which ranks the paradigms according to their scores (Fig. 3.3).
I employ the same scoring method to determine the presence or absence of theoretical
perspectives, causal mechanisms and problem-solving and critical theories.
Why undertake a paradigm assessment? Empirical research is based on a conceptual inquiry (Wight 2006; Kurki 2008; Kurki and Wight 2013). This means that it is
necessary to have an adequate understanding of the concepts, as theoretical building
blocks that we use in evidence-based policy formulation, in order to know why we
use certain notions over others and to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the
definitions. In the absence of such an understanding, peers will not adequately justify
the research and will perceive it as mere ‘fact-finding’. It also means that we will not
appreciate how and why researchers engage in research and use the same paradigms
and theories, which could have an undesirable influence on a constructive debate
with those who have different perspectives (Kurki 2008: 9). Be that as it may, herein
lies the crux of the paradigm assessment, according to Kurki (2008: 9):
‘…whenever we make factual, explanatory or normative judgements about…’ [the world
around us] ‘…important meta-theoretical filters [or meta-theoretical assumptions] are at
work in directing the ways in which we talk about the world around us, and these filters are
theoretically, linguistically, methodologically, and also potentially politically consequential’.
Arguing from a certain paradigm ‘…creates intellectual blinders and institutional
barriers’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2011: 481), which is one of the reasons why academics
are side-lined when it comes to practical problems (Nye 2009; Sil and Katzenstein
2011; Lake 2011). According to Kurki (2008), this could have a spill-over effect on
policy formulation and implementation. The paradigm assessment assists in identifying potential red flags and, furthermore, it highlights where current research
or policy formulation is focusing its attention and where the potential pitfalls for
practicalities lie. Kurki (2006: 213) went on to say that:
…metatheoretical framings of explanatory frameworks have direct effects on the kinds
of explanations we advance for concrete…political processes: indeed, theoretical and
conceptual lenses “constrain and enable”…the kinds of explanations we can construct.
Therefore, investigating which paradigm is dominant could enable us to generate
more holistic and open explanations (Kurki 2006), with regard to the challenges
that practitioners experience. That being said, the meta-theoretical assumptions that
are utilised to assess the paradigmatic stance of knowledge are important, because
they show us not only how practitioners think about issues, but also how they
construct a way of dealing with problems or creating opportunities (Meissner 2017).
In summary, the paradigm assessment counts the meta-theoretical filters that are at
work in how we describe a situation (Kurki 2008), as well as the actions contained
in such explanations.