56
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
The Ethos of Analytic Eclecticism
If positivism, or any other paradigm or methodology for that matter, has blindspots, what is the proposed alternative? The answer lies in analytic eclecticism, that
is, a need to go beyond the paradigms (Sil and Katzenstein 2010; Bennett 2010;
Meissner 2017, 2019) and to see the world through multiple worldviews (Haas
2010a). According to Sil (2009), Friedrichs (2009), Friedrichs and Kratochwil (2009)
and Cornut (2015), analytic eclecticism is a pragmatist alternative to scholarship that
is grounded in current research traditions. In other words, it is a pragmatic methodology to the traditional scholarly knowledge, the stuff that existing and dominant
paradigms, such as positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism/constructivism, are
based on (Sil 2009; Franke and Weber 2011; Cornut 2015). Therefore, analytic eclecticism is ‘an intellectual viewpoint that combines various theoretical frameworks or
that ‘finds the best assumptions for capturing the nature of humans’ (Zyla 2019: 3).
Put in another way, ‘…it is a general approach and perspective in viewing a particular
research problem, or a given set of inquiries in…scholarship’ (Regilme 2018: 16).
This means that the approach to researching issues holds the potential to ‘deal with
problems characterised by uncertainty’ (Haas 2010b). Analytic eclecticism, therefore, is problem-driven (Regilme 2018), since it includes the extraction, adaptation
and integration (not synthesis) of hidden concepts, mechanisms, logical beliefs, as
well as interpretive actions, that are embedded in research traditions. Traditionally,
these paradigms identify separate styles of research and reflect dissimilar combinations of ontological and epistemological principles. Other characteristics include the
extraction and integration of factors, causal narratives, assumptions and ‘interpretive
moves’ (Sil 2009). This is also the case with the numerous social theories that I
have already explained in the above discussion on the distinction between the use of
paradigms and theories (Meissner 2017).
Purpose
The purpose of analytic eclecticism is to avoid any paradigmatic limitations. Such
confinement can lead to a disconnection between researchers and their practical
contributions. Sil and Katzenstein (2010) argued that a paradigm can become an
obstacle of understanding, even if it gives powerful insights through active substantiation (Meissner 2017). Positivist-dominated research, for instance, introduces and
informs the foundational aspects of research (Kurki 2008), with the result that
researchers develop research questions and set boundaries for their investigations,
based on a priori assumptions, and they often conduct investigations to reflect these
prior assumptions. When they are done, they claim that, as arguments progress within
a specific bounded research tradition, there is paradigmatic progression characterised
by ever-increasing sophistication. However, explaining the complexities of problems
are victim (Sil and Katzenstein 2010).
Analytic eclecticism does not discard established paradigms or traditions; instead,
it discovers an applicable relationship between them. It then reveals the invisible
connections between the perceived mismatched and paradigm-bound theoretical
elements. The commitment is to produce novel insights that will influence policy
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
The Ethos of Analytic Eclecticism
If positivism, or any other paradigm or methodology for that matter, has blindspots, what is the proposed alternative? The answer lies in analytic eclecticism, that
is, a need to go beyond the paradigms (Sil and Katzenstein 2010; Bennett 2010;
Meissner 2017, 2019) and to see the world through multiple worldviews (Haas
2010a). According to Sil (2009), Friedrichs (2009), Friedrichs and Kratochwil (2009)
and Cornut (2015), analytic eclecticism is a pragmatist alternative to scholarship that
is grounded in current research traditions. In other words, it is a pragmatic methodology to the traditional scholarly knowledge, the stuff that existing and dominant
paradigms, such as positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism/constructivism, are
based on (Sil 2009; Franke and Weber 2011; Cornut 2015). Therefore, analytic eclecticism is ‘an intellectual viewpoint that combines various theoretical frameworks or
that ‘finds the best assumptions for capturing the nature of humans’ (Zyla 2019: 3).
Put in another way, ‘…it is a general approach and perspective in viewing a particular
research problem, or a given set of inquiries in…scholarship’ (Regilme 2018: 16).
This means that the approach to researching issues holds the potential to ‘deal with
problems characterised by uncertainty’ (Haas 2010b). Analytic eclecticism, therefore, is problem-driven (Regilme 2018), since it includes the extraction, adaptation
and integration (not synthesis) of hidden concepts, mechanisms, logical beliefs, as
well as interpretive actions, that are embedded in research traditions. Traditionally,
these paradigms identify separate styles of research and reflect dissimilar combinations of ontological and epistemological principles. Other characteristics include the
extraction and integration of factors, causal narratives, assumptions and ‘interpretive
moves’ (Sil 2009). This is also the case with the numerous social theories that I
have already explained in the above discussion on the distinction between the use of
paradigms and theories (Meissner 2017).
Purpose
The purpose of analytic eclecticism is to avoid any paradigmatic limitations. Such
confinement can lead to a disconnection between researchers and their practical
contributions. Sil and Katzenstein (2010) argued that a paradigm can become an
obstacle of understanding, even if it gives powerful insights through active substantiation (Meissner 2017). Positivist-dominated research, for instance, introduces and
informs the foundational aspects of research (Kurki 2008), with the result that
researchers develop research questions and set boundaries for their investigations,
based on a priori assumptions, and they often conduct investigations to reflect these
prior assumptions. When they are done, they claim that, as arguments progress within
a specific bounded research tradition, there is paradigmatic progression characterised
by ever-increasing sophistication. However, explaining the complexities of problems
are victim (Sil and Katzenstein 2010).
Analytic eclecticism does not discard established paradigms or traditions; instead,
it discovers an applicable relationship between them. It then reveals the invisible
connections between the perceived mismatched and paradigm-bound theoretical
elements. The commitment is to produce novel insights that will influence policy