58
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Jolly and Chang (2019) speak of a flatland fallacy, where the parsimony of our lowdimensional theories reflects the reality of many higher dimensional problems. The
flatland fallacy forces us to seek simplified explanations for complex phenomena. As
a theory, complexity thinking is epistemologically reductionist (Richardson 2008)
and ontologically low-dimensional, since it represents the ‘complexity’ of reality,
but it ignores the high importance of political and psychological occurrences.
Transdisciplinarity
What is more, analytic eclecticism and transdisciplinarity are different. Transdisciplinarity deals with the breaking down of disciplinary silos in and between the natural
and social sciences. It is recognised that transdisciplinarity should guide research
practices at several levels and deal with issues found in both sciences (Jacobs and
Nienaber 2011). We also need transdisciplinarity at a functional level, where the
relationship between ecosystems and society needs deeper understanding.
A link exists between transdisciplinarity and complexity. Transdisciplinarity
‘facilitates a deeper understanding of complexity and complex problems by examining different facets of reality through the lens of multiple perceptions’ (Jacobs
and Nienaber 2011: 670). It operates at the intersection between agents and structures, and, as such, it is situated at the nexus between problem-solving and values,
ethics, norms, cultures and beliefs (Sil 2000b; Lawrence and Depres 2004; Max-Neef
2005; Jacobs and Nienaber 2011). To some extent, transdisciplinarity also deals with
the epistemological question of how to generate knowledge. Transdisciplinarity and
complexity operate on a level where the methodological meets the theoretical (MaxNeef 2005), but not the meta-theoretical elements of the paradigms. To explain this
further, strong transdisciplinarity asks that researchers grapple with the binary, linear
and rationalist limitations that dominate science. Analysts need to recognise that there
are multiple subjective realities that they can access by means of various perception
levels. In doing so, they need ‘…to be constantly reflexive about their [paradigmatic]
positionality, the subjective perceptions they hold, their worldviews and their belief
systems’ (Jacobs and Nienaber 2011: 9).
Therefore, transdisciplinarity is a foundation for analytic eclecticism. Analytic
eclecticism operates on the meta-theoretical level, where scholars and practitioners
address questions of knowledge-generation and agency. Practical claims about
phenomena do not separate paradigms. The fault line is on their meta-theoretical
assumptions on ‘how such claims should be developed and supported’ (Sil and
Katzenstein 2010: 4). With meta-theoretical divisions in mind, complexity and transdisciplinarity are silent on the meta-theoretical aspects of their assumptions. Analytic
eclecticism makes it possible for teams to work together and it also affords the
researcher the opportunity to work solo in multiple research traditions or paradigms,
even if they are incompatible (Laudan 1977, in Sil and Katzenstein 2010). Jacobs
and Nienaber (2011) highlight the importance of teams throughout their research;
however, they are silent about the role of the individual researchers that can transcend paradigm boundaries on their own. Linking analytic eclecticism with the use of
transdisciplinarity by teams and solo researchers, investigators cannot be transdisciplinary without eclecticism, but they can be eclectic without transdisciplinarity. This
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Jolly and Chang (2019) speak of a flatland fallacy, where the parsimony of our lowdimensional theories reflects the reality of many higher dimensional problems. The
flatland fallacy forces us to seek simplified explanations for complex phenomena. As
a theory, complexity thinking is epistemologically reductionist (Richardson 2008)
and ontologically low-dimensional, since it represents the ‘complexity’ of reality,
but it ignores the high importance of political and psychological occurrences.
Transdisciplinarity
What is more, analytic eclecticism and transdisciplinarity are different. Transdisciplinarity deals with the breaking down of disciplinary silos in and between the natural
and social sciences. It is recognised that transdisciplinarity should guide research
practices at several levels and deal with issues found in both sciences (Jacobs and
Nienaber 2011). We also need transdisciplinarity at a functional level, where the
relationship between ecosystems and society needs deeper understanding.
A link exists between transdisciplinarity and complexity. Transdisciplinarity
‘facilitates a deeper understanding of complexity and complex problems by examining different facets of reality through the lens of multiple perceptions’ (Jacobs
and Nienaber 2011: 670). It operates at the intersection between agents and structures, and, as such, it is situated at the nexus between problem-solving and values,
ethics, norms, cultures and beliefs (Sil 2000b; Lawrence and Depres 2004; Max-Neef
2005; Jacobs and Nienaber 2011). To some extent, transdisciplinarity also deals with
the epistemological question of how to generate knowledge. Transdisciplinarity and
complexity operate on a level where the methodological meets the theoretical (MaxNeef 2005), but not the meta-theoretical elements of the paradigms. To explain this
further, strong transdisciplinarity asks that researchers grapple with the binary, linear
and rationalist limitations that dominate science. Analysts need to recognise that there
are multiple subjective realities that they can access by means of various perception
levels. In doing so, they need ‘…to be constantly reflexive about their [paradigmatic]
positionality, the subjective perceptions they hold, their worldviews and their belief
systems’ (Jacobs and Nienaber 2011: 9).
Therefore, transdisciplinarity is a foundation for analytic eclecticism. Analytic
eclecticism operates on the meta-theoretical level, where scholars and practitioners
address questions of knowledge-generation and agency. Practical claims about
phenomena do not separate paradigms. The fault line is on their meta-theoretical
assumptions on ‘how such claims should be developed and supported’ (Sil and
Katzenstein 2010: 4). With meta-theoretical divisions in mind, complexity and transdisciplinarity are silent on the meta-theoretical aspects of their assumptions. Analytic
eclecticism makes it possible for teams to work together and it also affords the
researcher the opportunity to work solo in multiple research traditions or paradigms,
even if they are incompatible (Laudan 1977, in Sil and Katzenstein 2010). Jacobs
and Nienaber (2011) highlight the importance of teams throughout their research;
however, they are silent about the role of the individual researchers that can transcend paradigm boundaries on their own. Linking analytic eclecticism with the use of
transdisciplinarity by teams and solo researchers, investigators cannot be transdisciplinary without eclecticism, but they can be eclectic without transdisciplinarity. This