2.4 Pulse 3
59
means that individual researchers and teams with eclecticism can integrate paradigms
simultaneously across different disciplines, yet they cannot practice eclecticism, with
only transdisciplinarity in hand (Meissner 2017). It also entails that it is possible
to integrate analytic eclecticism and transdisciplinarity at both a paradigm’s metatheoretical micro-level and the overall science macro-vision that are contained in its
overarching belief systems.
Theoretical synthesis
Furthermore, analytic eclecticism is not theoretical synthesis (Sil 2009; Friedrichs
and Kratochwil 2009). As Sil and Katzenstein (2010: 17) explained:
…analytic eclecticism [is] a flexible approach that needs to be tailored to a given problem
and to existing debates over aspects of this problem. As such, it categorically rejects the idea
of a unified synthesis that can provide a common theoretical foundation for various sorts of
problems.
In other words, there is not just one theoretical approach for tackling all sorts of
problems, but it is more a case of there being a diverse convergence of theoretical
elements for varied problems (Sil 2009; Sil and Katzenstein 2010). In this regard,
analytic eclecticism resists an elegant theory with a small number of assumptions that
explain a wide range of phenomena and develop panaceas for a variety of problems
(Meissner 2017).
After all is said and done, complexity asks for a better appraisal of societal and ecological challenges, while transdisciplinarity propagates the breakdown of scientific silos. Scientists promote synthesis from a positivist viewpoint, to assist with the challenges that occur in the natural environment. The
problem is that they do not transgress the divide between positivism, postpositivism,
interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories and the participatory paradigm.
Three pillars
One of the characteristics of analytic eclecticism is that it rests on three pillars. The
first is open-ended problem formulation, which considers the difficulty of phenomena
and issues. This type of research preparation has no intention of advancing or filling
gaps in paradigm-bound research. Secondly, it is a middle-range causal account that
integrates multifaceted interactions among multiple causal mechanisms and logics
that are drawn from more than one paradigm. This causal account relates to the middle
position of analytic eclecticism along the agent-structure axis, on the one hand, and
the material-ideational axis, on the other. Thirdly, the findings and arguments connect
the scholarly debates and real-world dilemmas that decision-makers face. Analytic
eclecticism engages both academic and practical concerns (Sil and Katzenstein 2010;
Hayes and James 2014; Pohl and van Willigen 2015). Let us unpack this further by
outlining what analytic eclecticism promises, in order to counteract the argument
that it is the same as, or similar to, the complexity theory, transdisciplinarity and
synthesis.
59
means that individual researchers and teams with eclecticism can integrate paradigms
simultaneously across different disciplines, yet they cannot practice eclecticism, with
only transdisciplinarity in hand (Meissner 2017). It also entails that it is possible
to integrate analytic eclecticism and transdisciplinarity at both a paradigm’s metatheoretical micro-level and the overall science macro-vision that are contained in its
overarching belief systems.
Theoretical synthesis
Furthermore, analytic eclecticism is not theoretical synthesis (Sil 2009; Friedrichs
and Kratochwil 2009). As Sil and Katzenstein (2010: 17) explained:
…analytic eclecticism [is] a flexible approach that needs to be tailored to a given problem
and to existing debates over aspects of this problem. As such, it categorically rejects the idea
of a unified synthesis that can provide a common theoretical foundation for various sorts of
problems.
In other words, there is not just one theoretical approach for tackling all sorts of
problems, but it is more a case of there being a diverse convergence of theoretical
elements for varied problems (Sil 2009; Sil and Katzenstein 2010). In this regard,
analytic eclecticism resists an elegant theory with a small number of assumptions that
explain a wide range of phenomena and develop panaceas for a variety of problems
(Meissner 2017).
After all is said and done, complexity asks for a better appraisal of societal and ecological challenges, while transdisciplinarity propagates the breakdown of scientific silos. Scientists promote synthesis from a positivist viewpoint, to assist with the challenges that occur in the natural environment. The
problem is that they do not transgress the divide between positivism, postpositivism,
interpretivism/constructivism, critical theories and the participatory paradigm.
Three pillars
One of the characteristics of analytic eclecticism is that it rests on three pillars. The
first is open-ended problem formulation, which considers the difficulty of phenomena
and issues. This type of research preparation has no intention of advancing or filling
gaps in paradigm-bound research. Secondly, it is a middle-range causal account that
integrates multifaceted interactions among multiple causal mechanisms and logics
that are drawn from more than one paradigm. This causal account relates to the middle
position of analytic eclecticism along the agent-structure axis, on the one hand, and
the material-ideational axis, on the other. Thirdly, the findings and arguments connect
the scholarly debates and real-world dilemmas that decision-makers face. Analytic
eclecticism engages both academic and practical concerns (Sil and Katzenstein 2010;
Hayes and James 2014; Pohl and van Willigen 2015). Let us unpack this further by
outlining what analytic eclecticism promises, in order to counteract the argument
that it is the same as, or similar to, the complexity theory, transdisciplinarity and
synthesis.