60
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Regarding the second pillar, analytic eclecticism does not slice up complex social
phenomena just to make them simple and easy to analyse. In other words, reductionism is not an underlying premise, and analytic eclecticism can help us to move
away from causal and theoretical oversimplification, to a more holistic understanding
of processes (Kurki 2006). Important substantive questions with relevant real-world
applications are possible by integrating empirical observations and causal stories;
in other words, by incorporating the five paradigms. This brings about the ‘promise
of richer explanations’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2010: 3) and deeper understanding.
For instance, material resources matter and are an important ingredient in social
relations. Even so, material resources come about through social processes, which
involve actors and principles that socialise these actors. Formal causes have a different
influence in different causal contexts (Kurki 2006) (more on this later).
To put things differently, analytic eclecticism facilitates the quantum leap from
singular explanations of real-world problems to fuller clarifications, alternatives and
solutions. Whereas paradigms have blind-spots, at the same time, they also have
useful insights into issues, challenges and opportunities (p. 28). With analytic eclecticism as the foundation for research practice, there are connections and complementarities between the paradigms that can be exploited. This could lead to a situation
where researchers generate more useful theoretical and empirical insights (Sil and
Katzenstein 2010), which can service the practitioner in a more meaningful manner
(Meissner 2017).
Through analytic eclecticism, it is possible to produce narratives or theories that
have a practical impact on social and biophysical conditions and that rest on prevailing
ideas. This is analytica eclecticism’s third pillar. Analytic eclecticism brings forth
useful insights. Such understanding needs to go beyond scholarly work and add value
to policy debates and normative discussions. The purpose of analytic eclecticism is
not to create new arguments, for the sake of argumentation, but to show that it
is possible to confront problems with a variety of paradigms and theories (Cornut
2015).
The determination of analytic eclecticism is not to produce a new line of analysis
that goes beyond classification within an existing paradigm. Rather, it investigates
how paradigm-bound research generates insights for developing causal stories that
capture the complexity, contingency and messiness of the environment in which the
actors work. Furthermore, analytic eclecticism should also produce implicit recommendations, and it must have ‘some clear implications for some set of policy debates
or salient normative concerns that enmesh leaders, public intellectuals, and other
actors in a given political setting’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2010: 22).
To reiterate, analytic eclecticism is about the integration of different paradigms
and theories that are relevant to the issue at hand, which, in this case, is eThekwini’s
green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. To do this, analytic eclecticism
should produce a more thorough investigation of phenomena or issues (Teddlie and
Tashakkori 2011).
Because of this, we need to assess the prevailing paradigm configuration within a
problem area (Meissner 2017), as the first step of a more thorough investigation, by
starting with an open-ended analysis and not the formulation of a hypothesis. Based
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
Regarding the second pillar, analytic eclecticism does not slice up complex social
phenomena just to make them simple and easy to analyse. In other words, reductionism is not an underlying premise, and analytic eclecticism can help us to move
away from causal and theoretical oversimplification, to a more holistic understanding
of processes (Kurki 2006). Important substantive questions with relevant real-world
applications are possible by integrating empirical observations and causal stories;
in other words, by incorporating the five paradigms. This brings about the ‘promise
of richer explanations’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2010: 3) and deeper understanding.
For instance, material resources matter and are an important ingredient in social
relations. Even so, material resources come about through social processes, which
involve actors and principles that socialise these actors. Formal causes have a different
influence in different causal contexts (Kurki 2006) (more on this later).
To put things differently, analytic eclecticism facilitates the quantum leap from
singular explanations of real-world problems to fuller clarifications, alternatives and
solutions. Whereas paradigms have blind-spots, at the same time, they also have
useful insights into issues, challenges and opportunities (p. 28). With analytic eclecticism as the foundation for research practice, there are connections and complementarities between the paradigms that can be exploited. This could lead to a situation
where researchers generate more useful theoretical and empirical insights (Sil and
Katzenstein 2010), which can service the practitioner in a more meaningful manner
(Meissner 2017).
Through analytic eclecticism, it is possible to produce narratives or theories that
have a practical impact on social and biophysical conditions and that rest on prevailing
ideas. This is analytica eclecticism’s third pillar. Analytic eclecticism brings forth
useful insights. Such understanding needs to go beyond scholarly work and add value
to policy debates and normative discussions. The purpose of analytic eclecticism is
not to create new arguments, for the sake of argumentation, but to show that it
is possible to confront problems with a variety of paradigms and theories (Cornut
2015).
The determination of analytic eclecticism is not to produce a new line of analysis
that goes beyond classification within an existing paradigm. Rather, it investigates
how paradigm-bound research generates insights for developing causal stories that
capture the complexity, contingency and messiness of the environment in which the
actors work. Furthermore, analytic eclecticism should also produce implicit recommendations, and it must have ‘some clear implications for some set of policy debates
or salient normative concerns that enmesh leaders, public intellectuals, and other
actors in a given political setting’ (Sil and Katzenstein 2010: 22).
To reiterate, analytic eclecticism is about the integration of different paradigms
and theories that are relevant to the issue at hand, which, in this case, is eThekwini’s
green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape. To do this, analytic eclecticism
should produce a more thorough investigation of phenomena or issues (Teddlie and
Tashakkori 2011).
Because of this, we need to assess the prevailing paradigm configuration within a
problem area (Meissner 2017), as the first step of a more thorough investigation, by
starting with an open-ended analysis and not the formulation of a hypothesis. Based