PULSE3: A Framework for Analysis

  • Richard MeissnerEmail author


In Chap. 2, I analysed three case studies, one on climate change and two on water governance and management, using an analytical framework called PULSE3. I base this framework on the argument that positivism has difficulty investigating and explaining fundamental social process like, ambiguity, paradox, uncertainty and contradiction. The purpose of PULSE3 is to generate a healthier appreciation of the issues faced by policy makers and practitioners engaged in the South African and international water sectors. PULSE3 has three interlinked components: the research paradigm assessment tool; the ethos of analytic eclecticism and the repertoire of theories. I also present the reader with a way to operationalise the ethos of analytic eclecticism and the repertoire of theories. All-in-all, PULSE3 is an analytical tool to assist the research scientist and practitioner to investigate policies, plans, programmes and strategies differently that the traditional cost-benefit analyses uncovered in Chap. 2.


Research paradigm Theory Meta-theory Analytic eclecticism Causal mechanism 


  1. Albert M, Buzan B (2013) International Relations theory and the “social whole”: encounters and gaps between IR and Sociology. Int Polit Sociol 7:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angen MJ (2000) Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qual Health Res 10(3):378–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron R (1967) What is a theory of international relations? J Int Aff 21(1):185–206Google Scholar
  4. Ashton P, Turton A (2009) Water and security in sub-Saharan Africa: emerging concepts and their implications for effective water resource management in the Southern African region. In: Brauch HG, Spring UO, Grin J, Mesjasz C, Kameri-Mbote P, Behera NC, Chourou B, Krummenacher H (eds) Facing global environmental change: environmental, human, energy, food, health and water security concepts. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Aviation Safety Council (ASC) (2002) Aircraft accident report: crashed on a partially closed runway during takeoff, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Boeing 747-400, 9V-SPK, CKS Airport, Toayuan, Taiwan, October 31, 2000. Aviation Safety Council, Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernal DD (2002) Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical race-gendered epistemologies: recognising students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qual Inq 9(1):105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE) (2010) Water: a looming crisis?. Centre for Development Enterprise, JohannesburgGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornut J (2014) Analytic eclecticism in practice: a method for combining international relations theories. Int Stud Perspect. doi: 10.1111/insp.12072 Google Scholar
  10. Cox RW, Sinclair TJ (1996) Approaches to world order. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Du Plessis A (2000) Charting the course of the water discourse through the fog of international relations theory. In: Solomon H, Turton A (eds) Water wars: enduring myth or impending reality. The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, DurbanGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisner EW (1990) The meaning of alternative paradigms for practice. In: Guba EG (ed) The alternative paradigm dialog. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Franke U, Weber R (2011) At the Papini hotel–on pragmatism in the study of international relations. Eur J Int Relat. doi: 10.1177/1354066111404444 Google Scholar
  15. Frey D (1981) The effect of negative feedback about oneself and cost of information on preferences for information about the source of this feedback. J Exp Soc Psychol 17:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedrichs J (2009) From positivist pretense to pragmatic practice varieties of pragmatic methodology in IR scholarship. Int Stud Rev 11(3):645–648Google Scholar
  17. Friedrichs J, Kratochwil F (2009) On acting and knowing: how pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. Int Org 63(4):701–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillings A (2010) How earth made use: water. BBC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Giroux HA (1982) Theory and resistance in education: a pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Grynaviski E (2012) Contrasts, counterfactuals, and causes. European J Int Relat 18(1):1–24Google Scholar
  22. Guba EG (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba EG (ed) The alternative paradigm dialog. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Guba EG (1995) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Guba EG (1996) What happened to me on the road to Damascus. In: Heshusius L, Ballard K (eds) From positivism to interpretivism and beyond: tales of transformation in educational and social research. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Newbury, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes J, James P (2014) Theory as thought: Britain and German unification. Secur Stud 23:399–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heron J, Reason P (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qual Inq 3:274–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heshusius L (1994) Freeing ourselves from objectivity: managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educ Res 23(3):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hirschman AO (1970) The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Polit 22(3):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hobson JM, Seabrooke L (2007) Everyday IPE: revealing everyday forms of change in the world economy. In: Hobson JM, Seabrooke L (eds) Everyday politics of the world economy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffmann MJ (2003) Constructing a complex world: the frontiers of international relations theory and foreign policy-making. Asian J Polit Sci 11(2):37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holton B, Pyszczynski T (1989) Biased information search in the interpersonal domain. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 15(1):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobs IM, Nienaber S (2011) Waters without borders: transboundary water governance and the role of the ‘transdisciplinary individual’ in Southern Africa. Water SA 37(5):665–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston L (1996) Resisting change: information-seeking and the stereotype change. Eur J Soc Psychol 26:799–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonas E, Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D, Thelen N (2001) Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(4):557–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kilgore DW (2001) Critical and postmodern perspectives in learning. In: Merriam S (ed) The new update of education theory: new directions in adult and continuing education. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Kooiman J, Bavinck M (2005) The governance perspective. In: Kooiman J, Bavinck M, Jentoft S, Pullin R (eds) Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koslowski B, Okagaki L, Lorenz C, Umbach D (1989) When covariation is not enough: the role of causal mechanism, sampling method, and sample size in causal reasoning. Child Dev 60(6):1316–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurki M (2006) Cause of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in international relations. Rev Int Stud 32(2):189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kurki M (2008) Causation in international relations: reclaiming causal analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kurki M, Wight C (2013) International relations and social science. In: Dunne T, Kurki M, Smith S (eds) International relations theories: discipline and diversity, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Lake DA (2011) Why “isms” are evil: theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. Int Stud Quart 55:465–480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lake DA (2013) Theory is dead, long live theory: the end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in international relations. Eur J Int Relat 19(3):567–587Google Scholar
  45. Laudan L (1977) Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  46. Lawrence RJ, Depres C (2004) Introduction: futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lebow RN (2007) What can we know? How do we know? In: Lebow RN, Lichbach MI (eds) Theory and evidence in comparative politics and international relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lebow RN (2008) A cultural theory of international relations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lebow RN (2011) Review article: philosophy of science. Int Aff 87(5):1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lincoln YS, Lynham SA, Guba EG (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Lundgren SR, Prislin R (1998) Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marks MJ, Fraley RC (2006) Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles 54(1/2):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 52:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mearsheimer JJ, Walt SM (2013) Leaving theory behind: why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad of international relations. Eur J Int Relat 19(3):427–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meissner R (2003) Interaction and existing constraints in international river basins. In: Nakayama M (ed) International waters in Southern Africa. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  56. Meissner R (2016) Paradigms and theories in water governance: the case of South Africa’s National Water Resource Strategy, second edition. Water SA 42(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Merriam SB (1991) How research produces knowledge. In: Peters JM, Jarvis P (eds) Adult education. Jossey-Bass, San-FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller GT, Spoolman SE (2012) Living in the environment. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  59. Morgan PM (2003) National and international security: theory then, theory now. Asian J Polit Sci 11(2):58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nye JS (2009) Scholars on the sidelines. Washington Post 13: A15Google Scholar
  61. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15181–15187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2013) Oxford dictionaries: language matters. Accessed at: Accessed 2 June 2014
  63. Pollard S, Du Toit D (2008) Integrated water resource management in complex systems: how the catchment management strategies seek to achieve sustainability and equity in water resources in South Africa. Water SA 34(6):671–679Google Scholar
  64. Pollard S, Biggs H, Du Toit D (2014) A systematic framework for context-based decision making in natural resource management: reflections on an integrative assessment of water and livelihood security outcomes following policy reform in South Africa. Ecol Soc 19(2):63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rengger N (2015) Pluralism in international relations theory: three questions. Int Stud Perspect 2015:1–8Google Scholar
  66. Robertson I (2012) Singapore airlines flight 006—Caution to the wind. Cineflix, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenau JN (2006) The study of world politics: theoretical and methodological challenges. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Rudin M (2013) The spies who fooled the world. BBC One, Panorama, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Sebastian AG, Warner JF (2014) Geopolitical drivers of foreign investment in African land and water resources. African Identities 12(1):8–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shapiro I (2005) The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  71. Sil R (2000) The foundations of eclecticism: the epistemological status of agency, culture, and structure in social theory. J Theor Polit 12(3):353–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sil R (2009) Simplifying pragmatism: from social theory to problem-driven eclecticism. Int Stud Rev 11(3):648–652Google Scholar
  73. Sil R, Katzenstein PJ (2010) Beyond paradigms: analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  74. Sil R, Katzenstein PJ (2011) De-centering, not discarding, the “isms”: Some friendly amendments. Int Stud Quart 55(2):481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2011) Mixed method research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  76. Tetlock P (2005) Expert political judgement: how good is it? How can we know?. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  77. Turton A (2005) Hydro hegemony in the context of the Orange River Basin. Paper presented at the workshop on hydro hegemony, school of oriental and African studies, University of London, London, 20–21 May 2005Google Scholar
  78. Uhlenbrook S (2006) Catchment hydrology—a science in which all processes are preferential. Hydrol Process 20(16):3581–3585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Waldner D (2007) Transforming inferences into explanations: lessons from the study of mass extinctions. In: Lebow RN, Lichbach MI (eds) Theory and evidence in comparative politics and international relations. Palgrave MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Weber R (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Q 28(1): iii–xiiGoogle Scholar
  81. Wendt A (1999) Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wight C (2006) Agents, structures and international relations: politics as ontology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zeitoun M (2007) The conflict vs. cooperation paradox: fighting over or sharing of Palestinian-Israeli groundwater? Water Int 32(1):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zeitoun M, Warner J (2006) Hydro-hegemony—a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy 8:435–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)PretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Centre for Water Resources ResearchUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations