Positivism, post‐positivism and domestic water demand: interrelating science across the paradigmatic divide

Abstract

The contributions and limitations of the positivist and post-positivist approaches to research into domestic water demand are analysed and compared, and the potential for bringing the two perspectives together is evaluated. The analysis is based on a 4-year investigation of water demand conducted as part of a larger multidisciplinary research programme on sustainable urban environments and specifically the role of water in new developments. The positivist approach is more traditional and offers immediate utility in an evidence-based, legally defensible policy arena. Positivists use concepts such as good ecological status and water scarcity as measures or targets. In contrast post-positivists seek to 'deconstruct' concepts and decision processes in order to understand backgrounds, values and contexts that influence outcomes. The positivists typically use large quantitative data sets and seek to establish general 'truths' that can be tested and used to forecast. The post-positivists undertake intensive case-study-based investigations, typically drawing on qualitative information to illustrate processes, exceptions and barriers. While each approach can add value to the other, the paper argues that the synthesis of the two approaches to create integrated interdisciplinary frameworks is unlikely to succeed. It argues that the most helpful vision is that of a pluralist research environment with 'interrelating interdisciplinary research' in which the relative contributions of generalisations and forecasts are discussed alongside broader interpretations about the inherent values of the current policy process. key words positivism post-positivism quantitative research interdisciplinary research water demand UK

Developing Novel Approaches to Tracking Domestic Water Demand Under Uncertainty—A Reflection on the “Up Scaling” of Social Science Approaches in the United Kingdom

“…Whilst a number of studies have forecast that water consumption will rise in the future (eg, Sharp et al 2011; Environment Agency no date), others have shown that, although domestic demand measured over the long term has risen, there has been a decline in consumption in recent years which may be as a result of a wider take up of metering . The metering hypothesis behind the fall in consumption is difficult to prove however, and it could be reflective of a fall in consumption of other material goods in the UK over the past 10 years (Goodall 2011).…”

“…Of course, some authors (eg, Sharp et al 2011;Strengers 2011) caution that research approaches to water demand management which rely on prediction and forecasting cannot be reasonably integrated with approaches that challenge the status quo of the system such as the perspective we have identified in the previous sections. Sharp et al (2011) using UK water management examples referred to the incompatibility of approaches that challenge the status quo with approaches and methodologies that are deeply embedded in existing policy and practical processes for water demand management such as the micro-components approach, or forecasting approaches used by water companies (Sharp et al 2011).…”

“…Sharp et al (2011) using UK water management examples referred to the incompatibility of approaches that challenge the status quo with approaches and methodologies that are deeply embedded in existing policy and practical processes for water demand management such as the micro-components approach, or forecasting approaches used by water companies (Sharp et al 2011). However, using an adventuresome approach to pluralistic forms of research inquiry (eg, Kelly 2003) we argue that we can develop methodological approaches to monitor and enhance the adaptive capacity of a water resource while still challenging the status quo and maintaining theoretical and philosophical integrity.…”

Developing adaptive capacity through reflexivity: lessons from collaborative research with a UK water utility

“…Nevertheless, Pohl (2005) and Sharp et al, (2011) suggest that there is a value in 'inter-relating interdisciplinarity' (Pohl 2005) in which contrasting disciplines work towards a mutually intelligible body of knowledge (Gandy 2008, p. 566). It remains unclear exactly how 'interrelating interdisciplinarity' transfers to the collaborative research arena that includes scientists and practitioners.…”

“…A number of commentators have raised questions about whether paradigmatically different approaches can work together (Pohl 2005, Evans and Marvin 2006, Connelly and Anderson 2007, Sharp et al 2011). The argument is that diverse viewpoints cannot necessarily be integrated to form a single new form of knowledge.…”