Sustainability, which is the basis of this study, is a controversial concept that is subject to vehement oppositions, as much as it enjoys massive support as demonstrated in the north-south dichotomy discussed in chapter 2.2. It is such controversial that even the authors of one of the most influential publications on the subject, “The Limits to growth” Report
101
for the CLUB of ROME’S Project for the predicament of Mankind, that
attracted the world’s attention towards sustainability differ on some fundamental issues (Meadows, Randers, Meadows, & Meadows, 2004, p. xvi). The “about-turn” process in the human industrial activities from the unsustainable path to the new path of sustainability (see chapter 2) is a typical example of a subject representing different informed and sophisticated human constructions that changes over time. Less informed and less sophisticated perception gives way to a more informed and more sophisticated one (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), as with the case of Gaia theory and sustainability concept.
The phenomenon covered by this study is considered worthy when viewed through the sustainability lens. However, if the same phenomenon should be viewed from the perspective of some oriental philosophies that do not believe in the workability of sustainability as a concept (Brandon & Lombardi, 2011), or to the political economist, it might be interpreted as yet another vicious example of disreputable practice or interclass atrocity. The inclination of the researcher to evaluate the subject using the sustainability parameters is a proof of a bias. Researchers may sometimes be unconscientious of the values guiding their actions; however, that does not absolve them from holding any value as it might be claimed. Therefore, the claim to be value neutral is a position that is arguably impractical for humans (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, pp. 127-128). Saunders et al. (2012, p. 139) suggests that it is preferable for the researcher to be honest and highlight the personal values that may have impact on the research process or the conclusion therein. As adherents to different value systems will eventually give different priorities to different themes, there will emerge multiple truths about any subject of discourse, i.e.
multiple values imply multiple truths (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
The idea of multiple truths coincides with the relativist ontology of the constructivists. According to this philosophical school, any supposition can
102
only be true or otherwise relative to a particular human construction and the level of sophistication and information associated with such construction. The existence of multiple truths is acknowledged not only in the constructivism philosophical views, but also in critical realism or critical multiplism were multiple realities are accepted to be constructed based on the views of a particular field of study (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 85). The co-existence of multiple constructions with the same level of sophistication and information about a topic is another possibility. While on the other hand, the more sophisticated and informed a construction, the harder it is to challenge (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), as in the case of sustainability.
This explains the situation of our main treatise- the Nigerian practices of
the end-of-life management of buildings, which may be viewed as a more
acceptable practice according to the waste hierarchy (section 2.5.2). The concept of the waste hierarchy is guided by the sustainability principles, which can be considered as rather a much more informed and sophisticated thesis relative to the alternative understandings such as the
Gaia Theory that is now out of favour. Nevertheless, for the fanatical
scientist, truth is an absolute reality that exist independently irrespective of any human conception (Guba and Lincoln, 1989, pp.84-85), a position that cannot be valid for our topic of inquiry as discussed above.
On the other hand, this study is an investigation of a phenomenon considered analogous to the study of the interactions of organisms in the natural ecosystem. Therefore, if the subject of inquiry is to guide the subscription to any of the philosophical schools of thoughts, it is the position of the natural scientist that should be assumed. This implies that the study should be undertaken from the Archimedean point, i.e. detached from the object of the study, as would be suggested by the conventional positivist, whose views we just discarded while establishing our ontological position. This is an abomination to the paradigmatic
103
extremist who in the words of Bryman (2009) believes that “no
fraternising with the enemy is legitimate”. According to the paradigm
enthusiasts and other views such as that of Kuhn (1970) discussed in Bryman (2009) , multiple paradigms cannot be combined within a single study of this nature. Paradigm can be considered as a complete package of belief systems that provides a structure for intellectual undertaking (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Saunders et al., 2012). Meanwhile, there is a conscientious attempt here to assume the position of constructivism on the ontological level, and switching to objectivism on the epistemological level, while these are known traditional paradigms that have been at “war” and considered incompatible by many (Bryman, 2009).
The pragmatism protagonists that disbelieve in adhering to any particular paradigm will suggest that such philosophical composition may be leading to their realm. In pragmatism, the research topic dictates the philosophy to be employed; and combination of more than one philosophical assumption in the same research undertaking is acceptable (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 678). The practical approach in pragmatism ideology qualifies it as a distinct school of thought from the paradigmatic stances that emphasize the dualism of positivism and interpretivism (Bryman, 2009). Nevertheless, based on the understanding of paradigm as an operational framework, pragmatism is an alternative position advancing the paradigms debate from the dualism to threesome (Bryman, 2006, pp. 97-98). It is therefore a pragmatist stance that is adopted in this study.