Essay on The Constructivist-Interpretative Paradigm

Thesis Statement: In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good.

The Keystone XL is a controversial oil pipeline extension that would travel from Alberta, Canada, to the United States Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL should not be built because of the damage it would cause to the environment. The oil would be found within tar sands that contain bitumen. The process of extracting the crude oil uses a lot of energy and causes a large amount of greenhouse gases. Many citizens, in Canada and the United States, are outraged because it can be detrimental to the surrounding land and wildlife. TransCanada, the company building the oil pipeline, has to receive permission from the United States government to begin construction. If the United States does not have the pipeline built and chooses to not use Canada’s oil, then TransCanada will have the pipeline built elsewhere and exported to other countries. There has been a divide between those in favor of the Keystone XL and those who are not. The Keystone XL would be able to provide the United States with a reliable source of oil, but it would also take the risk of faults in the oil pipeline and ruining parts of America’s resourceful soil. The Keystone XL will cause a negative effect on the environment and damage resourceful land; therefore, the oil pipeline should not be constructed.

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused

TransCanada, when asked about possible benefits of construction, stated on their website that, “Keystone XL is the definition of shovel-ready infrastructure project”. TransCanada went on to say that over 9000 hard-working Americans could be put directly to work with good-paying jobs because of the construction of the KeyStone XL Pipeline. Furthermore, while the pipeline is being created, it was estimated by TransCanada that “Over Seven million hours of labor and more than 13,000 new jobs for American workers will be created”. TransCanada goes on further, stating that “Pipelines are safe and environmentally favorable” and that they are committed to minimizing its environmental impact along the proposed route. But, TransCanada is only making these tantalizing promises in order to keep currently neutral noses out of the matter in an effort to reduce the number of naysayers of the project. In truth, the creation of the XL Pipeline is terrible damaging the environment while also hurting the proposed workers of the project.

The native Americans of north America have long suffered from structural violence ever since the arrival of the European immigrants and suffer today in the situation of the North Dakota pipeline. The current situation regarding the Access pipeline is that it is running through properties belonging to the native American people without their consent. The problems that are pipeline could create are very similar to those that affect Lubicon people in Canada today. But the more important issue here is not the pipeline itself but the historical structural violence against natives that created this issue.

‘Employing a qualitative methodology, underpinned by a constructivist world view, has provided the means to generate rich, deep and contextualised understandings of the research issue, and an appreciation of the socially constructed and experienced realities of the participants.’ (Highfield 2012)

In this article, author James McPherson discusses the key players in the Dakota Access Pipeline. He outlines not only outlines the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, but also the Governor of North Dakota, the Tribal Chairman,

Over the past few months’ highlights of the Sioux Native American protest in North Dakota have been prevalent in the news. Though many pieces have touched upon the reasons why the Standing Rock Sioux have been protesting such as the Dakota Access Pipeline, many articles have been opinion based and failed to relay the facts surrounding the issue of it’s construction. In an attempt to understand the situation and gain factual information surrounding the pipeline and the Standing Rock Sioux, I interviewed Professor Ron Ferguson who has followed the situation from it’s beginning.

In the article, The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline by Robinson Meyer, the author opposes the

The native americans and other DAPL (Dakota Access Pipeline) opposers are filled with determination, distress, passion, and such resentment towards the pipeline project because it would run under and through ground that their ancestors knew as sacred and those beliefs are still very alive to this day. The pipeline is a 1,172 mile underground oil pipeline that will aid transporting oil through all 50 states in the USA; it was projected to go through sacred lands, reservations, and rivers. There are multifarious issues and concerns pertaining to project but some of the preeminent concerns are; historic preservation and sacred grounds becoming significantly damaged and irreparable, climate change and how it would just increase the production of CO2, and potential pipeline fractures and spills that would mutilate the crucial nearby farms and threaten contaminate for the water supply of thousands of people who depend on it.

It is a given that one should recognize the fact that it is uncertain as to how the DAPL controversy will inevitably be dealt with; considering both sides of the debate have strong points. The importance the Sioux place on the land they were given after decades of unfair treatment is a key part of knowing why the DAPL controversy is being dealt with the way it is. However, deciding to get rid of the pipeline entirely might prove to be a negative alternative, considering railway transportation is most likely the other option. Ultimately, it can be assumed that both parties would hope for a compromise to be made, ensuring the safety and financial aid of everyone involved. The risk is not yet present, but that should not stop one from weighing out their options. The decision not being concrete should enable those who wish to know more about their country to look into the issue and stay informed, considering information from both sides before making decisions about what they

This is because it is an on-going observation and interview that will lead to interpretive analysis through themes, patterns and narrative synthesis among others. The method will lead to inductive findings through creative and critical reflection of the researcher. The situation therefore, requires an ongoing process so that the researcher may understand the situation through the changes that he or she observes in the course of time. This method is a journey in which experiences are built on the previous ones.

Research methodology and methodological approaches that is, the structured process of conducting research and the overall concepts and theories which underpin research respectively (Bryman, 2008), occupy a central position in the research process as they are both shaped by and translate the researcher’s epistemological position. Epistemology then refers to a researcher’s philosophical stance about the nature, derivation and scope of knowledge (Gilbert, 2008). These positions are seldom ‘spelt out’ but rather understood in the matter of research methodology and approach (Sarantakos, 2005).

Research paradigms are ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given community’ (Kuhn, 1970, p.175). The three most common paradigms are positivism, constructivism or interpretivism and pragmatism. Each of these can be categorised further by examining their: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Fundamentally, ontology is the nature of reality, epistemology describes the relationship the investigator has with their version of reality, and methodology is the various techniques and tools used to analysis their research.

In an article written by Locke, she discusses interpretivist (or constructivist) (Qualitative) paradigm. The interpretivist (or constructivist) believes that individuals or groups construct reality based on interactions with the social environment. This paradigm is distinguished by an interest in understanding the world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. The researcher is concerned with subjective reality. Researchers working in this paradigm focus on particular situated actors who they construe as composing meaning out of events and phenomena though prolonged processes of interaction that involve history, language and action.