When a paradigm becomes a paradogma

Every science, every scientific discipline, operates under one or more paradigms; a world view that underlies the theories and methodologies of the discipline. Sometimes a discipline’s paradigms complement or supplement each other while at other times they may contradict or even exclude each other. While paradigms are strong and have longevity, they are also fluid, relative and changeable and can even ‘die’. An anathema of the sciences, scientific disciplines and the process of carrying out science (or as Derek Hodson1 calls it: ‘doing science’) is the dogma. In contrast to a paradigm, a dogma is a set of principles or a doctrine prescribed by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogmata are possibly most often found in religion, forming the core principles that must be upheld by all believers of a religion. As such, dogmata are also strong and have longevity, but are static, immutable and almost unchangeable except by divine decree. This editorial discusses a recent case which I and some colleagues encountered where a highly reputable scientific journal’s editorial decision was not based on the article’s quality (e.g., weak theory, bad methodology, improper statistics, . . .) or misuse of a scientific paradigm (e.g., a methodology that does not fit the paradigm used), but rather on a dogma (i.e., the author questioned something that one of the executive editors found to be incontrovertibly true). In other words, a rejection based on a paradigm that has reached the status of a dogma; a paradogma

When a paradigm becomes a paradogma

Every science, every scientific discipline, operates under one or more paradigms; a world view that underlies the theories and methodologies of the discipline. Sometimes a discipline’s paradigms complement or supplement each other while at other times they may contradict or even exclude each other. While paradigms are strong and have longevity, they are also fluid, relative and changeable and can even ‘die’. An anathema of the sciences, scientific disciplines and the process of carrying out science (or as Derek Hodson1 calls it: ‘doing science’) is the dogma. In contrast to a paradigm, a dogma is a set of principles or a doctrine prescribed by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogmata are possibly most often found in religion, forming the core principles that must be upheld by all believers of a religion. As such, dogmata are also strong and have longevity, but are static, immutable and almost unchangeable except by divine decree. This editorial discusses a recent case which I and some colleagues encountered where a highly reputable scientific journal’s editorial decision was not based on the article’s quality (e.g., weak theory, bad methodology, improper statistics, . . .) or misuse of a scientific paradigm (e.g., a methodology that does not fit the paradigm used), but rather on a dogma (i.e., the author questioned something that one of the executive editors found to be incontrovertibly true). In other words, a rejection based on a paradigm that has reached the status of a dogma; a paradogma

Scientometrics as an Important Tool for the Growth of the Field of Learning Analytics

This article introduces the special issue from SoLAR’s Learning Analytics and Knowledge conference. Learning analytics is an emerging field incorporating theory and practice from numerous disciplines to investigate how learner interactions in digital environments can provide actionable data about the learning process. As the field continues to expand there is a timely opportunity to evaluate its ongoing maturation. This evaluation could be in part informed by regular scientometric analyses from both the Journal and Conference publications. These analyses can collectively provide insight into the development of learning analytics more broadly and assist with the allocation of resources to under-represented areas for example.</jats:p

Consumption practices, conflict resolution and behaviour change in the UK smokers market

In the UK tobacco denormalisation strategies (i.e. indoor smoking ban and display ban), have been acknowledged as important strategies to encourage behaviour change in smokers, through quitting or at least minimising it. This study examines the impact of these strategies on smokers and their behaviours in retail establishments and shared consumption spaces. It extends the work of Festinger (1957) on dissonance manifestation and behaviour, and of Michie and West’s (2011) concept of behaviour change interventions, through the examination of smokers as consumers. The strategy of ‘denormalising’ tobacco use has become one of the cornerstones of the global tobacco control movement. In the UK, tobacco denormalisation was born out of a need to protect non-smokers from the dangers of second-hand smoke and curb increasing numbers of deaths in smokers. These policies are overseen by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), to which the UK became a signatory in 2002. Although the UK has strict tobacco denormalisation strategies and leads the way in tobacco control in Europe, there remains a dearth of UK-centric qualitative studies from a consumer standpoint exploring smoking behaviours and the impact of tobacco denormalisation. An interpretivist theoretical perspective and the phenomenology research design is adopted for this study, drawing on qualitative data using interviews with 25 individuals (current smokers, ex-smokers, and non-smokers, retailers and industry personnel), living and working in and around the town of Huddersfield and the region of West Yorkshire, as well as three separate participant observations held in a stop-smoking clinic in the town of Huddersfield. Data was analysed using the strategy recommended by Miles & Huberman (1984), aided using NVIVO 11 data analysis software to identify emergent themes recommended by Bazeley & Jackson (2013). Results of this study’s analysis of data suggest that tobacco control strategies have overseen behaviour change in smoking participants during purchase and consumption, and whilst in shared consumption spaces but not in the way intended. Smoking participants continue to adopt, purchase and consume tobacco products in the face of mounting social and cultural opposition. However, behaviour change is manifested in ways they circumvent “barriers to purchase, consumption and use”. For example, making friends with other smokers whilst standing outside to smoke, adopting new or alternative products such as e-cigarettes, engaging in brand switching and bulk buying, becoming brand knowledgeable and more informed about location of products stored in gantries, but also engaging in compensatory health behaviours to justify smoking continuation. The behaviour of smoking participants suggests observation and rejection of tobacco control strategies occur in parallel (i.e. take place at the same time). Findings therefore raise questions about the ethical and practical extent to which tobacco denormalisation strategies influence and encourage smokers to change behaviours