NC DOCKS at Appalachian State University

Ogburn, Joyce

English

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Archived version from NCDOCKS Institutional Repository http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/ Acquiring Minds Want To Know: A Glimpse of ParadigmsBy: Joyce OgburnNo AbstractOgburn Joyce (1998) "Acquiring Minds Want To Know: A Glimpse of Paradigms" Against the Grain 5(3) pp. 37-40  Version of Record Available from http://contentcontent.lib.utah.eduAC<l]Iu iring Minds Want To Know Column Editor: Joyce L. Ogburn (Yale University Library) A GLIMPSE OF PARADIGMS by Joyce Ogburn The concept of the paradigm, as generally cited in the literature, derives from the work of Thomas Kuhn in the 1960's. Kuhn, an historian of science. set out to explore how science. and scientists, actually worked. Kuhn found that scientific activity tends to be governed by a set of principles, a world view and a common methodological approach to problem solving. Kuhn names this commonality a paradigm. Paradigms define the practice ofnonnal science and the problems which are 10 be solved. Kuhn also noled that the education of scientists plays a crucial role in supporting and reinforcing the pre-vailing paradigm. Budding scientists are taught by example and wi th proscribed solutions 10 scientific prob-lems. Competi ng methods are not taugh!. This educational approach allows new scientists to enter into the scientific community with the same methods and approaches of their col-leagues. fn other words, they are able to practice nonnal science. In addi tion to explaining the practice of normal science, Kuhn a ttempted to understand how science changes over time, espec ially through so-called revolutions. He believed that science changes as anomalies accumulate through normal science, to the point where the paradig m is no lo nger applicable to the problems at hand. This change precipitates a crisis in the science, whi ch is fo ll owed by a paradigm shift. During the shift , one paradigm is rejected and replaced with another. The shift should truly be a revolution, where there is a complete break in research traditions, and where normal sc ience is rad ically trans-fonned. Since a revolution has occurred, the two paradigms (the previous and the new) are completely incompatible and, in Kuhn 's words, incommensurate. Afte r the shift, scientists can no longer operate in the same manner as before and can no longer envision problems in the same light. Additionally, in this model, there is no cumulation or prog-ress in scientific knowledge, though there may be overlap in terminology. Kuh n stipul a tes the fo ll owing cha rac teri s ti cs fo r a successful paradigm: 1. The' parad igm must serve to resolve the crisis. 2. It need not explain all anomalies, but it is usually an improvement on the previous paradigm. 3. One should be able to use the paradigm to make predictions. 4. A paradigm should be aesthetic, its explanation simpler than that of its predecessor. 5. Often a generation of change is required before a paradigm is accepted. 6. The choice of a paradigm is not always rational; it is not always possible to know what consti-tutes the better of two paradigms, and the choice of paradigm may be a leap of faith. 7. A paradigm need not be truc. The concept of theory is different from thaI of a paradigm. Theories can be proved or disproved, while paradigms are not subject to proof or verificalion. Theories may also come and go during the duration of the paradigm, and a theory accepted under one paradigm may be subject to question under another. A familiar example of a paradigm in the sciences would be that of evolu-tion by natural selection. Although evolution as a concept was beginning to be adopted in the natural sciences before 1859, it was Darwin's articu-lation of the mechanism of natural selection in The Origin oflh e Species that allowed evolution to become the backbone of scientific research and teaching in the biological sciences. It was also Darwin's model that helped both to sever the ties between church and science and to put aside the notion of progress being inherent in change. Kuhn explici tl y s ta tes th at the parad igm concept is not applicable outside of the hard sciences. A para-d igm applies to scienti fic research activity. He saw disciplines outside of the sciences as preparadigmatic. In his view, the social sciences have no para-di g ms, as th ey are governed b y competing ideas and an educational system that encourages d ivergent , rather than convergent, thinking. He argues that different modes of research and thinki ng compete within social science disciplines and that normal science, the process by 'which a para-digm is amplified and reinforced, is not practiced. Kuhn's work has received its share of critic ism and praise over the years. Kuhn himself has written more detailed explanations of his ori ginal thesis. Criticism has centered on three aspects: I) the vagueness o f the concept of a paradigm, 2) the noncumulative nature of sc ientific achievement, and 3) the apparent "dullness" of normal science. The philosophers and historians of the very disciplines Kuhn says are governed by paradigms have been the more critical and the less accepting of Kuhn 's work. Many have accepted the general idea of a paradigm as a world v iew, but have rejected Kuhn 's concepts of nonnal science and the noncumu lative aspect of scient ific work. Social scientists have adopted the paradigm concept with vigor. Social scientists (and I include librarians in this rubric), often use the tenn paradigm as a convenient label to replace theory. philosophy, or methodology. Library science arguably belongs in the social sciences. The original impe-tus for the subject of this column was the recent talk of a paradigm shift from ownership to access . The reader may wish to examine the paradigm concept very closely before adopting this meaningful and powerful concept to trends in Iibrarianship. At t;q"li,,"~d on pag~ 54 Acquiring Minds contjl1lf~dfl'Qmpage 24 the end of this colonm is a bibliography of sources which may help illuminate withthepracticeoflibcarianship? our power of explanation has been magnified or diminished. the problem of the paradigm. • •• What if we conceded that llbrarianship. as a social science, Read a few and then ask these questions of yourself: .o.. Can we reconcile Kuhn 's vision an applied field and service Bibliography profess ion, could have a paradigm? • Kuhn, Thomas . ... What might the paradigm look like and how would it operate? ... Are changes in librarianship truly paradigmatic, or changes along a continuum? The Kuhni an concept is so compelling thai it begs to be read in the original works and this condensation does nol do it justice. I urge you to read his works and then decide yourself. You may choose to reject Kuhn's definition of a paradigm and apply the paradigm concept to ex plain genera l changes and philosophies in Iibrarianship. But ask yourself whether by rejecting Kuhn's concept we have gai ned or lost something in the process and whether 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revoluw,ns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1972. The Structure of Sc;.ntific RevolutWns. 2d. ed. en!. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1978. The Essential Tension: Selected Stu dies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mastermann, MargaceL 1970. The Nature of a Paradigm, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited ~y Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 59·89. Shapere, Dudley. 1971 . The Paradig m Concept. Science, 172: 706·709 .~ 

Acquiring Minds Want To Know: A Glimpse of Paradigms

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Acquiring_minds_want_to_know_a_glimpse_of_paradigms.pdf.X.pdf

Acquiring Minds Want To Know: A Glimpse of Paradigms

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro