Kuhn's concept of paradigm and scientific revolution

Kuhn's Concept Of The Paradigm, Must Be Critical

Annotated Bibliography

Axelrod, R.H., October 2001, a New Paradigm for Change, Innovative Leader, Vol. 10, No. 10, http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article538_body.html last accessed on September 15, 2009 -- Richard Axelrod is the president of the Axelrod Group, an organization specialized in offering change consultancy to companies in transition or in need for any other change management assistance. His expertise in the field has materialized in an ability to write a highly noteworthy book entitled Terms of Engagement: Changing the Way We Change Organizations (Berrett-Koehler, 2000). The article cited in this report is a reproduction of several excerpts from the book. The main limitation is that it does not detail on the actual paradigm shift as forwarded and applicable according to Kuhn, but still, he somehow manages to link it to modern day change management. The article is highly useful as it gives a practical application of paradigm evolution through its parallel with organizational change.

Forster, M.R., March 19, 1998, Guide to Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," University of Wisconsin-Madison, Philosophy Department, http://philosophy.wisc.edu/Forster/220/kuhn.htm last accessed on September 15, 2009 -- This source presents the reader with a multitude of benefits. For once, it is retrieved from the website of the department of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, meaning as such that the information is peer reviewed and reliable, as well as it is based on years of research and expertise. Then, its author, Malcolm R Forster, introduces a multitude of direct quotes from Kuhn's book, giving a sense of authenticity and reliability. What can be perceived as a limitation however is the fact that the article makes use of a complex language, meaning that the message sent may at times fail to be best comprehended by the inexperienced reader.

Franklin, J., June 2000, Thomas Kuhn's Irrationalism, the New Criterion, Vol. 18, No. 10, http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/kuhn-franklin-2634 last accessed on September 15, 2009 -- James Franklin's approach is a triple one -- on the one hand, he argues the parallel with humanitarian studies, giving as such Kuhn's theory of paradigms a more practical applicability. Secondly, he assesses the reasons as to which the Structure of Scientific Revolutions was so successful. Finally, the third angle is that of revealing the inconsistencies in the book and the elements of irrational, all which constitute a high point in a critique of Kuhn's work. The article is written in a formal and specialized language, making it as such difficult to be understood by the novice philosopher. Nevertheless, it constitutes a noteworthy lecture.

Kuhn, T.S., 1962, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press

Kuhn's "Paradigm" & "Normal Science," Weber State University, Department of Physics, http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/mundane/kuhn.htm last accessed on September 15, 2009 -- This article is the result of the collective efforts of the physics professors at the Webber State University. Its benefits include the vast expertise of the authors, combined with the offering of a new practical application of the paradigm theory, in the context of physics. The piece is fairly critical towards Kuhn's findings and the authors support their findings with examples and evidence from physics research.

Thomas Kuhn, Emory University, Division of Educational Studies, http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html last accessed on September 15, 2009 -- similar to Kuhn's "Paradigm" & "Normal Science," Thomas Kuhn is the result of collective efforts on the part of the professors at the Emory University. The article enjoys the expertise of several theoreticians, who benefit from a critical eye and an ability to assess the available materials. The piece is written in an easy to read style, meaning that it will quickly find readers from various educational backgrounds. Additionally, it is useful as it presents both the critique as well as the arguments defending the initial rationale.

Kuhn's Concept of the Paradigm

Critique of Kuhn's Paradigm

The theory of the paradigm shift has applications in numerous fields, including in today's business community. Relative to this domain, Richard Axelrod (2001) finds that the modern day managers strive too hard to implement change as an ongoing business model, and in this effort, they fail to recognize the merits of their staff members and properly integrate them within the change endeavors, leading as such to internal frustrations as well as lack of ability to generate the initially foreseen results. As a parallel to Kuhn's model, it can be argued that these modern day leaders strive to create paradigm shifts without a basis of discrepancies. In other words, there is no substance of crisis, which in turn means that there is no solid basis for change.

By applying Kuhn's concept to the modern day business environment, managers would have to await crises in order to develop new business models or implement new strategies. The American philosopher argues that only in such circumstances would a new paradigm emerge, and in today's business context, lead to the desired results. One can nevertheless argue the contrary. The contemporaneous business community is extremely dynamic and challenging, forcing organizational leaders to develop and implement new strategies on a constant basis, without the existence of an actual crisis. Managers are advised to identify and satisfy stakeholders' needs even before these become aware of the existence of the new needs. This is the imperative key to success in the highly challenging modern business community. If managers were to listen to Kuhn's model and only develop new courses of action once a crisis emerged, it is highly probable that they would lose their competitive position and as such fail to survive. Finally then, in this era of rapid technological developments and globalization, managers do not afford to wait for a crisis to develop a new paradigm, but must create new paradigms themselves in order to survive.

James Franklin (2000) looks at Kuhn's work from a different angle, and finds that the paradigm theory is the same in science as it is in terms of human interactions: "Kuhn's thesis is that scientific theories are no better than ones in the humanities. The idea that science is all theoretical talk and negotiation, which never really establishes anything, is one that caused trouble long ago for Galileo." Furthermore, Franklin looks at the content of the book and finds several inconsistencies. Probably the most relevant example in this sense is constituted by the classification of several "unsustainable" theories. The author of the article points out that Kuhn did not clarify the understanding of the appellative "unsustainable," nor its context, be it logic or philosophical. Either way, Franklin argues that the use of this adjective in the given context is inappropriate. "If it means that there are a number of observed results that would be unlikely if the theory were true, then one is back in the realm of logic, of the bad old philosophy of science that studied the relation of evidence to hypothesis. Naturally, Kuhn is not keen to emphasize that direction. But if "unsustainable" is a purely psychological matter, a kind of collective disgust by a salon des refuses of younger scientists who simply think their elders are too smug, then it is impossible to see why it should have any standing as science" (Franklin).

An article of the Physics Department at the Weber State University argues that Kuhn's complicated view is due to the essential nebulous character of the paradigm itself. Given this situation then, the authors at the Weber University argue that Kuhn's model is not entirely applicable as one cannot entirely know the features and characteristics of a paradigm, such as its components or its evolution. They go on by offering the example of the atoms, which, despite the extensive years of research and analysis, continue to be used in terms of assumption and controlled experiments. Given this situation, in which it may be difficult to control and foresee the movement and actions of atoms, the professors at Weber conclude that it is rather impossible to foresee the evolution of science as a whole, and even less so include it in a paradigm.

The final critique brought to Kuhn relies in the actual choice of words. Critics argue that the concept of paradigm is generally vague, and as such fails to offer consistency and reliability throughout the research and theory formulation process. Despite this criticism however, the author of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions promoted the concept of paradigm in its understanding of "a collection of beliefs shared by scientists, a set of agreements about how problems are to be understood" (Emory University, Division of Educational Studies).