The structure of scientific revolutionThomas Kuhn's perspective

The role of scientific traditionA scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. A PARADIGM must exist.True or false? Is science the only area that needs a paradigm? Can ANYTHING function without a paradigm?Examples?

What is the role of education?The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind.True or false? Is this true with any kind of education? Is there a difference between "Beginning" and "more advanced" education?Examples?

What is the role of research?Research is about confirming existing concepts, and exploring their applications. Research tends to work within a paradigm.Kuhn says it is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".What do you think? Is it always that way?

How does progress occur?When an anomaly undermines the basic tenets of the current scientific practiceThese tenets and assumptions no longer workNew assumptions must developNew assumptions "paradigms" - require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of prior facts.This is difficult and time consuming. Therefore is also strongly resisted by the established community.

Scientific revolutionThis process is what Kuhn calls a "scientific revolution", occurring through paradigm-shift

How do paradigms emerge?Researchers observe phenomenaVarious "pre-paradigmatic" interpretations emerge and competeOne interpretation seems better than the others, and gains more and more adherentsThat interpretation becomes a "paradigm"

After a paradigm is createdA paradigm transforms a group into a profession or, at least, a discipline. From this follows the formation of specialized journals, the foundation of professional bodies and a claim to a special place in academe. There is a promulgation of scholarly articles "addressed only to professional colleagues, [those] whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be assumed and who prove to be the only ones able to read the papers addressed to them".

Once a paradigm existsIt resists changeWhy?

Are there paradigms in psychology?Which ones?

Examples of paradigms in psychologyThe Cartesian (after Descartes) or Newtonian paradigm: the person as a mechanism, as a clock, as a computerThe evolutionary paradigm: the person in change, as an adaptive organism, in continuity with the other speciesThe ecological paradigm: the person as part of a complex system

There are also "sub-paradigms"Paradigms within sub-fields of psychology. They dictate what gets published etc.

Why is this relevant to the history of psychology?Because also, history is told from a certain point of view, from a given paradigm.What, do you think, are the basic assumptions of the text we are using?

The end