Paradigm vs. Theory
I wanted to use this entry to expand on my reasoning for concluding that those concepts we refer to as "paradigms" in social science, specifically IR, are not paradigms under a Kuhnian conception. In Kuhn's explanation, paradigms are universally accepted, irreconcilable, theories about how the world, or a particular phenomenon, works. In order to be a practitioner of a certain area of scientific study, one has to adhere to this paradigm. In times of controversy and revolution, it is possible for adherants of multiple paradigms to coexist; however, one paradigm must gradually win out, forcing others into obscurity and forcing those who refuse to accept the dominant paradigm out of the field of science.
Clearly, that is not how "paradigms" fundtion in international relations. Just because neo-liberalism exists and has become widely accepted, does not mean that all eralists must convert to neo-liberalism in order to continue as social scientists. (Indeed, prominent realists can still be seen in public life in positions such as Secretary of State.) Since multiple theories can exist and be practiced at once with relative credibility, and can sometimes be blended into a new middle paradigm in the practice of an individual or group. This leads to two conclusions about social science in relationship to Kuhn's theories: 1) social science is not a "science" and 2) social science theories are not paradigms.
Of course, my conclusions, logical as they seem to me, are in direct opposition to the belifs of many leading social scientists as I feel I should defend/clarify them somewhat. First, my conclusions only state that social science and social science "paradigms" do not fit the strict Kuhnian definition of science and paradigm. I do not intend to say that Kuhn's works and conclusions do not have valuable applications in and lessons for social science. His way of thinking about paradigms and paradigm shifts can still say important things about how the world and human psychology works. Furthermore, it is possible that some of these social scientists may later adopt a universal paradigm, and convert to a more "scientific" method of practice. In this case, they could, potentially begin to be "sciences" in Kuhn's definition and we would, in retrospect, view this current period of proliferating theories as a pre-paradigmatic era such as the ones that existed in natural or hard sciences in the early days of their development.
posted by lennearb @ 1:08 PM
<< Home