Editing Paradigm (section)

==In social sciences==
Kuhn himself did not consider the concept of paradigm as appropriate for the social sciences. He explains in his preface to ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' that he developed the concept of paradigm precisely to distinguish the social from the natural sciences. While visiting the [[Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences]] in 1958 and 1959, surrounded by social scientists, he observed that they were never in agreement about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods. He explains that he wrote this book precisely to show that there can never be any paradigms in the social sciences. [[Mattei Dogan]], a French sociologist, in his article "Paradigms in the Social Sciences", develops Kuhn's original thesis that there are no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are [[polysemy|polysemic]], involving the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the non-existence of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology.

However, both Kuhn's original work and Dogan's commentary are directed at disciplines that are defined by conventional labels (such as "sociology"). While it is true that such broad groupings in the social sciences are usually not based on a Kuhnian paradigm, each of the competing sub-disciplines may still be underpinned by a paradigm, research programme, research tradition, and/ or professional imagery. These structures will be motivating research, providing it with an agenda, defining what is and is not anomalous evidence, and inhibiting debate with other groups that fall under the same broad disciplinary label. (A good example is provided by the contrast between [[B. F. Skinner|Skinnerian]] [[radical behaviourism]] and [[personal construct theory]] (PCT) within psychology. The most significant of the many ways these two sub-disciplines of psychology differ concerns meanings and intentions. In PCT, they are seen as the central concern of psychology; in radical behaviourism, they are not scientific evidence at all, as they cannot be directly observed.)

Such considerations explain the conflict between the Kuhn/ Dogan view, and the views of others (including Larry Laudan, see above), who do apply these concepts to social sciences.

Handa,<ref>Handa, M. L. (1986) ''"Peace Paradigm: Transcending Liberal and Marxian Paradigms".'' Paper presented in "International Symposium on Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi, India, March 20–25, 1987, Mimeographed at O.I.S.E., University of Toronto, Canada (1986)</ref> M.L. (1986) introduced the idea of "social paradigm" in the context of social sciences. He identified the basic components of a social paradigm. Like Kuhn, Handa addressed the issue of changing paradigm; the process popularly known as "[[paradigm shift]]". In this respect, he focused on social circumstances that precipitate such a shift and the effects of the shift on social institutions, including the institution of education. This broad shift in the social arena, in turn, changes the way the individual perceives reality.

Another use of the word ''paradigm'' is in the sense of "[[worldview]]". For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase "paradigm shift" to denote a change in how a given society goes about organizing and understanding reality. A "dominant paradigm" refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that are most standard and widely held at a given time. Dominant paradigms are shaped both by the community's cultural background and by the context of the historical moment. Hutchin <ref>Hutchin, Ted (2013) ''The Right Choice : Using Theory of Constraints for Effective Leadership'', Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, p. 124 {{ISBN|978-1-4398-8625-0}}</ref> outlines some conditions that facilitate a system of thought to become an accepted dominant paradigm:
* Professional organizations that give legitimacy to the paradigm
* Dynamic leaders who introduce and purport the paradigm
* Journals and editors who write about the system of thought. They both disseminate the information essential to the paradigm and give the paradigm legitimacy
* Government agencies who give credence to the paradigm
* Educators who propagate the paradigm's ideas by teaching it to students
* Conferences conducted that are devoted to discussing ideas central to the paradigm
* Media coverage
* Lay groups, or groups based around the concerns of lay persons, that embrace the beliefs central to the paradigm
* Sources of funding to further research on the paradigm