Paradigms in Structure : finally, a count
- PDF / 556,842 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 70 Downloads / 179 Views
Paradigms in Structure: finally, a count K. Brad Wray1 Received: 24 June 2020 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2020
Abstract Following the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions the term paradigm became ubiquitous. It is now commonplace in academic writing across the disciplines. Though much has been written about Kuhn’s use of the term and its impact on other fields, there has not yet been a systematic study of how frequently Kuhn used the term in Structure. My aim in this paper is to provide such an analysis. I aim to answer the following questions: (1) How many times does Kuhn actually use the term in the book?; (2) What is the most number of times that he uses the term on a single page?; and (3) Is the term used evenly throughout the book or is it mentioned more often in some chapters than in others? Keywords Paradigm · Kuhn · Structure of Scientific Revolutions Following the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions the term paradigm became ubiquitous. It is now commonplace in academic writing across the disciplines (see Bornmann et al. 2020). This is odd for a number of reasons. First, Kuhn was criticized both before and after the publication of the book for his use of the term (see, for example, Shapere 1964). Consequently, it is odd that such a problematic term should be taken up by so many others. Second, by 1970 Kuhn was uneasy with his use of term (see Wray 2011). Thus, given Kuhn’s own partial disavowal of the term, it is odd that it had such a lasting and wide-ranging impact. Third, Kuhn had invoked the term, in part, as a means to distinguish the natural sciences, where there are paradigms, and the social sciences, where he initially claimed there were no paradigms (see Kuhn 1962/2012, xlii). He did not think the term was relevant to the wide range of domains in which it has been applied. Though much has been written about Kuhn’s use of the term and its impact on other fields (see, for example, Walker 2010; Eckberg and Hill 1979; and Donmoyer 2006), there has not yet been a systematic study of how frequently Kuhn used the term in Structure. My aim in this paper is to provide such an analysis. I aim to answer such questions as: (1) how many times does Kuhn actually use the term in the book?; (2) what is the most number of
* K. Brad Wray [email protected] 1
Centre for Science Studies, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientometrics
times that he uses the term on a single page?; and (3) is the term used evenly throughout the book or is it mentioned more often in some chapters than in others?
Problems with paradigms When James B. Conant, Kuhn’s mentor, read a draft manuscript of Structure, he expressed disdain at Kuhn’s heavy reliance on the term “paradigm.” In a letter to Kuhn, Conant wrote “those who react negatively to your point of view … will brush you aside, I fear, as the man who grabbed onto the word ‘paradigm’ and used it as a magical verbal wand to explain everything!” (see Conant 1961, cited in Cedar
Data Loading...
