|
Outline and Study Guide
Prepared by Professor Frank Pajares, Emory University
Chapter III - The Nature of Normal Science.
If a paradigm consists of basic and incontrovertible assumptions about the nature of the discipline, what questions are left to ask?
- When they first appear, paradigms are limited in scope and in precision.
- "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute" (23).
- But more successful does not mean completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number (23).
- Initially, a paradigm offers the promise of success.
- Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise. This is achieved by
- extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing,
- increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions,
- and further articulation of the paradigm itself.
- In other words, there is a good deal of mopping-up to be done.
- Mop-up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers.
- Mopping-up is what normal science is all about!
- This paradigm-based research (25) is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24).
- no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomena.
- no effort to discover anomalies.
- when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored.
- anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind).
- no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try).
- "Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies" (24).
- "Perhaps these are defects . . . "
- ". . . but those restrictions, born from confidence in a paradigm, turn out to be essential to the development of science. By focusing attention on a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable" (24).
- . . . and, when the paradigm ceases to function properly, scientists begin to behave differently and the nature of their research problems changes.
- Mopping-up can prove fascinating work (24). [You do it. We all do it. And we love to do it. In fact, we'd do it for free.]
- The principal problems of normal science.
- Determination of significant fact.
- A paradigm guides and informs the fact-gathering (experiments and observations described in journals) decisions of researchers?
- Researchers focus on, and attempt to increase the accuracy and scope of, facts (constructs/concepts) that the paradigm has shown to be particularly revealing of the nature of things (25).
- Matching of facts with theory.
- Researchers focus on facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigmatic theory (26)
- Great effort and ingenuity are required to bring theory and nature into closer and closer agreement.
- A paradigm sets the problems to be solved (27).
- Articulation of theory.
- Researchers undertake empirical work to articulate the paradigm theory itself (27)—resolve residual ambiguities, refine, permit solution of problems to which the theory had previously only drawn attention. This articulation includes
- determination of universal constants.
- development of quantitative laws.
- selection of ways to apply the paradigm to a related area of interest.
- This is, in part, a problem of application (but only in part).
- Paradigms must undergo reformulation so that their tenets closely correspond to the natural object of their inquiry (clarification by reformulation).
- "The problems of paradigm articulation are simultaneously theoretical and experimental" (33).
- Such work should produce new information and a more precise paradigm.
- This is the primary work of many sciences.
- To desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines (34).
|