In this article I explore the meaning
of paradigm, the limitations of the old paradigm and the need
for a new one. This understanding is crucial if people are to
develop a genuine social science which can lead us to overcome
problems which currently wrack our societies.
1. Meaning.
The word paradigm comes from the Greek word 'paradeigma' which
means model, pattern or example; a commonly accepted set of
scientific ideas and assumptions. The term was coined by the
historian Thomas Kuhn in 1962.
The term is used to describe the boundaries of a science or
discipline and when a person proposes ideas which lie outside
these boundaries then such ideas are not recognised by the body
of people who uphold the paradigm. Such thinkers are described
as 'fringe', not to be taken seriously. In this way the world-view
of, say science, is maintained.
For example there is a paradigm for physics and chemistry.
That paradigm sets out the ways research can be undertaken and
presented. Each discipline works within its own paradigm or
boundary; biology, psychology and legal studies introduce students
to the existing paradigm for each of those subject areas.
A paradigm then is a world-view maintained by the practitioners
within a field and a paradigm shift occurs when society sees
the world through a new mind-set. However, first there needs
to be a reason to create a new mind-set. There has to be something
lacking in the old one which makes it inapplicable; then a solution
and new methods are developed which become the new mind-set.
Sometimes the former mind-set accepts the changes, as in the
case for instance of Albert Einstein whose thinking changed
the paradigm of physics. Sometimes the former mind-set opposes
the new one using authority to claim that it is 'fringe', false
or not to be taken seriously; this occurred with Galileo when
the Church condemned his theory that the earth traveled around
the sun.
2. Limitation of the old paradigm.
The old, or existing paradigm is that of Western Science. It
is often referred to as that of the 'hard' sciences and it formed
the basis of new disciplines such as psychology and sociology
during the 19th century. This paradigm deals with what is measurable,
what is testable, what is repeatable and what is accepted in
the major publication journals through which researchers expose
their work to the scrutiny of their peers.
A classic figure in this paradigm is Sir Isaac Newton who gave
us the laws of motion. His theory dominated mechanics until
early in the 20th century when physicists discovered the world
of quanta, or quantum physics. The laws of motion are beautiful
and precise.
They taught us that every reaction has an equal and opposite
reaction along with all the laws of motion, resistance, acceleration
and mass we learned in high school. These laws provided a basis
for all the great technological developments of the 19th century;
notably the steam engine. They still apply of course to objects
on the earth's surface so if you kick a ball the equal and opposite
reaction still occurs.
In the physical or mechanical realm the existing paradigm was
supreme. These laws (of motion and mechanics) were referred
to by some as the 'billiard ball universe' and it's easy to
recognise the analogy. Hit a ball at a particular angle with
a particular force and a skilled player can achieve the desired
result. This world-view also gave rise to people thinking that
the universe was like a giant clock and when the correct settings
were made then the universe would provide the desired result.
Everything could be understood, described precisely in mathematical
terms and, so some thought, if science persisted the entire
universe would ultimately behave like clockwork.
As wondrous as these physical understandings were they did
not work when applied to people. Early psychology for instance
did not understand this and so it assumed it the methods of
research worked for chemistry and physics then they would also
work for the study of people. They did not work like that. Simply
put people are not predictable.
In the mechanical world one tonne is exactly that no matter
how often it is weighed. The composition of water, which is
two parts of hydrogen to one part oxygen is the same all over
the surface of the planet. In other words the concerns of physics
and chemistry were predictable matters and elements always responded
the same where-ever they were tested (I am ignoring here minuscule
differences resulting from altitude).
But not people. Because one person behaves in a certain way
tells us nothing about how the next person might behave under
similar circumstances. Furthermore a person may respond differently
to the same conditions at different times. People cannot be
treated in the same way as the element iron, the laws of motion
or the composition of water.
To make matters even more complex when people research other
people they are involved, they are active participants in a
way which is not true of research into the temperatures at which
elements melt. Furthermore the variables can and often do change
during the course of the study of people again this is not true
of the melting point of say iron. Thirdly people change and
can react to the information gathered about them whereas iron
is iron and will melt at a given temperature regardless of how
those applying the temperature feel or think.
In conclusion the existing mechanical paradigm is not applicable
to, does not fit, the study of people.
3. The need for a new world-view (paradigm).
The history of the 20th century is littered with the disasters
of applying hard science to the study of people. For example
in Italy there exists an entire deserted town which was build
during a period of land reform and designed to suit the needs
of the farmers involved. Well it did not and they refused to
ever live there. In the Congo the Belgiums built an abattoir
on the rationalisation that this would provide reliable meat
protein and employment. Being in the tropics the plan failed
and the construction sits rusting and rotting to this day. In
northern Australia houses suitable to Europeans were built for
nomadic Aboriginal people. They were never used because the
design ignored the sleeping customs of Aboriginal people. I
hesitate to mention the history of psychiatry yet it resounds
with terrible echoes from attempts to treat people like machines.
In it extremes, human behaviour is generally made worse by the
application of hard science. Conflict and war are not solved
by hard science which can only make weapons more destructive.
If humanity is to resolve the conflict between the West and
Islam, between the two sides of Northern Ireland or the seemingly
insolvable Middle East impasse then a new way of thinking will
be required. Now I want to look at the three aspects mentioned
above in section 2 to feel a way towards a new paradigm.
In a new paradigm there has to be attention to the relationship
of the researcher to the people being researched. The notion
of objectivity, so strong in the 19th century mechanical sciences,
is not longer tenable. At no stage of social research can a
researcher claim to be objective, it is simply not possible
and no amount of methodology can reverse this. Thus process
of reflection, supervision and debriefing must be integrated
into a new paradigm.
Because frameworks and variables change during the course of
research into people the new paradigm must provide flexibility
and calibration. One of the best ways to achieve this is to
provide feed-back to the group researched and then pay close
attention to their responses. Sometimes the people researched
can say, "No that does not represent my attitude" and
the research can calibrate, change to take account of this feed-back.
Through such feed-back loops an accurate picture can be arrived
at.
A key to understanding the basis of a new world-view (paradigm)
is the nature of knowing. In the old paradigm knowing is authoritative
and lacks reflection. It is as if there is an authority which
does indeed know. This is not true in the study of people.
The only way to establish truth in social research is to put
a finding, phenomenon or proposition to a group of peers and
see if they agree. When they agree then we can assume knowledge.
I cannot prove that there is a green cup on my desk; however
I can ask a group of peers to see for themselves and if they
all agree that there is a green cup then we can proceed. Gone
is the authority and in its place comes reflection, that process
of reviewing one's work, one's interactions and one's finding.
Also subjecting that reflection to supervision, allies who can
assist a researcher to not loose sight of the lack of objectivity
and active participation.
In researching people there is a sensibility required which
is irrelevant when studying inert material. If the keyword for
the old paradigm is clockwork then the keyword for the new one
is relational for we have entered an era in which relationship
is increasingly important; not only the familiar relationship
of those close to us but also our relationship with nature,
the relational world. Thus researchers of people need to acquire
the skills of attention which are four. First, ordinary attention,
being aware of where we are and what we are doing. Then attention
to the environment, its qualities, moods and atmospheres. Third
is attention to the thinking and feeling of others and fourthly
attention to the number of issues attended to at any one time;
this number will swell and contract over time.
This is a beginning and in no way pretends to be comprehensive.
Your own reflection on these ideas is welcome for ultimately
we co-create our reality and so we will also co-create a new
paradigm which can lead us to resolving conflict, repairing
the damaged earth and restoring peoples' rightful place within
our life on earth. Return
ABN 14 126 685 713
Best viewed at 1024 x 768px
©2000- ASHE - Australasian
School of Human Ecology. All rights reserved. | 