The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities

Reference: Walker, T. C. (2010). The perils of paradigm mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), 433-451.

Abstract: A common theme in the Centennial Issue of the American Political Science Review was how subfields have grown more specialized and insulated from one another. In this essay I argue that this trend has been hastened by the inappropriate incorporation of paradigm mentalities, first presented by Thomas Kuhn and later developed by Imre Lakatos. I show how paradigm mentalities help justify rigid opposition to theoretical alternatives and limit critical insight. While paradigm mentalities may be fitting for disciplines that demonstrate Kuhn's concrete scientific achievements, they constrain the study of political science and international relations in particular. I begin with a primer that compares Kuhn and Lakatos to Karl Popper. Next, I point to harmful consequences resulting from applying paradigm mentalities to the study of international relations. Among these is the tendency to act as if realism has earned the status of a paradigm and then invoke criteria of incommensurability and “subsumption” to deflect criticism. I conclude by discussing how Popper's model of science provides a better platform for the study of politics by encouraging theoretical and methodological pluralism.

Notes: Analysis of uncritical use of "paradigm" in political science, very relevant to design and creativity research. Authors argues against wanting to develop and subscribe to a single framework, I would probably argue that his concerns apply more to disciplinary vs. cross-disciplinary research. Some elements I'd say do need to be agreed upon as to enable dialogue. Great paper, well articulated and useful views. It also helps to annotate the use of "paradigms" in daily life and the risks of doing that. I remember Kuhn did publish a chapter called "Second thoughts" where he addresses some of the points made by Walker here, including his view that social sciences can and do have several valid "paradigms" simultaneously. I do find interesting how 'catchy' the word is and how widespread it has become (and alas lost all meaning). Why does that happen to certain concepts and not others?