Vol. 29, No. 7, July 2020, pp. 1650–1657 DOI 10.1111/poms.13188 ISSN 1059-1478|EISSN 1937-5956|20|2907|1650 © 2020 Production and Operations Management Society Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms Gopesh Anand Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 469 Wohlers Hall, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] Eric C. Larson Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 8 Wohlers Hall, 1206 S. Sixth, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] Joseph T. Mahoney* Department of Business Administration, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 140C Wohlers Hall, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, [email protected] his study provides key arguments and contributions of Kuhn (1970) concerning paradigms, paradigm shifts, and sci- T entific revolutions. We provide interpretations of Kuhn’s (1970) key ideas and concepts, especially as they relate to business management research. We conclude by considering the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts for contemporary business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the phi- losophy of science. Key words: Paradigms; paradigm shifts; scientific revolutions; normal science History: Received: February 2019; Accepted: March 2020 by Kalyan Singhal, after 3 revisions. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances Thomas S. Kuhn’s (1962/1970) The Structure of Scien- through shifts in theory and not by the accumulation — tific Revolutions (SSR) with over 100,000 Google Scho- of knowledge, which was commonly held prior to lar citations—is a landmark study devoted to the 1 publication of SSR (Oppenheim and Putnam 1958). A history of science. Kuhn, as a self-described “practic- key insight from SSR was that contradictory theories ing historian of science” (1977: 3) emphasizes the criti- cannot be simply reduced to a unified (dialectical) cal role of paradigms, which are taken to be synthesis, but rather that the ideas of a successful “universally recognized scientific achievements that competing paradigm must displace ideas of the old for a time provide model problems and solutions to a paradigm. community of practitioners” (1970: viii). A paradigm In the next section, we describe Kuhn’s (1970) consists of the fundamental ideas, methods, language, notion of paradigms. Then, we consider Kuhn’s and theories that are accepted by the members of a (1970) thesis of paradigm shifts and scientific revolu- scientific community. A paradigm is critical to the tions, and provide an evaluation regarding SSR’s potential progress of science as “no natural history influence on our understanding of the scientific pro- can be interpreted in the absence of at least some cess. We conclude by considering the practical impli- implicit body of intertwined theoretical and method- cations of paradigms and paradigm shifts for modern ological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and business management researchers and suggest that – criticism” (Kuhn, 1970: 16 17) ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for SSR emphasized the importance of the evolution of the health of a scientific community as methodologi- science (Bird 2000, Wray 2011). Thus, SSR brought cal rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived back historical insights that had been dropped with from the philosophy of science. the eminence of logical positivism and its focus on empirical evidence (Ayer 1959, Carnap 1937). SSR was not an historical account of science, but instead Paradigms and Normal Science pointed out how the textbook accounts of science Paradigms are a shared constellation of group com- highlighting received theory differ substantially from mitments along the spectrum from preferred 1650 Anand, Larson, and Mahoney: Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms Production and Operations Management 29(7), pp. 1650–1657, © 2020 Production and Operations Management Society 1651 analogies and metaphors, to shared exemplars, to concentrating the efforts of the community on a small heuristics, to ontological models, or accepted set of problems. Conversely, paradigms may also con- hypotheses of laws of nature, which influence what strain management scholars by limiting creativity, would be accepted as a warranted explanation and as especially in cases where the creative idea conflicts a puzzle solution. Paradigms influence the roster of with existing paradigms. collectively shared unsolved puzzles and the evalua- Scientific achievements are typically recounted, tion of the importance of each puzzle (Kuhn, 1970: though seldom in their original form, by both elemen- 174–191). Scientists addressing these puzzles abide by tary and advanced textbooks of the discipline. Man- the rules of their discipline, that is, they follow what agement journals serve as the historical record of Kuhn (1970) called the disciplinary matrix of the para- paradigms. Progress in management research depends digm, and the solutions to those puzzles are predeter- on correctly interpreting and citing the articles that mined, although requiring effort to be discovered or together make up those paradigms.2 Since scientists created. Such puzzles typically motivate theoretical are confined to the disciplinary matrix, it is difficult and empirical research in determining facts, matching for them to take a broad, abstract view of the accumu- of facts to theory, and articulating theory (1970: 34). lated knowledge. Instead, most knowledge is gained The matching of facts to theory encourages a disci- by incremental advances exemplified by testing dis- plinary search for greater precision of fundamental crete hypotheses. Scientists can, and often do, build a concepts, more-fine grained measurements of those career based on the incremental advances of normal concepts and their constructs, and replication of science. While a scientific discipline ostensibly cham- empirical results in different contexts. For those work- pions independent critical thinking, a scientist pursu- ing within a paradigmatic tradition, “a scientific com- ing innovative theory or methodologies at a level of munity is an immensely efficient instrument for scientific revolution may be met with sharp (and often solving the problems or puzzles that its paradigms personal) criticism rather than praise. Instead, scien- define” (1970: 166). Members of a scientific commu- tists are trained to learn the same fundamental mod- nity hold a shared set of beliefs that enable this effi- els of their mentors and to embrace a shared ciency. Paradigms related to the methodology and commitment to a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970).3 received theory afford management scholars the There are observable patterns to a successful para- accepted platforms to build their research. These plat- digm. Specifically, the success of a paradigm in nor- forms are the assumed facts that scholars do not need mal science, which is a highly cumulative enterprise, to corroborate each time they seek to develop or test a typically requires: (i) an enduring group of adherents; theory. While management research combines theo- and (ii) maintaining a sufficiently open mind to leave retical concepts with practical implications, para- all sorts of problems within the discipline to be digms help by providing frameworks to build on and resolved (Kuhn, 1970: 10). mechanisms of evolution connecting current research Kuhn states that: “examples which include law, to the accumulated knowledge base. theory, application, and instrumentation together— Paradigms are not merely acquired, codified rules provide models from which spring particular coher- that limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and ent traditions of scientific research” (1970: 13). It is the steps by which they are obtained, but also shared characteristic to normal science to ask those questions intuitions by a community of scholars, which are that the paradigm is equipped to solve. Consequently, often tacitly communicated within the practice of “it is no criterion of goodness in a puzzle that its out- science (Kuhn, 1970: 191–198; Polanyi 1962). A para- come be intrinsically interesting or important” (Kuhn, digm creates clear boundaries for what makes up a 1970: 36). Instead, a contribution within normal given field or defines which theory is relevant. These science is typically evaluated by a scientific commu- boundaries enable scientists to harmonize the choice nity in terms of its adherence to its legitimate prob- of research questions, methods, and ultimately, the lems and standards within the accepted paradigm. direction of inquiry in their fields. A cogent shared Thus, a benefit of a paradigm is not in welcoming crit- schema leads to normal science, which can be defined icism or in openly promoting a scientific revolution, as “research firmly based upon one or more past sci- but rather in providing efficient communication entific achievements, achievements that some particu- among members of a scientific community. lar scientific community acknowledges for a time as Pre-paradigmatic time-periods, in contrast, typi- supplying the foundation for its further practice” cally involve struggles in communication among sci- (1970: 10). Normal science serves