The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper

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'sconcrete 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.

Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review, 2000–2009

“…Big questions can be answered through macroscopic research, as Mills called it (1959, 125), that defines social problems and challenges in terms of their specific and historical structures and contexts. In this approach, theory is used to conceptualize and define the research topic, while methods provide the procedures and techniques to pursue the research (Walker 2010, 444). This kind of problem‐oriented research, tackling issues and problems larger than any single approach could handle, was favored by G‐erman scholars such as Max Weber (Lindenfeld 1997, 296), as well as by such American scholars as Leonard White, Luther Gulick, and Dwight Waldo.…”

Are tourists interesting?

“…It is perhaps tempting to conclude this section with the call to abandon the understanding of how to study tourist behaviour by framing studies within certain paradigms. There are voices trending in that direction (Gorard & Taylor, 2004;Walker, 2010;Harrison, 2017). The milder approach of recognising that they may provide some background factors explaining why incommensurability arises can also be adopted.…”

Framing the Game: An Architectonic Analogue for Meta-Theorizing Academic Activities

“…If truth is an epistemic co-selector of scientific activities, then Popper's (1974Popper's ( , 1980; see also : Mayo, 1996;Walker, 2010) demarcation criterion of risky predictions and falsifiability operate not out of an ontology or bifurcation of type, but by a negotiated process of epistemological discourse games. Through such games theories may be stretched from the ‗truth,' but only so far, before degrading their collective or consensual level of credibility or value in play.…”