in the near future, to distinguish it from the many important and interesting questions
that do not have an answer at any particular stage of progress (Davis, 1994). 'Normal
science' in Kuhnian terms is held together, rightly or wrongly, by the norms of
reviewing and acceptance that work in that taken-for-granted theoretical framework. A
paradigm shift occurs when that framework changes, perhaps through the
accumulation of evidence, perhaps due to a genuinely new idea, but partly through a
change in general acceptance. Often a new paradigm emerges because a procedure or
set of rules has been created for converting another more general query into a puzzle.
But, what Kuhn saw as normal science could also be simply passive and uncritical
rather than genuinely cumulative in nature. It could be based on practices that differ
from those stated, because of deceit, either of the self or the audience (Lakatos, 1978,
p.44), and because researchers conceal their actual methodological divergence in
practice (Gephart, 1988).
However, instead of using 'paradigm' to refer to a topic or field of research (such as
traditional physics) which might undergo a radical shift on the basis of evidence (to
quantum physics, for example), some commentators now use it to refer to a whole
approach to research including philosophy, values and method (Perlesz and Lindsay,
2003). The most common of these approaches are qualitative and quantitative, even
though the q-words only make sense, if they make sense at all, as descriptions of data.
These commentators tend to use the term paradigm conservatively, to defend
themselves against the need to change, or against contradictory evidence of a different
nature to their own. Their idea of paradigm appears to defend them because they
pointlessly parcel up unrelated ideas in methodology (as explained in Chapter Four of
this collection). The idea of normal science as a collection of individuals all working
towards the solution of a closely defined problem has all but disappeared. Instead, we
have paradigm as a symptom of scientific immaturity. The concept of paradigm has,
thus, become a cultural cliche with so many meanings it is now almost meaningless.
And many of the terms associated with paradigms - the ‘isms’ such as positivism -
are used almost entirely to refer to others, having become intellectually acceptable
terms of abuse and ridicule (see also Hammersley, 2005).
Unfortunately, some novice research students can quickly become imprisoned within
one of these fake qualitative and quantitative 'paradigms’. They learn, because they
11