Paradigm changes in Research: Kuhn meets socio-ecological transition theory

Summary

Recent research indicates that disruptiveness in science has decreased, triggering discussions about the reason for this. Early Thomas Kuhn discussed why revolutions in science are slow but inevitable processes. A revolution requires a new paradigm to form, which is distinct and incommensurable to the dominant paradigm. Kuhn identifies markers for the formation of a new paradigm, such as institutionalization through the foundation of new journals or research groups. To better understand transition processes within a scientific discipline, I not only draw on the work of Kuhn but also on the adaptive cycle by Gunderson and Holling. Combining these two approaches facilitates theorization of the reasons for the reduced disruptiveness at the scientific discipline (system) level. To elucidate the interplay between individuals and the scientific discipline, and thus their role in processes of scientific paradigm shifts, the new model further integrates resilience theory. Factors determining the resilience of an adaptive system explain resistance to change at individual and system levels, as well as the interplay between these two levels. The discourse between environmental and ecological economics is used to illustrate the theoretical discussion and apply the novel transition concept to a specific case. The analysis shows that institutionalization, providing better answers to anomalies, and uncovering maladaptations are key in the transition process.