Paradigm

The word “paradigm” began to be used in the late 15th century with the meaning of “example” or “model.” The term first appears in Latin as paradigma (“pattern, example”), particularly in grammar to denote an “example word pattern.” Latin itself derived this word from the Greek paradeigma, which means “model, example, prototype” and is derived from the verb paradeiknynai, meaning “to show side by side” or “to exhibit.”

In the 20th century, the word “paradigm” acquired a more specialized philosophical meaning. During this period, it came to be used to describe the logical or conceptual framework that determines how people in a particular field perceive and interpret the world.

A paradigm is the shared answer that members of a scientific community give to the question “How is science done?” It is the common mode of thinking that determines which questions scientists ask, what methods they use, and which results they consider valid. A paradigm provides a philosophical framework that outlines assumptions about the nature of truth and reality, identifies which questions are worthy of investigation, and specifies how such investigations should be conducted. Thus, a paradigm is not merely a choice of technical method but the underlying philosophical and epistemological foundation of research.

The concept of paradigm entered scientific philosophy debates and became a central concept especially after Thomas S. Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). For Kuhn, paradigm is the key tool for explaining scientific development. It refers to the fundamental conceptual framework that determines the nature, direction, and methodological boundaries of scientific research. Kuhn defines paradigm as the shared foundation that determines how scientific communities think, which problems they consider worth investigating, and what kinds of solutions to these problems are acceptable.

Kuhn conceptualizes paradigm as a collection of universally accepted scientific achievements that serve as a model for a scientific community for a certain period.

These achievements:

• Unite scientists around a particular style of work,
• Determine which problems to pursue,
• Specify the methods and tools to be used in addressing these problems,
• Define what kinds of solutions are considered “successful” and “scientific.”

Paradigm According to Kuhn

Kuhn uses the concept of paradigm as a fundamental explanatory tool for understanding scientific development. In Kuhn’s view, a paradigm consists of the collective agreement among scientists in a particular period regarding:

• Exemplary problem solutions,
• Methodological understanding,
• Values and principles,
• Conceptual models and generalizations.

This framework plays a decisive role in determining what a scientific community considers a question, which methods to employ, and which types of explanations are deemed scientifically valid.

Initially, Kuhn defined paradigms as “universally accepted scientific achievements that provide a model for a scientific community for a certain period.” This definition indicates that a paradigm refers to exemplary models of solutions and shared practices within a scientific field.

The Two-Layered Structure of the Paradigm Concept

In later works, Kuhn refined his definition of paradigm by distinguishing two fundamental components:

Disciplinary Matrix

A holistic structure composed of symbolic generalizations, models, values, methodological principles, and scientific assumptions shared by a scientific community. The disciplinary matrix establishes the foundational principles that determine how scientists inquire, reason, and perceive the world, including which models they adopt. It enables scientific communication and provides a common ground for collaborative work.

Exemplar

Typical problem solutions and concrete application examples that scientists refer to when learning research practice. These exemplars, central to scientific education, actively shape how scientists actually “do science.”

When considered together, these two components enable the paradigm to function both as a broad structure that unites scientific communities and as a collection of concrete examples that guide everyday scientific practice.

Paradigm in the Social Sciences

In the social sciences, paradigm is regarded as a fundamental mode of thinking that determines how researchers:

• Perceive reality,
• Interpret social phenomena,
• Consider which methods valid and appropriate.

In the social sciences, two main paradigms are particularly discussed:

1. Explanatory–Positivist Paradigm: Attempts to explain reality in terms of measurable, objective, and generalizable laws. It focuses on cause–effect relationships and relies on the objective rules of the scientific method.
2. Interpretive–Understanding Paradigm: Aims to understand and interpret social phenomena within the meaning worlds, values, and contexts of individuals. It accepts that reality is multilayered and contextual.

The rise of qualitative research approaches is interpreted as a consequence of criticisms directed at the positivist paradigm and the growing recognition of its limitations. This situation clearly demonstrates the central role of the paradigm concept in shaping research orientations in the social sciences.

The fundamental functions of the paradigm concept in science and the social sciences can be summarized as follows:

• Defines the shared foundation among scientists and researchers.
• Determines which questions are worth asking and which are considered “unscientific.”
• Frames the acceptable methods, types of evidence, and criteria for evaluation.
• Highlights that scientific development is not merely technical but also has historical, sociological, and psychological dimensions.
• Reveals the plurality and power relations within science through tensions and conflicts between different paradigms.
• In the social sciences especially, distinctions between positivist, postpositivist, interpretive, and postmodern approaches become understandable through the paradigm concept.

Therefore, the paradigm remains a crucial concept in both Kuhn’s philosophy of science and debates in social science methodology, as it makes visible the framework and boundaries of scientific thought.