Download - HSRC Press

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zathat type of research in which the predictions made under the theory can beverified by the facts. The major task is that of solving problems relating tomatching theory and facts. Concerning (3), a good deal of time and attention isspent in the articulation and further refinement (definition, conceptualization,and so on) of the theory, or theories, of the paradigm.The fundamental aim during normal science is to solve problems. Bringing anormal research problem to a conclusion is achieving the anticipated in a newway, and it requires the solution of all kinds of complex instrumental,conceptual and mathematical puzzles. The man who succeeds proves himselfan expert puzzle-solver, and the challenge of the puzzle is an important part ofwhat usually drives him on (Kuhn, 1970: 36).It was Kuhn himself who referred to the analogy between normal science andbuilding a jigsaw puzzle or filling in a crossword puzzle. Further explication ofthis analogy explains what Kuhn had in mind, and it also illustrates therelationship between the paradigm, as an embracing framework, and normalscience. In the same manner as the person who is doing a crossword puzzle isconstrained by the existing structure (the number of squares), the paradigm, toall intents and purposes, defines the problem area for the researcher — what heor she should research, and also how it ought to be done. A good and fruitfulparadigm will, however, literally provide clues (as in a crossword puzzle)concerning possible solutions in the form of model solutions, theoreticalpredictions, and so on. Finally, the paradigm also determines — as contained inthe ontological, theoretical, and methodological commitments — what wouldbe regarded as valid solutions. As the crossword puzzle determines theparameters of the solution — not more than five letters across and four lettersdown — the paradigm determines what may be regarded as acceptablesolutions and what may not.In previous studies of the history of science, a good deal of emphasis has beenplaced on those sparks of genius that have led to scientific discoveries or onthose flashes of insight into some theoretical problem. Kuhn, however,emphasizes a far more pedestrian aspect of research, namely the long processof trial and error that is involved in the search for solutions. Of course, thisdoes not imply that the researcher is unmotivated. What then challenges him isthe conviction that, if only he is skilful enough, he will succeed in solving apuzzle that no one before has solved or solved as well (1970: 38).In conclusion one may state that normal science is a highly successful andhighly cumulative enterprise. During normal science, the researcher does notstrive to discover new theories. The researcher’s task is rather to solve thoseproblems that have already been identified as well as he or she can, and tomatch the existing theory with the facts as closely as possible by furtherrefinement and articulation of that theory. In spite of all this, we all know aboutnoteworthy discoveries in the history of virtually every discipline whichresulted in the whole history of that discipline being changed. Kuhn pays148