Passage

Response/Reaction/Application

Below, in this column, are quotes from a synopsis of SOSR.  The focus is on chapter VII and Chapter VIII. As you read through the following, think of NCLB as the paradigm in question.

I've posted some comments in this column. Follow both the reading to the left and my comments and, at the bottom, answer the very important question concerning the only way (from SOSR) that any ruling paradigm can be overcome.

VII - Crisis and the Emergence of Scientific Theories.

As is the case with discovery, a change in an existing theory that results in the invention of a new theory is also brought about by the awareness of anomaly.

The emergence of a new theory is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to be solved as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones.

These failures can be brought about by observed discrepancies between theory and fact or changes in social/cultural climates Such failures are generally long recognized, which is why crises are seldom surprising.

Neither problems nor puzzles yield often to the first attack.

Recall that paradigm and theory resist change and are extremely resilient. Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data.

In early stages of a paradigm, such theoretical alternatives are easily invented. Once a paradigm is entrenched (and the tools of the paradigm prove useful to solve the problems the paradigm defines), theoretical alternatives are strongly resisted.

As in manufacture so in science--retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it . Crises provide the opportunity to retool.

First, an awareness of something that is not explained (or made better) by the paradigm.

Explanations are forthcoming that make the case that the data has been skewed or misinterpreted so that we are not looking at an anomaly after all; the paradigm is safe and does explain the data.

Anomalies are resisted because of the cost (both monetary and professional reputations) of discrediting the paradigm. True with NCLB? (rhetorical question)

VIII - The Response to Crisis.

The awareness and acknowledgement that a crisis exists loosens theoretical stereotypes and provides the incremental data necessary for a fundamental paradigm shift. Normal science does and must continually strive to bring theory and fact into closer agreement. The recognition and acknowledgement of anomalies result in crises that are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and for paradigm change.

Crisis is the essential tension implicit in scientific research. There is no such thing as research without counter instances.

These counter instances create tension and crisis. Crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that

normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another viewpoint, as a counter instance and thus as a source

of crisis.

In responding to these crises, scientists generally do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.

Rather, they usually devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict. Some, unable to tolerate the crisis, leave the profession.

As a rule, persistent and recognized anomaly does not induce crisis. Failure to achieve the expected solution to a puzzle discredits only the scientist and not the theory To evoke a crisis, an anomaly must usually be more than just an anomaly.

Scientists who paused and examined every anomaly would not get much accomplished. An anomaly must come

to be seen as more than just another puzzle of normal science.

All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. As

this process develops, the anomaly comes to be more generally recognized as such, more attention is devoted to

it by more of the field's eminent authorities. The field begins to look quite different: scientists express explicit discontent, competing articulations of the paradigm proliferate and scholars view a resolution as the subject matter of their discipline. To this end, they first isolate the anomaly more precisely and give it structure. They push the rules of normal science harder than ever to see, in the area of difficulty, just where and how far they can be made to work.

All crises close in one of three ways. (i) Normal science proves able to handle the crisis-provoking problem and all returns to "normal." (ii) The problem resists and is labeled, but it is perceived as resulting from the field's failure to possess the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so scientists set it aside for a future generation with more developed tools. (iii) A new candidate for paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance ensues. Once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a paradigm is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. Because there is no such thing as research in the absence of a paradigm, to reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself. To declare a paradigm invalid will require

more than the falsification of the paradigm by direct comparison with nature. The judgment leading to this decision involves the comparison of the existing paradigm with nature and with the alternate candidate. Transition

from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is not a cumulative process. It is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals. This reconstruction changes some

of the field's foundational theoretical generalizations. It changes methods and applications. It alters the rules.

How do new paradigms finally emerge? Some emerge all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man deeply immersed in crisis. Those who achieve fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have generally been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they changed. Much of this process is inscrutable and may be permanently so.

Second, the anomaly must represent a true crisis---something very serious in its implications.

Third, the paradigm gets adjusted to try to explain and accommodate the anomaly and the crisis. Has this happened with NCLB? (another rhetorical question)

Fourth, the anomaly and connected crisis continues and gathers more and more attention. It begins to be publically recognized as a true problem that doesn't seem to be going away. So, is there a publically-recognized crisis attached to NCLB? (rhetorical again—think about it but you don't have to answer it)

The question: According to the logic chain developed throughout SOSR, it is not sufficient to merely point out problems with the ruling paradigm. (Have teachers done that with NCLB?) The problems can even be promoted to the level of being crises in education. (Has that happened to the extent that the crisis has been clearly articulated? ---rhetorical)

Now, this is easy if you've been following along and you've read to the left. Complete the following sentence:

According to SOSR, the only way a ruling paradigm can be overthrown is

[you complete the sentence—that's it]

I'm essentially giving you this one because the insight you gain from the above is critical to your future as a change agent. Change involves identifying the ruling paradigm and being able to take apart the history, application, tools, problems, etc. as examined by Kuhn to arrive at the same change methodology addressed in the question above.