Normal science was coined in by Samuel Kuhn and aims at supporting particular theories. It tends to accept certain theories, but ignores research findings that endanger the current paradigm. The concept tackles problems developed by new theories. This involves carrying out tests that strengthen the new theory and expands its usage beyond the problem. The advantages of normal science are that it enhances scientific discovery (Kuhn, 1962). In addition, adopting a shared paradigm lays a common base on which to study subject compared to when the scientists operate their activities without a paradigm.
The scientific redevelopment of primary assumptions with which to execute the work and duties carried out by various scientists are incommensurable. Therefore, normal science encompasses a scenario where the field contains a scientifically based understanding model that is functional (Kuhn, 1962). The research question is about the lived experience of the Jamaican men after prostate cancer screening. The study is based on the assumptions that the Jamaican men are concerned about the rising rates of prostate cancer among their populations and will cooperate by offering reliable responses.
A paradigm is a universally acknowledged scientific accomplishment that offers model problems and solutions to the researchers. It offers rules and perspectives on the handling of field issues as well as coming up with resolutions. It is a predictive theoretical component that assists in work production (Kuhn, 1962). The presence of a paradigm denotes the maturity of science. It is the ‘paradigm reception’ that influences a group to be initially passionate in studying nature in a certain field. The development of special journals has been related to paradigm reception.
The concept of the paradigm was perceived as a breakthrough in the field of science. Science was differentiated by the rationale that scientists functioned within the reference framework offered by the existing paradigm. The paradigm worked as a ‘disciplinary matrix’ and had the rules and concepts suitable for the members (Kuhn, 1962). In this regard, a paradigm acts as a disciplinary matrix that considers all the work in a discipline, which guide the researcher’s attention.
Due to paradigm ambiguities, Kuhn used the disciplinary matrix in his work. This is similar to a study that is limited in scope and nature. Therefore, the term is substantive because it addresses the common issues faced by practitioners in a certain discipline (Kuhn, 1962). The term ‘matrix’ means that it consists of the ordered factors of various specifications. The disciplinary matrix parts are exemplars, values, symbolic generalizations, and metaphysical presumptions.
In this regard, normal science is a puzzle-solving exercise. Executing a research is similar to a puzzle-solving process. Puzzles have particular solutions and rules. A research motive is to determine what is to be studied or recognized in advance. This is despite the reasoning that expected outcomes are usually small when compared to the possible outcomes (Kuhn, 1962). When the outcome of a research project fails to fulfill the expected results, it is perceived to have failed. Therefore, research is conducted because of the reasoning that the outcomes will contribute to the precision and scope of the paradigm used.
However, obtaining the desired results can be challenging. In this respect, puzzle-solving is more enjoyable. To be seen as a puzzle, the problem should aim at something more than the solution. At the same time, the solutions should be relevant to the assumptions. It implies that unexpected results may also be realized. Therefore, the research topic will be guided by hermeneutic phenomenology in gathering data on the topic so as to solve the problem. In addition, Van Manben’s method will be used for data analysis.
Moreover, purposive sampling will be used in selecting the targeted sample size of the Jamaican men residing in South Florida. Interviews will be utilized in the collection of qualitative data on prostate cancer screening among the Jamaican men. The implication of the research will be to offer insights into the required interventions of increasing the screening of prostate cancer among the Jamaican men. It will also help in elucidating the effects of prostate cancer screening, and ways of encouraging early diagnosis and treatment.
In normal science, a paradigm persists when an old paradigm rivals with a newly formed paradigm in extraordinary science. Therefore, in normal science the assumptions that establish the foundations of directing a paradigm are regarded as logical. The data that does not align with the paradigm is declared anomalous (Von Dietze, 2001). This is based on the assumption that anomalies will automatically be identified in new discoveries. Therefore, it is the duty of normal science to expand the current paradigm. It is held that if the paradigm ends up being simple, then it is regarded as infinite, and no work has to be executed. As a result, these paradigms stop being research problems. In normal science, the scientists try to search for theories that will add knowledge while at the same time maintain the previous explanations.
Cumulative process means that the theory, experimental observations, and extension of the old paradigm results from a new paradigm. According to Kuhn (1962), science is driven by hostile revolutions. Therefore, the scientific revolutions are noncumulative stories in which the old paradigm is replaced by a new one. However, the process is almost linear. In this regard, such facts are intertwined with others. Alternatively, the new observations falsify the theories, and the technique improves as the measurement comprehension becomes complete.
Notably, normal science is cumulative and focuses on a single paradigm (Kuhn, 1962). Revolutionary science takes place when facts become so huge that the paradigm becomes a liability, which results in the formation of a new paradigm that replaces the old one. This means that science is noncumulative because the terms distort the meaning. Even though the author diverted from the cumulative and linear methods, normal science reflects some of the remnants of the approaches.
It is evident from the study of the Jamaican men lived experiences with the screening of prostate cancer that science is cumulative. This is because the work is an extension of the previous empirical research in the same field. Its background information focuses on past information on prostate cancer deaths in the US, especially among the Caribbean and African immigrants. Moreover, the study uses past results on the Jamaican men who may not have gone through cancer screening, but have a high risk of developing prostate cancer. Past research shows that the social and cultural issues associated with the Jamaican men have contributed to lower prostate cancer screening among the population in question. However, a researcher may make a shift in the scientific thought by replacing the old paradigm due to the limitations experienced in the past studies that failed to establish the means and experiences that occur when the Jamaican men participate in prostate cancer screening.
A scientific revolution is noncumulative when the old paradigm is reinstated by a new effective paradigm. A scientific revolution that leads to a paradigm shift is analogous to the new politics. A political revolution starts when existing institutions are unable to satisfy the emerging issues (Kuhn, 1962). It happens when the discontent in the present institutions is confined to a portion of the political fraternity.
The objective of political revolutions is to adjust these institutions in a way that allows the current administration to change. In this regard, people are committed to proposals to reconstruct the society when the crisis escalates. This leads to the formation of partisan camps. A section of the camps defends the old constellation while the other aims at forming a new world order. In this regard, politics fails because polarization takes place. As a result, the parties to the conflict adopt persuasion (Kuhn, 1962). However, it is difficult to reconcile paradigm variations. When paradigms are debated with regard to significant questions and choices, each group employs a divergent paradigm as a defense mechanism. This encourages circularity and the lack of the ability to share an opinion.
A new paradigm that is the one that successfully allows predictions that are different from those gathered by the predecessor. While trying to assimilate the new paradigm, the previous concept must be displaced by the second concept. However, the assimilation of new issues must reject the old assumption. If this is not the case, scientific growth would be termed as cumulative (Kuhn, 1962). Therefore, normal research is cumulative, but scientific revolution is noncumulative. In this regard, the new paradigms cause damaging changes to the beliefs, norms, and values about nature.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Von Dietze, E. (2001). Paradigms explained: Rethinking Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Westport, CT: Praeger.