Legal research and the methodology employed to analyze and evaluate the law are conducted within a paradigmatic thinking. The term “paradigm shift” was coined by Thomas Kuhn when he put forward a theory about the development of the natural sciences.1 Kuhn disputed the modernistic description of Frances Bacon who presented scientific inquiry as one of constant and accumulative progress, like a building, which is constructed stone after stone. Kuhn argued that science develops in leaps. Regular scientific research is conducted within a set of boundaries that are based on presuppositions left unquestioned by the contemporary scientific community. These boundaries were dubbed by Kuhn “a paradigm”. Scientists in their research (and in their research agenda) are trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle, where the framework of the puzzle is pre-determined by the paradigm. However, in the course of scientific research it turns out that not all pieces fit their spots, and some pieces tend to cross the set boundaries. Scientists try to force the pieces into the slots they think are meant for them. But at one focal point the framework collapses. Doubts bring about rethinking of the pre-set presuppositions. The paradigm shifts; a new paradigm is constructed, which sets new presuppositions and a new research agenda. Regular scientific research continues within the new paradigm, until that too is ripe for replacement.
|Title of host publication||Internationalisierung des Rechts und seine ökonomische Analyse|
|Editors||Thomas Eger , Jochen Bigus , Claus Ott , Georg Wangenheim|
|Publisher||Gabler Verlag Wiesbaden|
|State||Published - 2008|