The notion of paradigm shifts in science has been studied for some time by scholars of the History and Philosophy of Science
Thomas Khun, a philosopher and historian from the mid-20th century, is commonly recognized for his contribution to the field, which is now studied in new sub-disciplines of sociology-oriented disciplines (for example Science and Technology Studies, Adoption as a sub-discipline of Business Studies, and Organizational Change as a sub-discipline of Management Studies).
In a previous article we introduce the concept of the computing paradigm shift and its effect in creating new digital professions as a paradigm shift but an organizational and professional one rather than a scientific one. In Kuhn’s original conception, a scientific paradigm uses hypothesis testing to push scientific frontiers forward; other frontiers, those outside a scientific discipline such as organizational frontiers, do not use hypothesis testing but Kuhn’s notion of revolutionary shifts in practice on the basis of accumulating centres of influence stands as a useful frame for understanding how organizational change happens.
Whether this is a scientific paradigm shift or another kind, a paradigm shift is triggered by the presence of a growing body of anomalies that cannot be reconciled with existing frameworks. Anomalies make visible points where a paradigm does not fit what we are coming to know about a domain. A paradigm is the human model of a reality (rather than necessarily equating with reality itself) and does not even have to be based on reality; it could be based on a fantasy with, for example, the purpose of creating a cohesive alternate world for a book such as Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. A paradigm is, then, in theory a self-contained system but in reality, all paradigms have boundary cases or unexplored conditions which result in anomalies. As Kuhn and others working with his ideas remind us, there are always anomalies.
Innovation[1], then, comes from looking at taking anomalies seriously and identifying potential alternative paradigms which might better account for them. These either have impact later by opening up new areas which refine the existing model, or overthrow entirely the established paradigm in a more disruptive change. Insiders commonly recognize and talk about anomalies, perhaps as ‘bugbears’ to their day-to-day work, but do not make them known to the wider community on the grounds that they are aberrations from the norm; unfortunate discrepancies which signify practical error rather than a need for conceptual reformation or revolution. Often, anomalies are problems that are worked-around as there is not the time, energy or funding to do anything about them. Yet, recognition of anomalies and the freedom to work seriously with anomalies is a large part of having autonomy as a practitioner in a discipline.
While time, energy and funding are important elements of autonomy, this list does not include everything. What is needed for autonomy is a combination of environment and personal circumstance which are generally reflected in EDI (equity, diversity and inclusivity) principals. Elements of autonomy that are commonly discussed by RSEs as being missing to them are being able to contribute to a research team as an equal, having a supportive community and management around them, and being fairly rewarded for their contribution.
Disruptive changes are more likely to come out of a small team of outsiders less beholden to norms of practice, and are less likely to come out of a large team of insiders whose work is premised on upholding those norms. While paradigm shifts and disruptive change can sound interesting, they are not always desirable. Knowing when a disruptive change is desired over merely extending a framework/paradigm is part of good research funding and management practice.
Having RSEs only in centralized teams reduces the opportunity for RSEs to have autonomy and increases the chances of unforeseen disruptive changes while also making it harder for a research manager to pick the right skills and diversity in their research team members. Being an independent researcher, i.e. someone with creative autonomy who is well-placed to explore paradigms in these terms, has been considered a crucial part of academic membership. Management of an individual’s autonomy within academia has been under change in recent years as research has become more sophisticated, cross-disciplinary and so requiring larger teams. However, the possibility for all to respond to anomalies is still an important opportunity for innovation that is currently not shared with relevant practitioners involved in academic research such as RSEs.
The latest funding call for digital Research Technical Professional (RTP) network from UKRI illustrates the relevance of these issues and the perceived need of UKRI to act.
Management practices to increase innovation
Our previous articles have raised issues and highlighted discussion points inside the RSE and research computing areas. These articles have worked towards a focused move to raise an alert to the administrative challenges that inhibit the adoption of computers within research. Addressing these issues will result in a better culture for a society where computers (and associated technologies such as artificial intelligence) are already enormously important and are projected to be increasingly so.
While the UK government encourages innovation as part of a necessary shift to a high-tech state, our systems and structures are not designed for that; they were designed for a low-tech paradigm. Therefore, we argue, administrative changes need to be made to encourage innovation and the development of innovative possibilities.
With this in mind, we have put together, from our theoretical and practical experience, a set of potentially fruitful areas to consider for the management of RSE and other associated professionals practices that, we think, will increase innovation
- Supporting the reporting of negative results and outcomes, not just of research but of organizational and career issues. A negative hypothesis is as valuable as a positive one – it is one indicator of the need for a paradigm shift and while organizational matters and careers are not part of the subject of a research project, they are part of any paradigm/ideological shift that the research might instigate. It is relevant that entrepreneurs often talk about their failures as they see them as important for future success. There is a view that having and understanding failure is a better predictor of future success than just having successes.
- Flexibility in:
- Governance (review and adapt regularly).
- Allowing easy movement between roles, disciplines, faculty and technical/professional support and career changes.
- Allowing for social mixing to facilitate shared understanding of different roles and ideologies within an organization or in a system.
- Terminology – compile, update and use glossaries to keep track of changing ideologies and multiple meanings, as a means of recording emerging potential paradigms.
- Consult with people who may be affected before a change, and plan to reduce harm.
- Monitor for harm after a change:
- Fix fast – over blame, while fail fast with an implied no blame is a mantra from agile project management which is commonly used by RSEs it is also a common approach to health and safety especially in laboratory environments where a mistake could for example result in noxious chemicals being released into the environment or medical tests being wrong and leaving mistakes unfixed that may immediately or in the future cause this type of event is not ethical. A no blame culture accepts mistakes will happen but people do not need to fear what may happen to them if they make a mistake. It aims to create a safe and supportive environment where problems are fixed fast rather than hidden because of fear of repercussions.
- Acknowledging and supporting the full diversity of RSE role to include for example:
- Many disciplines
- Research and teaching
- New technologies – old technologies
- Established ideology – emerging ideologies
- Supporting autonomy – allow RSEs to contribute ideas even if they sound like bad ideas; they may be part of an emerging or established paradigm and discussion helps develop a change if a change is needed and for problems and errors to be caught.
- Being open to change your mind.
- Add to or alter this list as needed. Log the changes and why you made them.
- For example, issues around innovation and collaboration can be very specific and require new points, removal of points or refinement of points. Keep a record of why the changes were made and adjust as needed to remain open to the possibility of a paradigm shift.
- Monitor for harm after a change:
As an individual it is not possible to apply these; they are organizational, societal or at least require a consensus by a group. However, individuals can try to follow these principals or encourage the use and develop them in their work places and spheres of influence. The general advice from career coaches is to test the waters gently and if you are pushing against a closed door consider your options. But pushing where possible is, the argument above suggests, an effective way to secure positive organisational change in support of innovation.
[1] This is true for innovation in science and entrepreneurship. In science an anomaly indicates the need for a paradigm shift (or refining a model) while in entrepreneurship an anomaly is called a problem which indicates the need for a new product or service.
Dr Joanna Leng, School of Computing, University of Leeds, UK, Dr Phillip Brooker, School of Sociology, University of Liverpool, Emeritus Prof Wes Sharrock, School of Sociology, University of Manchester.
Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the EPSRC grant EP/R025819/1.
