In his discussion of Thomas Kuhn and paradigms in science, George Ritzer contends that sociology is a "multiparadigm" science. What is a paradigm? Why is sociology a multiparadigm science? What are the consequences for consensus within the discipline?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Varies but should include a definition of paradigm as a general model of the world that is accepted by most practitioners in the field. Answer may include description of a single-paradigm science such as astronomy and physics, which have agreed-upon premises and are free to do research within the confines of that paradigm. In single-paradigm sciences, work contributes to the consensus within the entire discipline, but eventually the paradigm collapses and is replaced by another one. In a multi-paradigm science such as sociology, no single paradigm is strong enough to unify the discipline. There is research within each of multiple paradigms that coexist and expand over time but doesn't contribute to consensus within the discipline. It is more difficult to accumulate knowledge. There is no revolution because no single paradigm is held, then replaced. The basic assumptions of each of the existing paradigms are constantly open to question or attack by those who operate using different paradigms, and there are more controversies than in single-paradigm fields. The result is a less universally agreed-upon base of knowledge resulting from cumulative study in sociology.