ABSTRACT
Thomas Kuhn proposed an interpretation of how scholars in the sciences proceed. He argued that research tends to rely on paradigms. The paradigm suggests an interpretation of how things probably work and what matters should be examined to explain the matters of interest. If a paradigm emerges, its acceptance displaces prior frameworks. Kuhn's argument is that academic work is organized by paradigms that guide research. The arguments by themselves might cause only minor controversy about the nature of research and its contributions. Considerable effort can go into research that ultimately has no relevance. Kuhn also argues that paradigms and the normal science that dominate research communities have effects that trouble those doing research. In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. Several matters in particular are important and relevant for the issue of how the study of the incumbency effect developed.
