Let’s turn to another key concept and mental “tool” to crack difficult problems

Question

Let’s turn to another key concept and mental “tool” to crack difficult problems – and one that may help hold together many of the new concepts we are learning: i.e., the Paradox of Structure.

NOTE: The length of this task is expected to be at least 3 pages, 1.5-spaced.

To explore this concept, begin by identifying and discussing a practical example of a paradigm (based on Kuhn’s original definition) that you encounter in your daily life (personal or professional).

Then, using Kirton’s notion of the Paradox of Structure, discuss in detail how the paradigm you have identified both enables and limits the problem solving efforts of its practitioners (including you!).

Explanation / Answer

Kuhn acknowledges having used the term "paradigm" in two different meanings. In the first one, "paradigm" designates what the members of a certain scientific community have in common, that is to say, the whole of techniques, patents and values shared by the members of the community. In the second sense, the paradigm is a single element of a whole, say for instance Newton’s Principia, which, acting as a common model or an example... stands for the explicit rules and thus defines a coherent tradition of investigation. Thus the question is for Kuhn to investigate by means of the paradigm what makes possible the constitution of what he calls "normal science". That is to say, the science which can decide if a certain problem will be considered scientific or not. Normal science does not mean at all a science guided by a coherent system of rules, on the contrary, the rules can be derived from the paradigms, but the paradigms can guide the investigation also in the absence of rules. This is precisely the second meaning of the term "paradigm", which Kuhn considered the most new and profound, though it is in truth the oldest.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.

The paradox of structure is that, whatever its nature, any structure is both enabling and limiting at the same time. Each person manages this paradox differently, as described by the adaption-innovation theory of M. J. Kirton.

This paper provides a summary of key points in adaption-innovation theory, as well as some of its applications in engineering research and education, including a new initiative by the author to explore the relationship between the cognitive styles of inventors and the types of inventions they create. The paradox of structure is also discussed here in the context of technical systems, with specific examples to illustrate its impact on the development of new ideas. Finally, the ramifications of this paradox are considered as the boundaries of science and engineering are moved forward in an age of increased vigilance and system security.

At the core of Adaption-Innovation theory is the assumption that all individuals are creative and solve problems. There is, however, a great diversity in OUT abilities for and ways of doing so.

More specifically, when engaged in problem solving, a number of factors can vary widely from person to person, including the cognitive level at which a person solves a problem, and the manner or cognitive style in which they prefer to solve it, to name a few.

Cognitive level refers to the individual’s herent potential capacity (such as intelligence) or manifest capacity (such as technical competence). Cognitive style is defined as the “strategic, stable, characteristic, preferred manner in which people respond to and seek to bring about change” (including the solution of problems)

It is this preferred manner or style with which A-I theory is concemed. Cognitive level must be assessed by other means.

In general, more adaptive individuals prefer more structure as they solve problems, with more of this structure consensually agreed, while more innovative problem solvers prefer less structure and are less concemed about acting in accordance with the structures (e.g., standards, assumptions, models) that currently prevail. The impact of these differences is significant (and can be quite dramatic) at the individual level, as well as in the technical problem solving performance of teams. Due to space limitations, we will focus on the individual here; for further discussion on the impact of Adaption-Innovation in problem solving teams.

Different Responses to the Paradox of Structure: In plain terms, the Paradox of Structure is that, whatever its nature, any structure (e.g., system) is both enabling and limiting at the same time. When faced with this paradox, adaptors (mA’s) and innovators (ds) differ in the way they perceive the enabling and limiting properties of the system in question.

DIFFERENCES IN FOCUS FOR mA'S & mI'S

MORE ADAPTIVE (mA)

FOCUS ON:

ENABLING

PROPERTIES

LIMITING

PROPERTIES

MORE INNOVATIVE (mI)

FOCUS ON:

LIMITING

PROPERTIES

ENABLING

PROPERTIES

In general, a more adaptive person recognizes the enabling properties of the current system (e.g., model, theory, standard) and is willing to tolerate its limits as long as some potential for enabling still exists (see Table). To this person, the introduction of a new system particularly if it is an untested and unproven one may carry with it too much risk and potential for disruption. To return to our simple example of the dubious data and the suspect system in Section I, the more adaptive person is more likely to question the new data, rather than the system model with which it does not agree. In general, the adaptor (mA) is focused more on efficiency, rather than flexibility, and this goal is generally best served by keeping the current system in place. This is not to say, however, that a more adaptive person will never change the prevailing system. On the contrary, if by changing the current system, it is improved and its original function is made more effective, or if a system is changed us U result of solving a problem, then its more adaptive supporters will be among the fmt to embrace and even initiate such changes. There is no person who resists all change, and there is no person who embraces all change. We each resist some and embrace others, depending, among other things, on our preferred cognitive strategies for solving the problems with which we are faced. The more innovative individual is attracted to the enabling properties of the new system, while generallyignoring (at least to some degree) its limits (see Table). In the eyes of this individual, the introduction of a new system is more or less required in order to solve the present problem, despite the fact that this change will undoubtedly introduce additional spin-off problems that have not yet been anticipated. These spin-off problems may be more adaptive in nature, or they may require an innovative solution themselves. In either case, the innovator (d) is focused more on flexibility than efficiency. This more innovative individual is more likely to suspect the system model, rather than the new data that conflict with it. Yet, the more innovative problem solver will not always embrace a new system. Once he has established a system of his own design, for example, the more innovative individual may cling just as hard to this structure as a more adaptive counterpart will to his own design, resisting the introduction of a new system by someone else. There is more at stake in the choice of prevailing structure than cognitive style; self-integrity is also a key factor.

MORE ADAPTIVE (mA)

FOCUS ON:

ENABLING

PROPERTIES

LIMITING

PROPERTIES

MORE INNOVATIVE (mI)

FOCUS ON:

LIMITING

PROPERTIES

ENABLING

PROPERTIES

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse L
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.