In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, published in 1962 and later expanded, Thomas Kuhn contended that there are two types of mature physical sciences “normal science” (1970:10-42) and “revolutionary science” (1970:66-173). His treatise, which brought radical change to science, was that in any given scientific field, there are long periods where theories are bound by tradition [normal science]. These periods of ‘normal science’ Kuhn defined as a ‘Paradigm’ or ‘disciplinary matrix’ (182). During such periods, the Paradigm would be the “dominant or paramount framework that guides scientific work and training” (Fraser and Campolo 1992:106). Under these circumstances, the underlying function of scientists would be to build on the existing theory – not to question it (Kuhn 1970:24). However, every so often, discrepancies or anomalies would arise where the findings were incompatible with the reigning Paradigm and the scientists would begin to doubt the viability of the framework (Fraser and Campolo 1992:107). This Kuhn described as a period of “crisis” (1970:66-76). In response to these anomalies, scientists would propagate new theories which, when accepted by the majority of the scientific community, would bring about an overthrow of the status quo. Kuhn referred to these new theories as “revolutionary science” (66-173).

1