IIM Bangalore
In most academic disciplines, but particularly in the social sciences, there is continuous competition between contending scientific paradigms. In theory, these contests are supposed to be resolved by well established rules of scientific discrimination. However, in practice the rules of the game are also influenced by group conflicts. At times when the dominant paradigm is challenged, this latter dimension becomes severe. This type of contest has important implications for the social dynamics of the academic profession, and for the career trajectory and work experience of individual academics. Those in tune with the dominant paradigm can progress faster professionally, while others are left to wither in the periphery. In the case of economics, the divide between alternative paradigms has roots in social values and in political preferences—for example on questions of economic inequality and economic freedom. The association of economic ideas with material interests of social groups also brings biases in financial support for academic work. Paradigmatic tensions also exist because of the incomplete base of empirical knowledge, so that academics must often take positions on the basis of intuitive understanding.
This phenomenon raises a number of deep ethical dilemmas and questions: Are principles of scientific discourse pushed aside by de-facto political competition between academic groups? Are academic appointments and publications media ‘captured’ by particular groups? What can be done to preserve the primacy of scientific values in the contest of ideas? Should there be norms for representation of minority viewpoints in journals and academic departments? What might be the socially and scientifically rational way to institutionalize the contest of economic paradigms?