Structure of Sciencetific


The paradigm is a concept that has attracted the attention of scholars and scholars in the United States since Thomas Khun in the 1960s crew published his monumental book in the development of history and philosophy of science entitled “The Structure of Sciencetific Revolution” (mold of Mustopadidjaya AR, 2003: 3 ) In Indonesia the word or concept of paradigm began more popularly used around the early 1989’s, also within the scope of development studies. Especially in the field of economic science and state administration “Prakmatical Analysis” itself, both outside and inside Indonesia seems to have developed long before the publication of Thomas Khun book mentioned above.
Before further discussing the paradigm it is better to first define the meaning that can be used to perform activities more smoothly namely:
1. According to Khun, what is meant by paradigm is the framework of reference or way of looking at a certain reality which is the basis of the guidance or foothold of a theory.
2. Meanwhile, according to Mustopadidjaja, the paradigm is defined as a fundamental theory or a fundamental perspective, based on certain values ​​and contains the basic theory, methodology or approaches that have been tested and recognized rules so that it can be used on the theory and practitioners in response to a problem, both in connection with the development of science and in the effort to solve problems for the ability of life and human life.
If both definitions are carefully considered there will be three similar views about paradigm understanding, as follows;
1. Paradigm as a reference or way of looking at something reality.
2. The paradigm contains theoretical, methodological concepts or tested approaches.
3. Paradigms can be used to respond to specific problems or to the development of science.
4. the paradigm is not static, but can change, according to the demands of the dynamics of science or scientific revolution among the scientific community, for the emergence of paradigm.
On the process of changing the paradigm Dwivedi and Nef said that “an intellectual crisis can be said to emerge when … or the system between continuity and discontinuity fail to lake place or when a theological foundation of an intellectual tradition …” a further discontinuity that can lead to several possibilities, namely the collapse of a paradigm, synthesis, fragile pantial or completely new conceptualization. (Dwipedi and Ner 1982: 61)
Theories or development paradigms are numerous and for this benefit is briefly described that the development of the paradigm is divided into two groups:
1. The paradigm of public administration.
2. Paradigm of social, economic, and political development.
For the next two groups can be explained as follows:
1. The paradigm of public administration
With reference to the opinions of Nicholas Henry (1975) and G. Fredericson (1976), the development of this paradigm is:
a. Classical bureaucracy: focusing on the organizational structure and function or principles, with the locus of both government and business organizations
b. Neo classical bureaucracy, same as no. 1 with additional locus where decision-making with emphasis on the science of offenders, management, system analysis.
c. The institutional paradigm, with a focus on bureaucratic behavior that is efficient, effective and productive
d. Humanitarian relations, with emphasis on the participation of individuals in decision making, with the emphasis on aspects of humanity, social and psychological
e. The public choice, the solution is the option to serve the public interest in goods and services
f. The new state administration, its focus on organizing efforts, illustrates the design of organizations to bring moral values ​​of mankind

Views All Time
Views All Time
Views Today
Views Today