In a 1979 College English article, Patricia Bizzell notes the value to English studies of Thomas Kuhn's definition of "paradigm" as a "comprehensive theoretical model that governs both the view of reality accepted by an intellectual community and the practice of the community's discipline" (p. 39). The prevailing paradigm is both the theoretical model currently in use and the practice that derives from it.
For most members of a discourse community, and certainly for new members and those seeking to gain entry, learning and following the prevailing paradigm are major steps on the road to full inclusion in the conversation. One of the things this implies for the rhetoric of research is that successful challenges to the current paradigm are most likely to be made by those who know it best, the experts in the field. They are also the members most likely to dominate the conversation. However, students, particularly graduate students, come to understand that the "accepted knowledge and methodology is most often transmitted through course work and through working on research projects with established researchers or scholars who have achieved credibility within the field" (p. 118). While the process of learning the rhetorical conventions and methodologies for research and the presentation of research is often tedious and sometimes painful, it may be helpful at this juncture to transfer Berkenkotter's and Huckin's findings about Nate's "enculturation" into his graduate program. Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995) say that "students begin as novices, or newcomers to the community and begin their enculturation through peripheral forms of participation that change over time as apprentices change their status from newcomers to members" (p. 118).
Back to Key Factors