Keywords
legal psychology
anthropological paradigm
clinical paradigm
scientific revolution
normal science
How to Cite
Abstract
Background. The application of the paradigmatic theory regarding the development of science authored by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in the context of the legal psychology evolution creates the need for a thorough study of the theoretical foundations of emergence, transformation and functioning of scientific legal and psychological paradigms. Thus, paradigmatic character of the evolution of legal psychology is a quite undeveloped scientific problem, which needs theoretical and methodological research.
Objective. To determine the theoretical foundations of the paradigmatic transformation of legal psychology, which includes the identification of its key paradigms, their methodological foundations, as well as the general differentiation of the basic definitions and terms.
Methods. The study used systematic and structural-functional methods that were necessary to elucidate the terminological and definitive foundations of the paradigmatic background of legal psychology. The comparative method was used to differentiate the features inherent in the legal-psychological paradigms from other psychological directions and approaches, as well as to conduct the analysis of the recent scientific literature related to the research issues.
Results. The article reveals the theoretical foundations of the concept of «paradigm», its genesis, types and main categories related to it, as well as its use in legal and psychological literature. The paradigmatic transformation of legal psychology in the epistemological context is defined, particularly, in terms of the process of the formation of two main legal and psychological paradigm – anthropological and clinical one, as well as the determinants of their ascension. The existing definitions of the term «paradigm» are compared, and the clarification of the essence of the process of scientific revolution and the phenomenon of «paradigm shift» in legal psychology is given.
Conclusions. Taking into the account the process of development of legal psychology in the context of the Kun’s theory of scientific revolutions, the two main legal and psychological paradigms are defined: anthropological and clinical, which are differentiated from other psychological approaches that claimed the paradigmatic justification of legal psychology, in particular: social behaviorism, cognitivism, humanistic existentialism, as well as social contextualism. The social component of the concept of a scientific paradigm is considered, which is revealed by its definition as a unity of attitudes of representatives of a specific scientific direction or a group of such directions determined by socio-political realities.
Key words: paradigm; legal psychology; anthropological paradigm; clinical paradigm; scientific revolution; normal science.
Received: January 21, 2026
Accepted: May 20, 2026
Published: May 30, 2026
References
Alavian, K. N. (2025). Paradigm shifts as portals to threshold concepts and epistemic transformation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2025.2531936
Aylward, R. C., & Cronjé, J. C. (2022). Paradigms extended: how to integrate behaviorism, constructivism, knowledge domain, and learner mastery in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(2), 503-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10089-w
Bammel, M., & De Oliveira, G. S. (2025). Scaling-Up Behavior Settings: An Ecological Approach to Cognitive Institutions. Topoi, 45(2), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10254-9
Barker, P. (2025). Review of K. Brad Wray’s Kuhn’s Intellectual Path - K. Brad Wray . Kuhn’s Intellectual Path: Charting The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2021), 246 pp. Philosophy of Science, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2025.10112
Batastini, A. B., Guyton, M. R., Bernhard, P. A., Folk, J. B., Knuth, S. B., Kohutis, E. A., Lugo, A., Stanfill, M. L., & Tussey, C. M. (2023). Recommendations for the use of telepsychology in psychology-law practice and research: A statement by American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41). Psychology Public Policy and Law, 29(3), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000394
Becerra, D., & Cárdenas, F. (2025). The path towards a new paradigm: sustainability as the transformative axis in contemporary law. Novum Jus, 19(1), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.14718/novumjus.2025.19.1.10
Bedau, M. A. (2024). Kuhnian Lessons for the study of Open-Ended Evolution. Artificial Life, 30(3), 337-344. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl_a_00428
Belgrano, M. (2021b). «World» and «Paradigm» in Heidegger and Kuhn. Franciscanum, 63(175), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21500/01201468.4716
Binz, M., Dasgupta, I., Jagadish, A. K., Botvinick, M., Wang, J. X., & Schulz, E. (2023). Meta-learned models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e147. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x23003266
Bottaccioli, F., & Bottaccioli, A. G. (2024). Franz Alexander, uno scienziato contemporaneo: un nuovo paradigma per la psicologia e la medicina. Psicoterapia e scienze umane, 2, 251-280. https://doi.org/10.3280/pu2024-002003
Buitendag, N. (2025). The Structure of Legal Evolution: Applying philosophy of science to legal philosophy in Earth System Law. Law And Critique, 37(1), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-025-09429-5
Cash, T. N., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2024). Assessing metacognitive knowledge in subjective decisions: The knowledge of weights paradigm. Thinking & Reasoning, 31(3), 331-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2024.2426543
Chafe, R. (2024). Different paradigm conceptions and their implications for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241282871
Collins, L. M., Nahum-Shani, I., Guastaferro, K., Strayhorn, J. C., Vanness, D. J., & Murphy, S. A. (2024). Intervention Optimization: A Paradigm shift and its potential implications for clinical psychology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080822-051119
Dan, P. (2024). Paradigm and symbolic universe: the enduring significance of thomas kuhn. The Annals of the University of Bucharest Philosophy Series, 72(2/2023), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.62229/aubpslxxii/2_23/5
Davey, K. (2022). What is Kuhn’s Problem? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259461
Derrig, R. (2022). What can a few make of mankind? European Journal of International Law, 33(4), 1287-1305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac072
De Lucas, J. V. M. (2024). Pasos hacia la revolución: el surgimiento de los paradigmas y la evolución intelectual de Kuhn (1949-1961). Anales Del Seminario De Historia De La Filosofía, 41(3), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.5209/ashf.89123
Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2023). Rigorous exploration in a model-centric science via epistemic iteration. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 189-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121
Drayson, H. (2024). Sensorial Investigations: A history of the senses, in anthropology, psychology, and law. Leonardo, 581-582. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_r_02576
Foucault. М. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books. XXIV + 387 p. https://monoskop.org/images/a/a2/Foucault_Michel_The_Order_of_Things_1994.pdf
Francq, A., Saumitou-Laprade, P., Vernet, P., & Billiard, S. (2023). A paradigm shift, or a paradigm adjustment? The Evolution of the Oleaceae Mating System as a Small-Scale Kuhnian Case Study. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 98(2), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1086/725275
Gadamer H.G., (1975) Truth and Method (J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall, trans.). London: Continuum Publishing Group. XXVI+637 p. https://www.academia.edu/104070730/Truth_and_Method_by_Hans_Georg_Gadamer
Glenney, B. (2023). David Howes, Sensorial Investigations: A History of the Senses in Anthropology, Psychology, and Law. Social History of Medicine, 38(1), 175-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkad103
González, S. M. (2025). El estatuto epistémico de las ciencias humanas a la luz de la noción de «paradigma» Análisis Filosófico, 45(2), 281-307. https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1127
Grobler, A. (2023). Incommensurability explained in the terms of presuppositions. A comment to Kuhn’s thesis on radical meaning variance. Studia Historiae Scientiarum, 22, 239-258. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543702xshs.23.005.17696
Guillén, J. M. B. (2020). Psychotherapies in current clinical psychology and psychiatry in Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health, 17(2), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsm.2020.01.004
Heidegger M., (1927). Sein und Zeit. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 450 S. https://archive.org/details/sein_und_zeit/mode/1up
Herrera, G. R. (2025). On the Incommensurability of Paradigms: a Critical Vision; Sobre la inconmensurabilidad de paradigmas: una vision critica. Letras (Lima), 96(143), 50. https://doi.org/10.30920/letras.96.143.4
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2022). Is Kuhn’s “World Change through Revolutions» Comprehensible? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259458
Hwang, K. (2022). An Epistemological Strategy for Initiating Scientific Revolution against WEIRD Psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57(2), 361-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09681-9
Irzik, G., & Irzik, S. (2025). Interpretation and hermeneutics in Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 321-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2025.2604645
Jens, V. R., Maite, D. B., & James, H. (2024). Embracing the Anomalies, Embracing what is Invisible: Thomas Kuhn’s Insights Opening New Perspectives to the Study of Theology and Religious Studies. Lirias. https://doi.org/10.2143/ls.47.1.3294554
Justo, F. A., De Deus Herrera, B., Soares, P. R., & Scudeler, T. L. (2022). Plato’s allegory of the cave and the paradigm of complete revascularization in STEMI. Clinical Cardiology, 46(2), 232-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23946
Klimstra, T. A., & McLean, K. C. (2024). Reconsidering normative interpretations in personality research. European Journal of Personality, 39(1), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241238788
Krüger, O. (2021). From an Aristotelian ordo essendi to relation: Shifting paradigms in the study of religions in the light of the Sociology of Knowledge. Numen, 69(1), 61-96. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685276-12341633
Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research. A. C. Crombie (ed.). Scientific Change (Symposium on the History of Science, University of Oxford. pp. 347-369.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Vol. 2, No. 2). University of Chicago Press. xvii+210 p.
Layman, C. A., & Rypel, A. L. (2023). Beyond Kuhnian paradigms: Normal science and theory dependence in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 13(7), e10255. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10255
Levín, S. A. (2025). The crisis of scientific paradigm in modern psychiatry and a look to the future. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences Reports, 4(2), e70132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.70132
Mayoral, J. V. (2023). The Normal and the Revolutionary: Kuhn’s Conversations with Rorty. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 36(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2023.2248546
Mayrhofer, R., Büchner, I. C., & Hevesi, J. (2024). The quantitative paradigm and the nature of the human mind. The replication crisis as an epistemological crisis of quantitative psychology in view of the ontic nature of the psyche. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1390233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390233
Melnyk V. (2025). Paradyhma istoryzmu v sotsialnii psykholohii: sutnist spivprychetnosti ta pryvilei identychnosti. [Historism paradigm in social psychology: the essence of complicity and the privileges of identity] Habitus. Naukovyi zhurnal, 71. 299-306. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5208.2025.71.53
Moonveld, M., & McVeigh, J. (2025). Macropsychology: A systematic scoping review of the psychology literature on public policy and law. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030350
Mungan, E. (2023). Gestalt theory: A revolution put on pause? Prospects for a paradigm shift in the psychological sciences. New Ideas in Psychology, 71, 101036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101036
Lopes, J., & Phenomenology, R. S. F. (2024). Cognitive science, phenomenology, and the unity of science. Studia Phaenomenologica, 24, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.5840/studphaen2024245
Partelow, S. (2023). What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 13(3), pp. 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w
Petrovich, E., & Viola, M. (2022). The “cognitive neuroscience revolution» is not a (Kuhnian) revolution. Evidence from scientometrics. Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia E Psicologia. https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2022.0013
Phillips, A., Luo, R., & Wendland-Liu, J. (2023). Shifting the paradigm: A critical review of social innovation literature. International Journal of Innovation Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2023.08.003
Potters, J. (2022). Conceptualizing paradigms: on reading Kuhn’s history of the quantum. Annals of Science, 79(3), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2022.2063945
Preston, J. (2024). Kuhn’s paradigms and their early critics. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2877(1), 012072. URL: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2877/1/012072
Puggioni, R. (2023). Rethinking the ordinary and the extraordinary: Reading Rancière’s dissensual politics through Kuhn. Thesis Eleven, 175(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136231165038
Quintero, D. T. F. (2022). Paradigmas: ¿prisiones mentales? Filosofia Unisinos, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2022.231.02
Rasner, J. (2024). De anomalías y revoluciones: el colapso de los paradigmas. Estudios De Filosofía, 72. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.356920
Rojas-Saffie, J. P., García-Matte, N., & Silva-Beyer, V. (2024). Allport, Aristotle and Aquinas: An interdisciplinary definition of personality. New Ideas in Psychology, 75, 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101096
Rose, M., & Maylea, C. (2023). The case for implementing legal clinical supervision within legal practice, and recommendations for best practice. Griffith Law Review, 32(3), 259-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2260731
Salgar, E. (2023). Thomas S. Kuhn and the transformation of the concept of “Scientific progress.» Beytulhikme an International Journal of Philosophy, 13(13:3), 130-157. https://doi.org/10.29228/beytulhikme.69294
Schindler, S. (2024). Normal science: not uncritical or dogmatic. Synthese, 203(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04527-w
Schwartz, A. I., & Sunderman, G. (2024). Forging links between cognitive psychology, applied linguistics, and educational psychology. The American Journal of Psychology, 137(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.5406/19398298.137.2.07
Sek-Ciudalcampo, & Atencia-Conde-Pumpido, P. (2024). Extendiendo la Genealogía de la Semántica de Thomas Kuhn. Una Mirada a las Conferencias Lowell y la Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas. Estudios De Filosofía, 72. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.358023
Shukla, S. Y., Thompson, F. A., & Shear, S. B. (2025). Commitments to doing differently: Paradigm shifts necessary for critical educational psychology research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 80, 102342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102342
Skorinko, J. L. M., Schweitzer, K., & Kehn, A. (2025). Editorial: Applying cognitive and social psychology to the legal system: what we know today and what is next. Frontiers in Cognition, 4, 1695413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2025.1695413
Speliotis, E. (2025). Paradigm and method in Plato’s Statesman. Revista Archai, 34, e034S4. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249x_34_s4
Starynskyi, M., & Zavalna, Z. (2025). Paradigms in law: the reality of modern legal science. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 58-64. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.01.8
Tanesini, A. (2025). Non-Idealised Virtue Epistemology as particularist virtue theory. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 33(2), 160-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2025.2456822
Tanghe, K. B. (2023). Thomas S. Kuhn: key to a better understanding of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Theory in Biosciences, 143(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-023-00409-w
Taveras-Dalmau, V., Becken, S., & Westoby, R. (2025). From paradigm blindness to paradigm shift? An integrative review and critical analysis of the regenerative paradigm. AMBIO, 54(12), 1985-2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02232-7
Tech, V., & Patton, L. (2024). Kuhnian Practical Politics: Why It’s (Epistemically) Virtuous to be (Evaluatively) Attached to a Paradigm. Estudios De Filosofía, 72. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.356660
Walasik, A. (2024). Ekonomia finansowa jako nauka normalna: ujęcie krytyczne z perspektywy koncepcji paradygmatów Kuhna oraz naukowych programów badawczych Lakatosa. Ruch Prawniczy Ekonomiczny I Socjologiczny, 86(1), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2024.86.1.08
Zagaria, A. (2024). Is Evolutionary Psychology a scientific Revolution? A bibliometric analysis. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 10(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-024-00234-5
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Viktoriia Petrushenko