Abstract
Background. The concept of a paradigm occupies a central position in the philosophy of science and the methodology of scientific inquiry. However, its application in legal psychology remains insufficiently conceptualized. The growing interdisciplinary nature of contemporary research necessitates a clarification of the theoretical foundations for using this category, taking into account historical-philosophical, epistemological, and psychological perspectives.
Objective. To determine the theoretical foundations of the concept of paradigm within the context of legal psychology and to substantiate it as an integrated epistemological category.
Methods. A structural-functional method was employed to analyze the principal components of the concept of paradigm. In addition, historiosophical, epistemological, and gnoseological approaches were applied to examine the patterns of scientific knowledge development and the formation of paradigms in legal psychology.
Results. The study demonstrates that the concept of paradigm is intrinsically connected with the development of scientific knowledge, the socio-historical conditions of scientific activity, and Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions. It is shown that the emergence of a scientific paradigm is possible only when new knowledge gains recognition and acceptance within the scientific community. Furthermore, the structure of a paradigm is substantiated as comprising epistemological, gnoseological, and social components that determine the mechanisms underlying the development of legal psychological science.
Conclusions. In legal psychology, a paradigm serves as a tool for the systematization and interpretation of scientific knowledge, facilitating the transition from established theoretical models to new conceptual approaches. Its development is cyclical and depends on the interaction of cognitive, methodological, and social factors. The proposed interpretation expands the theoretical foundations of legal psychology and may serve as a basis for further research into its methodological framework.
Keywords: paradigm; legal psychology; epistemology; gnoseology; scientific revolution; paradigm shift.
Received: October 21, 2024
Accepted: November 21, 2025
Published: December 30, 2025
References
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. (2021). «World» and «Paradigm» in Heidegger and Kuhn. Franciscanum, 63(175), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21500/01201468.4716
Bentley, J. (2024). Positivist or post-positivist philosophy of science? The left Vienna Circle and Thomas Kuhn. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 107, 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.08.003
Biely, K. (2024). Paradigm changes in research: Kuhn meets socio-ecological transition theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 480, 144057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144057
Boechat, W. (2023). Devouring and asphyxia: paradigm crisis, the depletion of the hero and complex thought1. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 68(2), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5922.12911
Chafe R. (2023). Rejecting choices: The problematic origins of researcher-defined paradigms within qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1-10. URL: https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=000968195000001
Chaparak, A. (2023). Toward a new stage for the epistemology of futures studies: Exploring social epistemology. Futures, 153, 103237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103237
Cominelli, L. (2025). The socio-cognitive perspective: Why does «the cognitive» matter? Oñati Socio-legal Series. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2303
Daniel Omodeo, P. (2016). Kuhn’s Paradigm of Paradigms: Historical and Epistemological Coordinates of The Copernican Revolution. In: Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science. Berlin: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. URL: https://www.mprlseries.mpg.de/proceedings/8/7/index.html
Demidenko, N. M., & Bilous, T. L. (2023). Concept, subject and method of legal psychology. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 101(2 (Part 2)), 317-323. https://doi.org/10.32631/v.2023.2.62
De Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique generale. Lausanne: Payot. Edition critique 1997. xviii+513 p.
Fernández-Domínguez, J., Lara Clares, C., Bagasheva, A. (2020). Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation. (Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory, Vol. 16). Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020. 265 p.
Fuller, C. (1994). Legal Anthropology,: Legal Pluralism and Legal Thought. Anthropology Today, 10(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2783478
Gaj, N. (2023). Epidemiological Models and Epistemic Perspectives: How Scientific Pluralism may be Misconstrued. Foundations of Science, 30(2), 507-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09936-7
Geier, M. (2011). Eine Revolution der Denkart. In VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks. 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93069-5_2
Gori, P. (2024). Thomas Kuhn’s Late Incommensurability Thesis as a Wittgensteinian Pragmatism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, XVI(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/11p4zv
Guba E., Lincoln Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication & Technology, 30, 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765185
Hauge, K. H. (2024). How ethical areas of post-normal science can invigorate mathematics education. Futures, 160, 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103394
Hilton, G. M., Bhuller, Y., Doe, J. E., Wolf, D. C., & Currie, R. A. (2023b). A new paradigm for regulatory sciences. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 145, 105524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105524
Joshua, G.M. (2014). An overview of Thomas Kuhn’s views on paradigm shift, and its application to sociology. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications. Volume-2, Special Issue 7 (Nov-Dec 2014), 83-86. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340446569_AN_OVERVIEW_OF_THOMAS_KUHN’S_VIEWS_ON_PARADIGM_SHIFT_AND_ITS_APPLICATION_TO_SOCIOLOGY
Kallestrup, J., & Cavasin, E. (2025). Epistemic deferral, gnoseology, and intellectual ethics. Asian Journal of Philosophy, 4(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00287-7
Kankam, P. K. (2019). The use of paradigms in information research. Library & Information Science Research, 41(2), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.04.003
Kant I. (1919). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Leipzig: Der Philosophischen Bibliothek, Band 37, 1919. 866 S.
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
Kim, M. S. (2025). Legal pluralism that wasn’t: State and the plurality of law in late medieval and early modern Europe. Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue D Histoire Du Droit / the Legal History Review, 93(1-2), 130-167. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-20250108
Krauss, A. (2024). Debunking revolutionary paradigm shifts: evidence of cumulative scientific progress across science. Proceedings of the Royal Society a Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 480(2302). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2024.0141
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.
Lehmann-Hasemeyer, S., Prettner, K., & Tscheuschner, P. (2023). The scientific revolution and its implications for long-run economic development. World Development, 168, 106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106262
Lorenzetti, C. S., Raicik, A. C., & Peduzzi, L. O. Q. (2024). Periodic law, chemical elements and scientific discoveries: considerations from Norwood Hanson and Thomas Kuhn. Foundations of Chemistry, 26(3), 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-024-09512-2
Luckhardt C. G. (1978). Beyond knowledge: Paradigms in Wittgenstein's later philosophy. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 12(39), 240-252. https://doi.org/10.2307/2106982
Lotysh, T., & Balatska, O. (2024). Reasonableness of court decisions in the paradigm of psychological, logical and doctrinal analysis. ScienceRise: Juridical Science, (2 (28), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.15587/2523-4153.2024.307745
Mansouri, A. (2024). Scientific Realism vs. Evolutionary Epistemology: A Critical Rationalist Approach. Acta Analytica, 40(2), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-024-00606-2
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
Mendoza, A. L. R. (2023). Legal psychology from social psychology. historical introduction of forensic psychology. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 11(1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2023.11.00361
Melnyk V. (2013). Psykholohichna antropolohiia ta klinichna psykholohiia. // Medychna nauka ta praktyka XX stolittia. [Psychological anthropology and clinical psychology] K.: Kyivskyi medychnyi naukovyi tsentr, 13-15. [In Ukrainian]
Melnyk V. (2025). From Res Publica to Stato: Ancient Roman and Medieval Terminologies of the Concept of the State and Their Early Modern Transformations. Politology Bulletin, 95. 106-127. https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2025.95.106-127
Melnyk V. (2025b). Paradyhma istoryzmu v sotsialnii psykholohii: sutnist spivprychetnosti ta pryvilei identychnosti. Habitus: Sotsialna psykholohiia. Yurydychna psykholohiia, Vypusk 71. S. 299-306. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5 [In Ukrainian]
Merlo, E. M. (2023). Considerations on the Fundamental Relationship between Clinical Psychology and Epistemology. Directory of Open Access Journals. https://doi.org/10.13129/2282-1619/mjcp-3965
Navarro, J., & Pino, D. (2024). The boundaries of gnoseology. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02205-8
Neder, G. (2024). Paradigma legalista, cultura jurídica e religião em perspectiva transdisciplinar. Rei - revista estudos institucionais, 10(4), 1069-1089. https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v10i4.871
Ok, B. (2024). From Feyerabend’s scientific pluralism to Kymlicka’s political multiculturalism: the question of Social unity. Beytulhikme an International Journal of Philosophy, 14(14:3), 755-774. https://doi.org/10.29228/beytulhikme.76030
Ozerskyi, I. (2024). Identification of legal psychology as an independent branch of law. SSP Modern Law and Practice, 4(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.53933/sspmlp.v4i4.163
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
Peiró, J. M. (2025). Applied Psychology and Careers in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. Australian Journal of Career Development, 34(2), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162251350691
Politi, V., & Shan, Y. (2023). Beyond Structure: New Frontiers of the Philosophy of Thomas Kuhn. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 36(2), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2023.2264158
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
Ribeiro-Schneider, D., Bolaños-Pizarro, M., Bueno-Cañigral, F. J., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2023). Figuras adicionales del artículo publicado en la Revista Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina 69 (3) y 69 (4). Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8362454
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
Saraiva, I. (2024). Ciencia de la información y paradigmas: una revisión desde la filosofía kuhniana. Estudios De Filosofía, 72. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.356885
Schindler, S. (2024). Normal science: not uncritical or dogmatic. Synthese, 203(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04527-w
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
Senkevich, G. A., Khilko, A. S., & Aksonov, O. I. (2021b). Scientific paradigm theory as model and methodology of scientific knowledge. Scientific Notes of V I Vernadsky Taurida National University Series Philology Journalism, 3(1), 168-174. https://doi.org/10.32838/2710-4656/2021.1-3/29 [In Ukrainian]
Seuthe, A., & Freyberg, S. (2024). Pluralism and the unity of science: physics and political epistemology in Cassirer’s phenomenology of knowledge. Continental Philosophy Review, 57(3), 471-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-024-09658-y
Silvia, M. (2021). Unveiling Human Behaviour: A comprehensive exploration of influential paradigms in psychology. Social Science Chronicle., 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2021.005
Shovy, A., & Azmy, L. U. (2024). Ferdinand de Saussure’s Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Concepts of Charles Sander Peirce in the Quran on Qauliyah and Kauniyah Verses: Semiotics Approach. Journal of Arabic Language Studies and Teaching, 4(1), 37-59. URL: https://doi.org/10.15642/jalsat.2024.4.1.37-59
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
Sternberg, R. J. (2023). Unwrapping Gifts: Understanding the inner workings of giftedness through a panoply of paradigms in the field of psychology. Roeper Review, 45(2), 84-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2023.2172754
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
Tunç, D. U. (2023). The subject of knowledge in collaborative science. Synthese, 201(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04080-y
Turunen, P., Hirvonen, I., & Pättiniemi, I. (2023). Epistemological scientism and the scientific meta-method. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00526-9
Vivas-Reyes, R. (2024). Clashing perspectives: Kantian epistemology and quantum chemistry theory. Foundations of Chemistry, 26(2), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-024-09508-y
Vélez-Jiménez, D., & Mora-Rojas, C. O. (2023). Fundamentos histórico-filosóficos de la química. Sophía, 34, 291-313. https://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n34.2023.10
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
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1953. 229 p.
Ylönen, M., & Aven, T. (2023). A framework for understanding risk based on the concepts of ontology and epistemology. Journal of Risk Research, 26(6), 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2194892
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