I have, of late, started to think of paradigms as umbrellas: devices built to protect us from the vagaries of the real world; staving off the very worst of intellectual storm and observational confusion. Although fraught with the many difficulties and limitations of metaphor, I believe the notion holds some potential for pointing out factors relevant to the process of acquiring and retaining knowledge. In particular, for pointing out factors critical to taking a reflexive stance in research and inquiry.

The paradigm-umbrella is fabricated from a weave of beliefs, assumptions, methods, exemplars, metaphors, interpretive tools and the various other trappings characteristic to the process of inquiry. As such, these umbrellas are fundamental aspects of the process. In consequence, they are essential to the pursuit of knowledge.

Operating under any particular paradigm involves taking on the approved trappings of that paradigm. It is this practice - pursuing inquiry under a particular paradigm - that I interpret Kuhn describing as 'normal science.' Under any particular umbrella it is possible to pursue research in a focused, specialized manner. One is sheltered from the big questions: Is it possible to know? What is it possible to know? Is the process I am using one that could allow me to know? Am I changing the circumstances and/or behaviours of that which I study?

Effective shields, paradigms, to protect us from such ambiguity, uncertainty and unanswerable questions...
The difficulty is that the umbrellas can be, or be-come, counter-productive. I foresee two particular difficulties.

Firstly, the umbrellas so often become invisible. Gathered together as a community huddled under one particular umbrella we grow into believing our assumptions so strongly that we don't even notice their existence. We grow into believing our exemplars and metaphors are reality, not just representations or models of reality (try Baudrillard). And we grow into believing that our methods are the sole means of accessing truth. Turning to those outside, we claim their truths as wrong; their questions as reflections of ignorance. When questioned, we give a startled reply: 'What umbrella?!?'

Secondly, the umbrellas prevent or limit the observation of signals from reality. Coupled with a lack of recognition that we even have an umbrella, this can lead to disaster - irrefutable ideas and observations that cannot filter through the weave build up such a force that they crush the umbrella and those standing, as well as the understanding, beneath.

Thirdly, the umbrella just simply loses its functionality. As intellectual storm and observational precipitation get ever fierce and larger, rebounds become unavoidable despite the firmly held umbrella. Then a big splash in the eye: safe no longer. Frantically one attempts to redirect the umbrella, point it at whatever sends the offending message, but the weave is getting brittle... the surface area is getting smaller... Finally one is forced to reconsider - to reform the umbrella or pick-up a new one - scientific revolution in Khunian terms.

Questions that arise:

• How to keep the umbrella visible? (Is it possible for them not to become invisible?)
• How to develop a weave that will allow some filtration? - Without losing the essential shelter?
• What aspects make up the essential parts of the umbrella - the structure, the fabric, the tension? [Caution: this is only a metaphor...!!]
• How to ask those outside for hints regarding the size and nature of the storm? Is it getting bigger? Is the wind shifting?
• How to keep track of the condition of your umbrella? Is reality pooling on the top?

Paradigms as umbrellas: a simplistic metaphor perhaps, but I believe a useful one...
What is not yet included in this discussion, however, is a consideration of its limitations:

• How and when shouldn't this metaphor be applied?
• What might its application lead one to believe that is not appropriate or reasonable?
• What key aspects, concerns or considerations does this metaphor leave out?