Stepping Into Research Traditions

Blaming the running injury epidemic on big, bad Nike seems too easy — but that’s okay, because it’s largely their fault.
— Christopher McDougall, Born to Run

This essay will look at the research in barefoot walking in podiatry as an indication of progressive pragmatic science. The thesis of this paper is that Larry Laudan’s theory results in an approach that is more representative of how barefoot research in podiatry has progressed as a more pragmatic theory. First, this essay will discuss the naturalist perspective of science and what Laudan’s research traditions are. Next, a brief account of the history of minimal shoes will frame the research project described following it. I will then touch on how Kuhn’s paradigm theory might portray research in barefoot walking differently from Laudan’s naturalist account of scientific progress. Finally, there will be a discussion and summary of how Laudan’s approach identifies barefoot research as a pragmatic theory, as well as a discussion on the choice researchers make with barefoot walking research.

Laudan’s research traditions

Larry Laudan believes that a good scientific theory should solve problems. This pragmatic approach is at the foundation of his theory of research traditions. A research tradition is like a “set of ontological and methodological dos and don’ts,” which attempts to account for developing scientific activities and achievements. This “naturalist” program in science believes that in order to recognize change in science, we have to look at the history of science. The progress of science will rely not just on developments in science, but also on the values and aims that are used to categorize “good science.” Progress in science, for Laudan, can and should be measured and compared to others past and ongoing research traditions.

Laudan proposes that in order to understand the progressiveness of a research tradition, we would need to consider whether it has problem-solving capabilities. Crucially, Laudan commits to the progress of a research tradition as necessarily temporal, or in other words, research traditions must be compared to past theories and achievements. His definition looks to the rate of progress of a research tradition by comparing it with others within the history of major historical scientific breakthroughs.

In order for Laudan’s research traditions to evaluate progressive science, he proposes ‘the context of acceptance.’ Laudan believes that the context of acceptance can help scientists choose what research traditions they ought to work on because it brings out important evaluative features. Laudan claims that by looking at the highest problem-solving adequacy of a theory, this in turn creates a more ‘workable’, criterion for judgement than either Popperian falsification models or Kuhnian paradigms. His context of acceptance also demands for both an account of ‘rational acceptance’ and “scientific progress.” By this, Laudan claims that research traditions fall under a critical lens of both having to fit into an acceptable rational criterion and connect to scientific progress. Third, the research tradition should be applicable to the “actual history of science” instead of applying to divergent or alternative models. Laudan’s context of acceptance is a great example of his pragmatic virtues on how science should progress. He requires that there be a rational goal of science, as well as the goal be accessible and recognizable with the research traditions.

Pragmatic values in research based on this context of acceptance can be found in the research of barefoot walking. Research in barefoot walking has become more prominent, largely from its pragmatic virtues that are described by Laudan’s account. Barefoot research is proving to offer solutions to seemingly unavoidable problems in (or, in some cases, possibly caused by) the current conception of what ‘good’ shoes are and what makes feet healthy.

A historical account of minimal shoes

Look back a few centuries, and you will find the use of shoes were not always a cultural necessity, but slowly became a sign of societal status, and used for warmth in colder places. What we characterize as normal shoe design (i.e. big cushions, pointed toe boxes…) has been a phenomenon of recent history. The early designs of ‘running shoes’ made by Nike came out in the 1970s, where a new design idea came forward. The new design brought with it a uniquely elevated shoe heel and cushioning that claimed to help our ‘weak feet’ tolerate foot-sole impact.

Today, we find our feet in places that demand cover and protection. For instance, from broken glass, trash, or hygiene reasons. When we consider how reliant people are on shoes for every activity, it is surprising to learn that more than half of all runners still report a running injury every year. Also, it feels peculiar to think that after millions of years of evolution, the foot as a structure which we have relied on so heavily as a species, would now be obsolete. Have our feet become weak?

Many patients are told by traditional podiatry that the answer to their ‘weak feet’ is supposedly not enough ‘support’ (i.e. with shoes or inserts). Frustratingly, podiatrists are still struggling to answer why their methods of support for feet are not working as well as they hoped. Another problem podiatrists are failing to concede is that proprioception, something many runners rely on to feel the ground and stay balanced, is reduced when shoes have increased cushion. This cushioning also changes their running gait, which in turn makes them more susceptible to injury, and yet podiatrists continue to prescribe cushioned shoes.

The design of shoes has not gone unnoticed and within the last twenty years, and people have begun to realize that the traditional shoe needs to be altered. Perhaps we can still capture the benefits of barefoot walking in the design of a shoe? Enter minimal shoes (or Barefoot shoes), a ‘shoe’ that meets the standards of barefoot walking communities and researchers as close enough to barefoot walking but still protected. Barefoot shoes generally have a 2–8 mm cushion, are considered ‘zero-drop,’ meaning the heel of the shoe is equal to the toe box in the front, and have no supportive arch structure. Generally, the soles of these shoes should also allow for the foot to feel through the shoe better and flex in order to stimulate the sensory nerves on the bottom of your foot. But can barefoot shoes both protect our feet and promote what podiatrists consider to be healthy foot function? Moreover, can barefoot shoes produce new solutions that normal shoes have failed to answer to? The case below investigates these questions.

Case example of barefoot walking research

A recent study in barefoot research by Nicholas Campitelli and Scott Spencer identified that minimalist shoes may help protect against, as well as treat, some reported injuries by runners by increasing foot-muscle thickness. In their study, Campitelli and Spencer look at foot-muscle thickness, specifically measuring the abductor hallucis which supports the ‘arch’ of the foot. By measuring the muscle of their test subjects before and after their 48 weeks of wearing a minimalist shoe, Campitelli and Spencer identify a statistically significant increase in the muscle size. From their findings, they believe that a barefoot shoe may not only help build muscle in the foot, but also treat problems caused by the traditional shoe.

Recognizing Kuhn

It can be helpful to recognize the differences in how Kuhn’s prominent theory of paradigms would describe barefoot research in podiatry. This section will briefly mention what a Kuhnian paradigm is, what ‘normal science’ is and their relation to podiatry. Characteristics of Kuhn’s paradigm theory are revealed in some current podiatric communities’ problematic practices, and the responses podiatrists give to the scientific community to these problems. Lastly, Laudan’s research traditions will be revisited in the critique of Kuhn’s position.

Kuhnian paradigms rely on “normal science” to be generally accepted theories, and metaphysical assumptions that produce “puzzle-solutions” within the discipline. Anomalies then arise that cannot be explained by the current paradigm, and with enough anomalies, comes a serious “crisis” in a discipline. The crisis in a scientific practice develops from the loss of confidence in a paradigms’ ability to solve or explain the discovered anomalies. For Kuhn, this ultimately leads to a scientific revolution if a rival theory can provide a better framework and method.

From the Campitelli and Spencer research case, minimal shoes are providing answers to puzzles raised by the current podiatric tradition. If this is true, then current research in barefoot walking should be recognized in Kuhn’s paradigm theory as a rival tradition. Interestingly, if podiatry is to be considered a Kuhnian paradigm, then research in barefoot walking should have a difficult time answering the puzzles and anomalies created in podiatry. For instance, in the Kuhnian conception of a rival program, there could be incommensurable methodologies for evaluating what puzzle problem to solve next. Luckily, this is not the case as seen by cases like the Campitelli and Spencer research case where many podiatrists agree that foot strength is a problem in many patients and needs more research and solutions. In other words, whether researchers are working on shod research or unshod research, the results of more foot muscle would be shared as a positive solution.

Current podiatry does demonstrate some characteristics of being a paradigm as Kuhn describes. Podiatrists still do not recognize many of the problems facing their current treatments and therapeutic methods of walking and running injuries. This could be explained in one part due to the rigid characteristics of paradigms, meaning they cannot dynamically evolve in response to anomalies. Additionally, the podiatric community has similarly shared theoretical beliefs and values of what is required for a healthy foot (i.e. better shoes). In turn, this can create a rather routine community of researchers who simply work on the continued normal science of ineffective treatments and the development of new custom orthotics for foot support.

Importantly, Kuhn provided a way to characterize scientific community development, how they produce ‘normal’ science and fall to rival theories. His theory is intuitive, but does have critical problems. One of those problems is that Kuhn does not give us a way to choose which theory to research. In other words, if barefoot research is to take on problems with podiatry, Kuhnian paradigm theory does not advise us which approach to consider. Kuhn’s theory focuses more on the activity of science making accurate predictions, and solving the puzzles found in the respective disciplines.
The next section will demonstrate how Laudan’s theory of research traditions gives us a more accurate picture of how barefoot research is developing pragmatically and gives guidance on why one should consider doing barefoot research.

A Barefoot research tradition

Laudan’s theory looks to adequacy and progress as ways to define some criteria for evaluating different research traditions. He takes this a step further with the ‘context of acceptance’ and ‘context of pursuit’, which suggest two divergent goal possibilities for scientific activity. For this section, the context of acceptance is considered for barefoot research. The context of acceptance, in short, looks to the theories with the highest problem-solving adequacy. This evaluative method is argued by Laudan to allow for a more ‘workable’ and ‘rational’ way of appraising research traditions. The context of acceptance helps to demonstrate that barefoot research should be considered for podiatrists in their research choices.

An example of scientific progress in podiatry emerges from the Campitelli and Spencer case, with Laudan’s pragmatic values in mind. Research in minimalism and barefoot walking is proving to be both fruitful in answering questions that the rival theory cannot, and produce a high rate of progress in generating new solutions.

Barefoot research has provided possible solutions to two problems currently in podiatry. One problem for podiatrist research is that by strengthening the muscles in the feet, runners and walkers become less susceptible to injury. Campitelli and Spencer have shown in their research that this strengthening process is extremely promising with barefoot walking. This case is just one of many that show the positive effects that barefoot walking has on the muscle structures of the foot, which in turn helps to remedy (even past) problems experienced by shod runners.

A second problem that podiatrists face in shod communities is that cushioning in shoes make runners more susceptible to injuries. This problem seems to be concerned with a lack of proprioception (from extra cushioning) as well as a change in the runners’ gait. It is crucial to barefoot shoe design that the foot is allowed to move with a more “natural” and flexible gait.

Although Campitelli and Spencer’s research case does not focus specifically on this problem, it was important that the value of flexibility and increased foot proprioception fundamental to minimal shoes were considered. Other research has shown that barefoot shoes are also providing real solutions to this gait and proprioception problem.

The problem-solving value that Laudan advocates for in progressive research traditions can be found in solutions like these. Moreover, it is possible for researchers to consider more than one theory ‘true’ during their work, and thus allow for flexibility in deciding on a new research tradition. This especially important if the newer theory can solve more important problems than its traditional rival or counterpart. Not only is barefoot research providing answers to current problems left behind by traditional conceptions of podiatry, but it is also providing new ways of considering the etiology of foot pathology and injury. In other words, this research tradition, albeit young, is proving to be a rational next step in the path for better podiatry treatments.

Concluding remarks

This essay showed how Laudan’s research traditions theory and the pragmatic values it cherishes are being found in barefoot research. The discussion also briefly recognized an important competing theory of paradigms from Thomas Kuhn and the ways it characterizes the podiatry scientific community differently from Laudan’s theory. Kuhn’s paradigm theory was able to capture some relevant characteristics of podiatry, but does not give any way to rationally choose which theory to move forward with compared to Laudan. With reference to a case study, research traditions proved to be a more accurate representation of how barefoot research is developing in scientific communities currently. Moreover, Laudan’s theory gives a rationality for taking results in barefoot research seriously and this, I argue, podiatrists should consider when looking into future treatments. Laudan’s pragmatic approach is concerned with giving a rational reason to choose one theory over another in research, and the research in barefoot walking is developing into a very appealing theory.

Original references were done with footnotes, sorry for any confusion.

References

A. Campitelli, Nicholas. “Lecture on Running Shoes from American Podiatric Medical Association 2014 National Convention.” Blog. Dr. Nick’s Running Blog (blog), September 18, 2016. http://www.drnicksrunningblog.com/9000-2/.

A. Campitelli, Nicholas, and Scott A. Spencer. “Can Minimalist Shoes Protect against Injury by Increasing Foot-Muscle Thickness? | Lower Extremity Review Magazine.” Lower Extremity Review, January 2018. https://lermagazine.com/article/can-minimalist-shoes-protect-against injury-by-increasing-foot-muscle-thickness.

“Barefoot Science — Learn More About The Benefits of Barefoot Shoes | Vivobarefoot EU.” Accessed January 22, 2020. https://www.vivobarefoot.com/eu/science.

Bird, Alexander. “Thomas Kuhn.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/.

Laudan, Larry. “From Theories to Research Traditions.” In Progress and Its Problems, 368–79. University of California Poress, 1977.

Niiniluoto, Ilkka. “Scientific Progress.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2019. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/scientific-progress/.

PureWow. “Is Walking Barefoot Bad for My Feet? We Asked a Podiatrist.” Accessed January 25, 2020. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/walking-barefoot-bad-feet-asked-130500902.html.

Robbins, S. E., and G. J. Gouw. “Athletic Footwear: Unsafe Due to Perceptual Illusions.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23, no. 2 (February 1991): 217–24.

Robbins, S. E., and A. M. Hanna. “Running-Related Injury Prevention through Barefoot Adaptations.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 19, no. 2 (April 1987): 148–56.

Sternbergh, Adam. “How We’re Wrecking Our Feet With Every Step We Take — New York Magazine — Nymag.” New York Magazine, April 18, 2008. http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/.

Zipfel, B., and L. R. Berger. “Shod versus Unshod: The Emergence of Forefoot Pathology in Modern Humans?” The Foot 17, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 205–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2007.06.002.