They sought to rid the Meadian tradition of its "nonempirical" content and to demonstrate that "...the key ideas of symbolic interaction could be operationalized and unitized successfully in empirical research" (Kuhn, 1964:72)
as quoted in Reynolds

"If one may say, as others have, that Blumer's image of people led him to his particular methodology and that, in his scheme of things, a rather large theoretical dog wags a less than awesome methodological tail, then we may say of Kuhn that his methodological predilections inexorably led to his particular image of people, and that in his scheme of things an awesome methodological tail wags a rather puny theoretical dog."

• CONSENSUAL references;

  like teacher, student, girl, boy etc. and

  
  
• SUBCONSENSUAL references like;

  mad, sad, happy, warm etc.

1. What is the nature of the individual?
   
   
2. What is the nature of interaction?

   Interaction is released not constructed, role playing not role making

   
   
   
3. What is the nature of social organization?

   Kuhn sees structure (in terms of stable networks of statuses and roles) rather than process

   
   
   
4. What is the most appropriate method for studying humans and society?

   for Blumer it is exploration and inspection whereas Kuhn emphasized one science to study all things

   
   
   
5. What is the best form of sociological theoizing?

   For Blumer concepts can not be precise, we need to build from a set of "sensitizing" concepts that can help us in what to look for and under what types of conditions different types of interaction are likely to occur
   Kuhn, of course, goes for deterministic concepts and a notion of deductive theorizing. Build a unified system from which propostions can be derived and tested