Is social importance a paradim for the social sciences?

My reading marathon continues, now I finished reading the Golem and Kuhn´s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn´s answer to accusations of relativism in the postscript was not very decisive, basically he said: “well if that is what it means to be a relativist, than I am a relativist”. However I did like his initial argument comparing the progression of science to Darwin’s natural selection, in claiming that there is no teleological cause to the progression of science. Meaning there can never be a Theory of Everything, as scientific progression does not function this way. 

But the most interesting lesson I take away from reading the book was a remark he made in the end of the book. He wrote: 

“Unlike the engineer, and many doctors, and most theologians, the scientist need not choose problems because they urgently need solution and without regard for the tools available to solve them. In this respect, also, the contrast between natural scientists and many social scientists proves instructive. The latter often tend, as the former almost never do, to defend their choice of a research problem … chiefly in terms of the social importance of achieving a solution. Which group would one then expect to solve problems at a more rapid rate?” (Kuhn 1970: 164 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2^nd edition)

There he remarks on the differences of mature sciences (with established paradigms) and other human endeavors. Now I clearly agree with Kuhn’s notion that the mature sciences have a highly efficient way of dealing and defining puzzles. However it struck me while reading this that ALL social science usually has to grapple with issues of social importance into defining their research. If this does not constitute a paradigm, than at least it is a paradigm-like mechanism defining social research conduct by deciding what areas of research are important and which are not. 

Social importance along with political correctness defines what is a ‘good-way-of-conduct’ and what is bad research. For example: feminism and sustainable development are clearly defining areas of inquiry for social scientists. However it also can decide what is bad research, like in the case of the The Bell Curve, which was condemned by finding a socially unacceptable result. 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)

Now I don´t know if I kick in open doors here, but it seems to me that STS and SSK as of today has a pretty good understanding of the natural science in general, however the social sciences seem poorer understood. In a lecture about the Golem of Science Trevor Pinch remarked that science students (referring to natural science) are generally too busy doing science, to know what science ‘really’ is, remarking on the justification for the need of STS and SSK. 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Wi31ePsIw)

Now it seems to me that the same should be true for social science students, should it not? What is a proper way of conduct in the social science, lacking a paradigm like structure? How are debates resolved in the social sciences, lacking physical experiments? Pinch and Collins remarked in their book the Golem, just as a side note, that there are substantial differences between debates in physics and biology, what are the importance factors, how are they resolved etc. So why shouldn’t there be differences between let’s say physiology and economics?  

In a dreaming mood I envisioned a future, maybe 25 years from now, where the same work that today has been done on the natural science was done on the social sciences. That courses could be given to social science students, covering such subjects as: What is this thing we call social science? or the materiality of human geography, giving social science students a framework to their own disciplines similar to the courses today for natural science students.