The problem here, is that when one wants to understand how scientific progress is made, the particular perspoectives of the subjects (a.k.a. current implicit and explicit understandings of scientists) is the matter for research.

Postmodernism has its place, also in 'real' science.

> when one wants to understand how scientific progress is made

Kuhn covered it in full. Nothing more to be said on this subject.

> the particular perspoectives of the subjects

Which is perfectly covered by well-grounded, tested and entirely scientific anthropology methods. No postmodernism whatsoever.

> Postmodernism has its place, also in 'real' science.

Postmodernism goes much further than simply acknowledging that a personal perspective may affect a pace of knowledge acquisition (but not the final outcome of it).

Postmodernism introduces an outrageous idea that a personal perspective is just as valuable as an objective knowledge, and some (with the so called feminists being among the worst) even go further and ditch the objective knowledge altogether.

> Kuhn covered it in full. Nothing more to be said on this subject.

The book was a classic when it came out, but there have been some fairly strong critiques in the past fifty years or so.

In fact, the most recent edition of the book includes a 'Postscript' written in 1969, in which Kuhne tries to answer some of the most pertinent criticisms of his theory.

There are also alternative theories to all this, or at least different perspectives one can take. Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations is a good example.