I've decided....

that I can't make up my mind. First about the title. Now the subtitle. It will probably change again, perhaps in the next few moments, depending on whether I have a new or different revelation about what Russo's Paradigm really means.
(One definition: A general agreement of belief of how the world works, what could be called 'common sense').

Or how about this one: (In general, pattern, exemplar, or example (especially an outstanding or unproblematic example); more technically, a theoretical, methodological, or heuristic framework. Originally meaning the exemplification of the rule, the term paradigm has become the rule that governs the example. In modern structural linguistics, particularly with Roman Jakobson [253], the paradigm is defined by complementary opposition to the syntagm, the paradigmatic axis being the system of associations from which the constitutive elements of the discursive chain, or syntagm, are selected.)

Now, like me, I know you understood all that, right? Riiight.

Actually, I liked the first one better. And when you add this addendum: "paradigms are social constructions, historically and culturally embedded discourse practices, and therefore neither inviolate nor unchanging". It makes even more sense since the paradigm is not rigid, but flexible as I would prefer.
(More on this later)