Path Dependence, Competition, and Succession in the Dynamics of Scientific Revolution

Abstract

What is the relative importance of structural versus contextual forces in the birth and death of scientific theories? We describe a formal dynamic model of the birth, evolution, and death of scientific paradigms based on Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The model represents scientific activity as a changing set of coupled institutions; a simulated ecology of interacting paradigms in which the creation of new theories is stochastic and endogenous. The model captures the sociological dynamics of paradigms as they compete against one another for members, solve puzzles, and recognize anomalies. We use sensitivity tests and regression to examine the role of intrinsic versus contextual factors in determining paradigm success. We find that situational factors attending the birth of a paradigm largely determine its probability of rising to dominance, while the intrinsic explanatory power of a paradigm is only weakly related to the likelihood of success. For those paradigms surviving the emergence phase, greater explanatory power is significantly related to longevity. However, the relationship between a paradigm's "strength" and the duration of normal science is also contingent on the competitive environment during the emergence phase. Analysis of the model shows the dynamics of competition and succession among paradigms to be conditioned by many positive feedback loops. These self-reinforcing processes amplify intrinsically unobservable microlevel perturbations in the environment-the local conditions of science, society, and self faced by the creators of a new theory-until they reach macroscopic significance. Such path dependent dynamics are the hallmark of self-organizing evolutionary systems. We consider the implications of these results for the rise and fall of new ideas in contexts outside the natural sciences such as management fads.

Management Fashion Pay-for-Performance for CEOs

“…As people become increasingly convinced that a management fashion works, they are less likely to seek or notice evidence to the contrary. Positive feedback processes dominate these dynamics, leading to rapid adoption of those new ideas lucky enough to gain a sufficient initial following (Sterman and Wittenberg (1999)). Pay-for-Performance can be interpreted as a management fashion that initially had positive effects.…”

“…History shows that management fashions occur in ever faster succession (see Figure 1). 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 Many management fashions develop and survive despite doubts about their effectiveness, or if they are later shown to be dysfunctional (Sterman and Wittenberg (1999)). At times, management fashions even penetrate domains for which they have not been designed.…”

Evaluation of the evolution of green management with a Kuhnian perspective

“…He argued that new theories replace old ones revolutionizing the foundations rather than building on them (Sterman and Wittenberg 1999). Therefore, he defined ''normal'' and ''revolutionary'' phases in the development process of science.…”

“…When the existing paradigm ceases to function properly and becomes powerless and hopeless against problems created by itself, an increasing number of scientists begin to alienate it from scientific discipline and begin to behave anomalously. Most of these anomalies are assimilated by normal science; however, some persistent anomalies accumulated over time (Barnes 1982;Sterman and Wittenberg 1999). When these anomalies reach sufficient magnitude, the scientific discipline falls into a state of crisis that cannot be worked out with current instruments and means (Kuhn 1962).…”

Living in a bubble? Toward a unified bubble theory

“…In the social context, feedback loops were used to explain non-financial 'hypes', such as the advancement of scientific theories (Sterman and Wittenberg 1999).…”