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

The article entitled “Path Dependence, Competition, and Succession in the Dynamics of Scientific Revolution” by Sterman and Wittenberg (1999) addresses the importance of different scientific theoretical perspectives and how these have evolved and disappeared over time. The concept of a new paradigm emerges in the wake of a new perspective or set of theoretical beliefs, but the degree to which this paradigm is successful is largely dependent upon a variety of external factors, including competition (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). This notion of competition is perhaps most relevant in supporting a paradigm, and how it relates to other environmental conditions to express the challenges of the paradigm, as well as how it might be influential in establishing change within a given society (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999).

The article begins with the identification of science as a means of promoting new discoveries, but that these efforts are not without their problems: “Scientific development is fraught with errors, blind alleys, and intense competition among competing worldviews, proceeding “as a succession of tradition-bound periods punctuated by non-cumulative breaks” “ (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999, p. 322). In this context, the article considers the role that science plays in establishing theories, but recognizes that there are significant patterns that promote errors in principle and judgment throughout the development of these theories (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). By using Thomas Kuhn’s concepts regarding scientific theories, the authors convey the idea that theories come and go at a relatively rapid pace, and that competition from other sources plays a significant role in shaping the manner in which these ideas or concepts are supported by evidence (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). This is an important distinction to make, because it facilitates a deeper discussion regarding scientific theory and if different ideas or concepts are considered to be revolutionary in nature for various reasons (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). It is also believed that scientific theories and principles may play a critical role in shaping organizational behaviors, but that these ideas are not exclusively based upon scientific concepts (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999).

The model being considered in the article emphasizes the importance of a multiparadigm interface, which permits change as the need warrants: “The individual paradigms have a rich internal structure representing the activities of each community, including the belief structure of the members, recruitment and defection, scientific activity such as puzzle solving and anomaly recognition, and the flows of people and information that couple the different paradigms competing against one another at any given time” (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999, p. 324). From this perspective, it may be argued that the authors recognize the non-static nature of scientific principles, and that there are many factors that continuously contribute to the overall direction and capacity of science to embrace new ideas and concepts on a regular basis (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). Therefore, there are constant changes to the model, based upon new paradigms entering the mix and others disappearing, and this reflects an opportunity to prove some theories and disprove others, based upon new scientific or environmental evidence (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999).

The multiparadigm model is tested on the basis of confidence in the model, and the outcomes reflect a comparison of different paradigms to each other, demonstrating some that succeed and others that fail (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). One idea to consider is that “In science there are often long delays between the initial success of a theory and the execution and interpretation of experiments that can test it” (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999, p. 337). This statement supports the notion that some paradigms cannot be easily proven as factual, and therefore, additional time is not used to support these concepts, and rather, new concepts take their place (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999, p. 337). It is believed that a theory or paradigm is most likely to be successful when it is supported by the world outside of the scientific realm, such as in marketing or individual discussion (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999). In these instances, it is believed that there are tremendous opportunities available to support these paradigms, and that outside influences often play a role in shaping science in these important ways (Sterman and Wittenberg, 1999).

Based upon the article, the scientific revolution is an ongoing phenomenon, a belief that continues to be active in the 21^st Century. There are significant patterns of growth and development across the science continuum that support the beliefs presented in this article, and that demonstrate the value that is placed upon science in a modern context. The notion of a multiparadigm concept is important in conveying the ever-changing nature of science, and how this reflects a capacity to learn new concepts and ideas, and to determine if they are worthy of further research or consideration. The authors provide a reputable argument, and they demonstrate that there are many factors that influence science on a regular basis, and that these reflect the ability of scientists and other individuals to determine which theories are valuable and which are not worthy of further consideration.