Sources of Scientific Innovation: A Meta-Analytic Approach (Commentary on Simonton, 2009).

Abstract

Innovations in science can be divided into at least four major types: radical revolutions (such as Copernican and Darwinian theory), technical revolutions (led by scientists such as Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein), controversial innovations (for example, Semmelweis's theory of puerperal fever), and conservative innovations (eugenics and various vitalistic doctrines). Biographical predictors of support for scientific innovations are distinctly different depending on the type of innovation, as are the predictors of who initially engineers such innovations. A meta-analytic approach assessing each new scientific theory according to its salient features (including epistemological, ideological, and technical attributes) is required to make sense out of the varied predisposing factors associated with the origins of these innovations. These predisposing factors are not neatly classifiable in terms of Simonton's (2009, this issue) hierarchical model of domain-specific dispositions, although this model is applicable under some conditions. Instead, the principal sources of scientific achievement are largely a product of person-by-situation interaction effects that are dictated by the nature of the particular innovation.