This article explores how psychological traditions reflect a struggle between conservation and innovation, suggesting a dynamic understanding of traditions.
This article advances the ideas presented by Oleinik and Zhuravlev (2024) regarding the role of scientific traditions, emphasizing their dynamic nature. While acknowledging the value of the authors’ systematic approach and three-dimensional model of scientific tradition, the paper identifies their insufficient attention to: (1) the inherently conflict-driven character of traditions, and (2) their dependence on technological and institutional factors. The analysis focuses on the paradoxical capacity of traditions to simultaneously preserve and transform knowledge. The study proposes an expanded conceptualization of scientific tradition as an ongoing struggle between conservation and innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
L. N. Goryunova (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: