Epistemological Asymmetry and Innovation Resistance: A Structural Analysis of Knowledge Production in STEM and Humanities Disciplines

This paper examines the structural differences in innovation acceptance between STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and humanities disciplines through the lens of epistemological frameworks, institutional mechanisms, and validation criteria. Drawing on Kuhnian paradigm theory, institutional inertia research, and empirical analysis of disciplinary practices, I argue that STEM fields exhibit greater openness to innovation due to their empirical, falsifiable, and cumulative knowledge structures, whereas humanities disciplines demonstrate systematic resistance to conceptual innovation rooted in interpretive traditions, authority-based validation, and institutional preservation mechanisms. This asymmetry is not merely descriptive but carries normative implications: when resistance to innovation in humanities persists despite empirical refutation of established theories, it constitutes intellectual stagnation that impedes interdisciplinary dialogue and societal progress. The paper synthesizes evidence from philosophy of science, institutional theory, and digital humanities adoption patterns to demonstrate that this resistance is structurally embedded rather than incidental. I conclude by examining the consequences of this asymmetry for knowledge production in the 21st century and proposing pathways toward greater methodological pluralism in humanities scholarship.