The Genevan School is a convenient—and vague—name to identify the model of knowledge of the Institute Rousseau that prevailed in Geneva throughout the 20th century. Simplicity (Ratcliff, 2006) in the experimentation made of tinkering and ingenuity is a criterion used to characterize it, as simplicity is found in Claparède, Descoeudres, Rey, Piaget and Inhelder. In this paper, we look for criteria that allow us to differentiate between two Genevan Schools, particularly between the style of Claparède and that of Piaget. We will approach it using the notion of research culture (Ratcliff, 2024). I put that research activity presupposes a research culture, made by the set of codes and rules of the social structure, that regulates research interactions. The Piagetian research culture is characterized by its unity and its systematicity. Faced with the variety of disciplines taught at the Institute (Hofstetter, 2010), Piaget proposed a unifying theory of the development of knowledge, linked to epistemology, of which psychology became a privileged field of research. For sure, Piaget did not start from scratch. He found at the Institute many social practices that he systematized. For example, a pre-existing practice involved the integration of pupils in teachers' research (Hofstetter, 2010). Piaget systematized this practice of collaboration to the point of labeling the title of collaborator and ended up with nearly 350 collaborators co-signing his work. Similarly, the very social structure of research was modified: until around 1932, it took the form of a workshop, the relationship with the students was horizontal and Piaget rubbed shoulders with the learners. This social structure changed with the arrival in the 1930s of a generation of female researchers (Szemińska, Meyer, Inhelder) who acted as intermediaries with the pupils.