In this reply, we respond to a series of substantive comments on our work by both Madhavan and Walker. In our response to Madhavan’s comments, we consider three accounts – “weak,” “semi-strong” and “strong” – that clarify how our model “explains” and offers insights that can emerge from our modeling strategy. We also explore ways in which our explanatory strategy might be extended in light of his critique. In our response to Walker’s comments, we adopt the “semi-strong” thesis, which admits variation in network-generating mechanisms, while also recognizing that information needs to be distributed and shared in order for many types of networks to function.
Moldoveanu, M.C., Baum, J.A.C. and Rowley, T.J. (2003), "MODELS AS AN EXPLANATORY STRATEGY AND THE UBIQUITY OF INFORMATION AS AN EXPLANATION", Dansereau, F. and Yammarino, F.J. (Ed.) Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy (Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(03)02017-4
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2003, Emerald Group Publishing Limited