This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gibbert, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Munchausen, Black Swans, and the RBV

Response to Levitas and Ndofor

Bocconi University, Italy, michael.gibbert{at}unibocconi.it

The critique by Levitas and Ndofor (this issue) challenges the author’s earlier argument (Gibbert, this issue) on three grounds. It starts off by denying the existence of any paradox. Second, they argue that even if there were a paradox, attempts to ensure generalizability would actually hamper, rather than foster the development of the RBV. Finally, they observe that the problems of the RBV extend beyond generalizability and discuss a number of additional problems, in particular—construct validity. It was not within the scope of the author’s original essay to assess the importance of other criteria that can be used to assess the quality of a theory. This response provides an opportunity to address this importance. The author first attempts to clarify the distinction between the logic of a situation and its implied methodology. Confusion of the two motivated, the author believes, Levitas and Ndofor’s critique. The author then uses this distinction to address each of the three criticisms in turn.

Key Words: generalizability • resource-based view • philosophy of science

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 2, 145-151 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1056492606287797


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?