Untangling the Conceptual Isssues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations

Denise E. Dollimore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)
51 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Reydon and Scholz raise doubts about the Darwinian status of organizational ecology by arguing that Darwinian principles are not applicable to organizational populations. Although their critique of organizational ecology’s typological essentialism is correct, they go on to reject the Darwinian status of organizational populations. This paper claims that the distinction between replicators and interactors, raised in modern philosophy of biology but not discussed by Reydon and Scholz, points the way forward for organizational ecologists. It is possible to conceptualise evolving Darwinian populations providing the inheritance mechanism is appropriately specified. By this approach, adaptation and selection are no longer dichotomised, and the evolutionary significance of knowledge transmission is highlighted
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)282-315
JournalPhilosophy of the Social Sciences
Volume44
Issue number3
Early online date10 Apr 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2014

Keywords

  • Organizational ecology
  • Darwinian populations
  • replicator interactor distinction
  • adaptation
  • selection
  • inheritance

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Untangling the Conceptual Isssues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this