Recently, Dollimore criticized our claim that Organizational Ecology is not a Darwinian research program. She argued that Organizational Ecology is merely an incomplete Darwinian program and provided a suggestion as to how this incompleteness could be remedied. Here, we argue that Dollimore’s suggestion fails to remedy the principal problem that Organizational Ecology faces and that there are good reasons to think of the program as deeply incompatible with Darwinian thinking.
CallebautW.2011. “Peering up above the Malthusian Abyss.” Biological Theory6:103-105.
2.
DawkinsR.1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
DawkinsR.1982. “Replicators and Vehicles.” In Current Problems in Sociobiology, edited by King’s College Sociobiology Group, 45-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DollimoreD. E.2014. “Untangling the Conceptual Issues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences44:282-315.
6.
HodgsonG. M.KnudsenT.2004. “The Firm as an Interactor: Firms as Vehicles for Habits and Routines.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics14:281-307.
7.
HullD. L.1980. “Individuality and Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics11:311-32.
8.
HullD. L.1998. Review of Anthony O’Hear, “Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science49:511-14.
9.
ReydonT. A. C.ScholzM.2009. “Why Organizational Ecology Is Not a Darwinian Research Program.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences39:408-39.
10.
ScholzM.ReydonT. A. C.2010. “Organizational Ecology: No Darwinian Evolution After All. A Rejoinder to Lemos.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences40:504-12.
