Munchausen,Black Swans,and the RBV

Abstract

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.