The Conditions of Fruitfulness of Theorizing About Mechanisms in Social Science

Abstract

Mechanisms in a theory are defined here as bits of theory about entities at a different level (e.g., individuals) than the main entities being theorized about (e.g., groups), which serve to make the higher-level theory more supple, more accurate, or more general. The criterion for whether it is worthwhile to theorize at lower levels is whether it makes the theory at the higher levels better, not whether lower-level theorizing is philosophically necessary. The higher-level theory can be made better by mechanisms known to be inadequate in the discipline dealing with the lower level. Conditions for the usefulness of lower-level theorizing are proposed, with many examples from various social and physical sciences.

Building micro‐foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links

“…Stinchcombe, 1991). For example, there is no problem in asserting and showing that organizational culture perhaps is correlated with organizational performance.…”

Untapped Riches of Meso-Level Applications in Multilevel Entrepreneurship Mechanisms

“…Entrepreneurs are no different. The businesses they attempt to form do not operate in a vacuum, but inhabit open environments and are susceptible to influences from structures at higher levels of analysis (Stinchcombe, 1991). For example, entrepreneurs often join networking groups, seek advice from mentors, or work collaboratively with others to build their organizations.…”

Microfoundations for learning within international joint ventures

“…It is their managerial operationalization of organizational routines and capabilities that can generate and maintain competitive advantage (Felin et al, 2012). We can expect these three micro-components to have to interact if learning and organizational capacity building is to take place at an organizational or IJV level (Stinchcombe, 1991), as is represented in Figure 1. In the proceeding sections, each of these will be examined in turn.…”