The Ecology of an Ecological Study: Comments on Marple's “Technological Innovation and Organizational Survival”

Abstract

In the use of historical data for sociological analysis there is always the danger of misinterpretation or interpretation out of context. This may be a particular problem when familiarity with the subject that is being researched is limited. Technological Innovation and Organization Survival: A Population Ecology Study of Nineteenth-Century American Railroads by David Marple (1982) suffers from this problem. Generally, the article is theoretically and methodologically sound. However, the author's knowledge of the empirical subject of the research-the growth and development of American railroads-has some important limitations. This leads to questionable assumptions, interpretations, and generalizations. To begin, there are problems in the operationalization of the dependent variable, survivorship status. Marple states that survival or nonsurvival in this study is not measured in terms of the death or extinction of a productive unit but, rather, whether or not the unit was merged into another unit. He quotes Aldrich (1979: 199): depending on the circumstances, a merger or take-over might represent 'failure' from the perspective of the acquired This may be true, but as Aldrich (1979:199) states, one needs to look at the circumstances or historical context of the particular phenomenon that is being researched. If the history of railroads is examined, especially the period in Marple's investigation, two primary reasons for merger or consolidation are apparent. The first reason is that the merger will bring additional monetary returns for the owners or stockholders. To increase profit, a common strategy for railroads is merger or consolidation which may have direct results, such as tapping new markets, or indirect results, such as gaining a competitive advantage over other lines by controlling key routes. All major railroads in the United States were developed from many smaller lines through the process of merger and consolidation (Taylor and Neu, 1956). Certainly, a profitable, solvent railroad merged into another for the purpose of increasing profits for the owners or shareholders would not represent a failure from the perspective of the acquired firm. Merger or consolidation may also occur when a railroad files bankruptcy and is subsequently acquired by a solvent railroad. This is a situation of true failure from the perspective of the acquired firm. However, what is the specific condition that constitutes the failure? Is it the merger with another railroad or is it the fact that the railroad went through bankruptcy, receivership to the creditors, and finally reorganization under new ownership? Obviously it is the latter, but this creates a problem for Marple's investigation. Many railroads of that period, including small railroads such as the Maryland and Pennsylvania (Hilton. 1963), large ones such