Paradigm Change in Strategic Management Research:

Is the Resource-Based View a New Theory of Firm?

Marina Z. Solesvik

Stord/Haugesund University College

Bjørnsonsgate 45
5528 Haugesund, Norway
Tel. + 47 48133882
E-mail: mzs@hsh.no

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2631769

 Paradigm Change in Strategic Management Research:
Is the Resource-Based View a New Theory of Firm?

Abstract. The paper explores whether resource-based view with newly emerged extensions
including the dynamic capabilities perspective and the knowledge-based view is a new theory
of the firm the or a compliment to existing theories. The paper analyzes new paradigms in the
strategic management literature using Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) theory of scientific revolutions.
Kuhn’s framework is an important model that contributed significantly to the philosophy of
science. The results suggest that strategic management is a multi-paradigmatic discipline. The
conclusion indicates that the resource-based theory is a new paradigm of strategic
management, although not a dominating one.

Keywords: resource-based theory, knowledge-based view; dynamic capabilities perspective;

paradigm, collaboration, interpretivism, shipbuilding.

JEL Classification: B20, B25, M10, N01

1. Introduction

Kuhn (1962) suggested that a period of normal science lasts several decades. During this
period scholars use a current paradigm to analyze data, explain phenomena using the theories
of this paradigm, scientists improve the paradigm, and make it more sophisticated if
necessary. Eventually, a new paradigm emerges if the old one often fails to explain facts and
events. In strategic management the environmental paradigm dominated in the 1970s and the
beginning of the 1980s. The environmentalists advocated that external factors such as
industrial and market conditions (Porter, 1980) determine the competitive position of the firm.
The emphasis of debates during the last thirty years has changed from the environmental
perspective to the resource-based view of the firm proposed by Rumelt (1984), Wernerfelt
(1984), and Barney (1986). The resource-based view postulates that the source of competitive
advantage is in the firm’s resources. Those firms that own or have access to valuable, rare, and
poorly substitutable and imitable resources and capabilities achieve and sustain competitive
advantage. Furthermore, the resource-based perspective has been extended by the knowledge-
based view, the dynamic capabilities perspective, and the relational view. These new theories

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2631769

emerged as a response to critics of the resource-based view when it failed to fully clarify the
competitive advantage of firms in certain situations.

As Popper noted (1959:59), “theories are nets cast to catch what we call “the world”: to
rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavour to make the mesh ever finer and finer”.
Peteraf (1993) pointed out that the resource-based view has a potential as a paradigm in
strategic management. Mir and Watson (2000) claimed that the resource-based view has
chances to be a new theory of the firm. The present paper focuses on the perspectives
belonging to the resource-based theory of the firm. The research question which the article is
intended to answer is: Is the resource-based view the new paradigm in strategic management
or a compliment to existing theories? Answering this research question, this paper will
contribute to our understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of strategic management.
The theoretical underpinning of this article is the seminal work of Thomas Kuhn, The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970). The discussions of paradigms and
commensurability of paradigms are among the key positions of Kuhn’s theory.

The paper is organized as follows: the next section highlights the main positions of the
Kuhnian framework. In particular, Kuhn’s important contributions are the concept of the
paradigm, analysis of incommensurability of paradigms, and the distinction between normal
science and scientific revolutions. The subsequent section uses Kuhn’s theory to analyze
whether there was a paradigm shift in the strategic management literature with the emergence
of the resource-based theory. In the next section, the theory combination related to research on
collaboration in shipbuilding is considered. The rest of the paper is devoted to the explanation
of the philosophical foundation of the research. The study of collaboration will use an
interpretivist appraoch. The paper terminates with conclusions.

2. Theoretical Framework: Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions

The theoretical framework for the analysis of recent paradigm shifts in strategic management
is Thomas Kuhn’s work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which first appeared in 1962.
Although Thomas Kuhn was educated as a physicist, he later became interested in the history
of the philosophy of science. His book was named among the most imortant academic works
in the last century by the newspaper The Guardian. Kuhn’s philosophy replaced the idea of a
science-producing algorithm (Agassi, 1996). Kuhn’s views on the philosophy of science were
rather different from the vision of his contemporaries - Polaniy’s “mutual trust” and

3
“operationalism” of Bridgman (Fuller, 2003). Kuhn also criticized Popper’s (1959) belief on
perpetual revolution in science (Nickles, 2006: 799).

Kuhn (1970) suggested that most of the time a scientific thought has an evolutionary
development. He calls this process ‘normal science’. Kuhn (1970:10) defines normal science
as “research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that
some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for
its further practice”. From time to time, scientists come up with revolutionary ideas that
change the consciousness of other scientists in the discipline and change the course of normal
science. In the natural sciences, for example, such revolutions are related to the discoveries of
Copernicus, Einstein, and Darwin.

2.1. The Concept of Paradigm

The paradigm plays the central role in Kuhn’s framework. Kuhn (1970) used the term
‘paradigm’ in different meanings. Masterman (1974) has counted twenty-one different
meanings in Kuhn’s book. Nevertheless, Kuhn’s contribution to the philosophy of science
with the re-introduction of the term ‘paradigm’ is enormous. Kuhn (1970:175) defines
paradigm as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on shared by the
members of a given community”.

Kuhn (1970) argued that a paradigm consists of two elements. First, there is a building block
consisting of a series of beliefs, which are generally recognized by contemporary scholars.
Second, there is a range of research questions answered with the help of a paradigm. Scientific
work is ‘puzzle solving’. A paradigm often tells scientists which problems to ignore. Kuhn
(1970) claimed that paradigms supply researchers with essential knowledge on how to
conduct research, provide theories, and methods, and show the direction for scientific
exploration. In his work Kuhn (1970) reflected on whether a new paradigm is objectively
better than the old one. The answer is no. Paradigms can not be compared in this way. The
theory presupposes that scientists within different paradigms are living in different worlds.

The general support of the paradigm by the scientific community in a given discipline is one
of the features of the paradigm. However, in some disciplines, especially in the social sciences
where different schools may interpret phenomena in their own way, it is almost impossible to
consolidate the whole research community under the banner of a single paradigm. Such
disciplines are multi-paradigmatic (Friedrichs, 1970). Kuhn, however, regarded the majority

4
of social scientific fields (except economics) to be in a pre-paradigmatic state since they do
not share a single paradigm. Kuhn (1970) argued that economists have a common viewpoint
on what economics is. Another feature of the paradigm is that it is based on previous research
underpinnings.

Kuhn worked with the concept of paradigm during his whole life. In the afterword of his
book, Second Thoughts on Paradigms (1977), Kuhn explains his position regarding
paradigms. Kuhn agreed that he used the term paradigm too widely. He suggested dividing the
term ‘paradigm’ into two subsets: “One sense of “paradigm” is global, embracing all the
shared commitments of a scientific group; the other isolates a particularly important sort of
commitment and is thus a subset of the first” (Kuhn, 1977:294). Kuhn called these subsets as a
disciplinary matrix and exemplars. A disciplinary matrix includes following building blocks:
equations or symbolic generalizations, instruments, metaphysical assumptions, the area of
inquiry, and exemplars (Grandy, 2006). ‘Exemplars’ is a second meaning of paradigm, and
they are examples of actual problems solving.

Modern scholars define a paradigm as key viewpoints that direct research (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2008: 245). Denzin and Lincoln (2008) stress that there are also important
distinctions between paradigms and perspectives. Although they have much in common,
perspectives are not so solidified and integrated as paradigms.

2.2. Incommensurability of Paradigms

Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend introduced the term ‘incommensurability’ independently
in their publications in 1962 (Feyerabend, 1962; Kuhn, 1962). Incommensurability is defined
as “a relation of incomparability, or limited comparability, purported to obtain between some
pairs of successive or competing scientific theories” (Sankey, 2006: 370). Can paradigms be
compared? According to Feyrabend (1981), theories cannot be compared due to semantic
differences. Kuhn (1970) assumed that two rival paradigms are usually not commensurable;
they cannot be compared objectively on a common scale. This is considered as very
controversial in his theory. In Kuhn’s view, incommensurability between paradigms occurs
both for semantic and non-semantic reasons. The first divergence is due to methodological
difference. The second dissimilarity arises on the semantic level when different definitions

5
emerge due to new concepts. Kuhn argued that incommensurability emerges because
scientific concepts can not be understood without the complete knowledge of the theory to
which they belong. The third difference is explained by the theory-dependence of research.
Kuhn believed that all data are dependent on theories. It is an ideal situation when data are
independent on a previous body of knowledge, which is hardly attainable in a real world.
There are two reasons for theory-dependence of data. First, all researchers look at scientific
problems through the paradigm’s lens and professional background. Second, experiments and
observation reports contain information and statements that are influenced by theory (Okasha,
2002).

Kuhn continued to elaborate on the concept of incommensurability throughout his career. In

later publications, Kuhn (2000) suggested that paradigms are incommensurable due to
differences in taxonomic schemes. When the paradigms shift, taxonomic categorizations
change. It is difficult to compare two theories because of new terminology and criteria for
classification. Guba and Lincoln (2008) cautiously concluded that some paradigms are
commensurable with each other.

2.3. Scientific Revolutions and Normal Science

There are two ways for scientific development: normal and revolutionary. Usually science
develops in a linear mode. Kuhn (1970) associates normal science with a building to which
scholars add bricks to the top. Stones that are different from other bricks and are not suited to
the wall are called ‘anomalies’. The life cycle of one paradigm lasts several decades. In the
initial stage, a novel paradigm has a few adaptations. Gradually the paradigm is being tested
with regard to various scientific problems, and is fine-tuned and becomes more sophisticated.
Even successful paradigms are not always able to answer all questions or to fit all research
situations. Thus minor changes to a paradigm are necessary when researchers meet anomalies
that are unexplainable within the basic paradigm. Kuhn (1970) emphasizes that such
adjustments and improvements shall not deviate significantly from the main course of the
paradigm. Eventually, a paradigm is accepted by the scientific community.

The scientific revolution is associated with the totally novel technique of construction. For
example, brick technology is substituted with glass and concrete. Then the old building must
be destroyed to give space for a new one. There are five characteristics in Kuhn’s framework

6
of scientific revolutions (Johannessen, 1985). First, a new theory that is a product of a new
scientific idea explains the main problems in the field better than existing paradigm. Second, a
paradigm shift takes place as a result of an emerging new paradigm. Third, an old and a new
paradigms are different by at least one key position and they are logically not compatible.
Fourth, with a paradigm shift a scientific revolution brings out new research questions and
new ways of solving the puzzles. Fifth, after a scientific revolution normal science looses its
usual way and moves into a new path. Scientific revolutions bring both losses and gains. It is
often the case that a new paradigm fails to solve puzzles that an old paradigm could explain.

Kuhn’s conception changed the field of philosophy of science and greatly influenced further
research in this area. However, Kuhn’s views have been criticized from at least two different
positions. First, Kuhn’s opponent Karl Popper denied the relevance and existence of normal
science. Popper suggested that if Kuhn’s idea of normal science was correct, scientists cannot
test cognitive elements of the discipline matrix, they can only presuppose them (Grandy,
2006). Popper believed that only perpetual revolutions in science bring creative ideas that help
to solve problems. Second, Kuhn’s concept of normal science makes scientific work ordinary
and routine. It is also difficult to agree with Kuhn’s comparison of normal science with puzzle
solving. The results of scientific discoveries are not known in advance, however, the results of
a puzzle are already known at least to its author.

Cohen (1985) has identified four phases of revolution: the first one is “the intellectual
revolution”, when a radical idea for solving problems leads to formulating a new research
program. The next stage is loyalty to the research program. Furthermore, ideas are widely
spread through publications. And, finally, resistant fields switch to the new research program.

3. Analysis of the Theoretical Perspectives Using Kuhn’s Model

Strategic management has been looking for a new paradigm for a certain period of time
(Schendel, 1994). Strategic management is not a mono-paradigmatic discipline. Mintzberg
(1990; 1998) has recognized ten schools within strategic management research: the design,
planning, position, entrepreneurial, learning, configuration, cultural, power, environmental,
and cognition schools. According to Mintzberg, the resource-based perspective is a composite
theory of the cultural and the learning schools. There are doubts among scholars that a
unifying paradigm is necessary in strategic management, since this field is interdisciplinary

7
with a number of incommensurable approaches. If such a unifying paradigm should come it
will appear in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary way (Schendel, 1994).

As mentioned above, the research on collaboration relations in the shipbuilding industry can
be based on three theories of strategic management: the resource-based view, the knowledge-
based view, and the dynamic capabilities perspective. They constitute a general resource-
based theory of the firm. In this section, questions concerning whether the resource-based
theory is a new paradigm of strategic management are discussed. First, these three
perspectives are briefly summarized. Then using Kuhn’s framework and his descriptions of
scientific revolutions, the resource-based theory is discussed.

3.1. Brief Overview of the Theories

3.1.1. The Resource-Based View of the Firm
Resources lie in the center of the resource-based view. Resources are broadly defined as the
set of assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm characteristics, information,
knowledge, and so on that are under the firm’s control, allowing the firm to conceive of and
realize strategies intended to increase its effectiveness (Barney, 2002).

The resource-based view of the firm became an important strategic management theory in the
mid-1980s. The fundamental background of the resource-based view can be traced back to
David Ricardo’s (1817) analysis of land rent. He considered the influence of mainly inelastic
resources (such as land) on the firm’s rent. The next major development came when Edith
Penrose (1959) broadened the concept of resources and proposed viewing a firm as a bundle
of resources. A firm, she noted, “is more than an administrative unit; it is also a collection of
productive resources the disposal of which between different uses and over time is determined
by administrative decision” (Penrose, 1985: 24). Thus, firms are heterogeneous from the
resource-based perspective. A distinctive competencies perspective (Ansoff, 1965; Learned et
al., 1969) provided the next input into the resource-based view. The distinctive competency is
an action that a firm can perform better than competitors and that allows achieving higher
efficiency and effectiveness compared to rivals (Barney and Clark, 2007; Hitt and Ireland,
1986). Thus, it has been admitted by distinctive competency scholars that the sources of
competitive advantage are internal in the firm. Distinctive and superior competencies in
functional areas (management, marketing, production design, and others) are positively
associated with performance (Hitt and Ireland, 1986). Hitt and Ireland (1985) have identified
fifty-five distinctive competence attributes in the firm’s functional areas. The fourth theory on

8
which the resource-based view is based is the study of antitrust assumptions in economics
(Barney and Clark, 2007). The idea of the resource-based view of the firm was further
developed by Rumelt (1984), Wernerfelt (1984), and Barney (1986).

3.1.2. The Knowledge-Based View of the Firm

Knowledge is a philosophical phenomenon that has been studied in various disciplines starting
from ancient times (e.g. Plato). Knowledge can be defined as “justified true belief” (Nonaka
and Toyama, 2007:15). From a psychological view, various sorts of mental materials are used
by humans when making decisions. Mental materials have been generally defined as
“experience organized in fairly well-defined patterns” (Abercombie, 1960:54). These mental
materials are divided into tacit feelings, skills, unconscious tendencies, semantic
understanding, and episodic memories (Sparrow, 1998). Tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) is a
characteristic of knowledge that lay in the base of one of the most popular classifications of
knowledge – the tacit-explicit dichotomy (Connel et al., 2003).

The knowledge-based view (KBV) is rooted in the resource-based view of the firm (Conner
and Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996). At present it has also disseminated to other fields as well,
especially to information systems research (Acedo et al., 2006). Currently the KBV is
considered as a separate perspective and forms the resource-based theory together with the
knowledge-based view, the dynamic capabilities perspective, and the relational view (Acedo
et al., 2006). The importance of considering the knowledge-based view as a separate view is
explained by the special status of knowledge assets. It is believed that the major productive
resource of the firm is its knowledge (Grant, 1996).

3.1.3. The Dynamic Capabilities Perspective

Another important extension of the resource-based view is the dynamic capabilities

perspective (Teece et al., 1997). The dynamic capabilities view appeared as a response to
criticism of the RBV for rigidity and inability to explain the difference in performance of
firms with similar resource foundations. The resource-based view has also been criticized for
failing to explain why possessing certain idiosyncratic resources leads to a competitive
advantage (Priem and Butler, 2001). Critics of the resource-based approach have pointed out
its static nature. Observations also show that in dynamic environments some firms are better
able to get economic rents than others (Teece et al., 1997). Dynamic capabilities are defined
as “the firm’s processes that use resources - specifically the processes to integrate,

9
reconfigure, gain and release resources - to match and even create market change. Dynamic
capabilities are thus the organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new
resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and die” (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000: 1107).

3.2. Discussion
Kuhn (1977) identified some characteristics for the evaluation of scientific theories. They are
accuracy, broad scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, and consistency. McMullin (2008) categorized
virtues of a good theory into internal virtues (simplicity, internal consistency, and internal
coherence), contextuality (external consistency, consonance), and diachronicity (fertility,
consilience, and durability). Furthermore, he suggested that a theory must have an explanatory
power and empirical fit. Holmstrom and Tirole (1989:65) claimed that a good theory of the
firm must answer two important questions: (1) why firms exist, and, (2) what affects firms’
scale and scope.

Kuhn (1970) postulates that the new paradigm is always based on previous research, but at
least one postulate in a novel paradigm is different from previous ones. Conner (1991)
compared the resource-based view with five schools of industrial economics: the neoclassical
perfect competition theory, the Bain-type industrial organization, the Schumpeterian and
Chicago schools, and the transaction costs economics. She concluded that the RBV has
common aspects with each of these theories and at the same time is fundamentally distinct
from its predecessors. Hence, one of the prerequisites for the resource-based view to be
considered as a paradigm in the Kuhnian framework is satisfied. However, not all members of
the scientific community agree that the RBV is a new theory of the firm. Teece with
colleagues (1997) pointed out that the resource-based perspective is a compliment to industrial
organization theory.

Kuhn regarded changes and improvements in the development of paradigms as inevitable, but
he stressed that alterations should not be significant and deviate far from the core paradigm.
The RBV of the firm has also become more sophisticated and capable to better explain
competitive advantage and gaining economic rents after the emergence of the dynamic
capabilities theory and the knowledge-based view. As has been said, strategic management is
in need of a new paradigm (Schendel, 1994). The discipline has no dominating paradigm yet.
The resource-based paradigm definitely pushed an industrial organization paradigm from its

10
leading position within strategic management research. The RBV with its extensions has every
chance of becoming an established paradigm.

Kuhn wrote that one of the signs of a paradigm is the presence of theories belonging to the
paradigm in textbooks. In fact, the resource-driven approach is widely represented in strategy
textbooks (e.g. Barney, 2002; Dollinger, 2003; Grant, 2005). There are numerous papers and
dissertations based on the resource-based view. However, the RBV research is not mature yet,
and it is still lacking with regard to empirical research (Wang and Ahmed, 2007). However,
for a theory that is in its early stages of development, the lack of empirical fit is quite
acceptable. However, in later stages of the theory’s evolution such inconsistency might be a
basis for anomalies (McMullin, 2008). During the paradigm shift period, there are hot debates
between the proponents of the old paradigm and the new paradigm. The resource-based view
is criticized for being underdeveloped as a theory of strategic management (Priem and Butler,
2001a; Priem and Butler, 2001b). However, other scientists defend the RBV as a new theory
of the firm (Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991).

The resource-based view is heavily grounded on previous research, especially on E. Penrose’s

(1959) work. Analyzing the resource-based view through the lens of characteristics of
scientific revolutions in Kuhn’s framework, it is possible to conclude as follows. First, the
resource-based theory with the knowledge-based view and the dynamic capabilities
perspective proposes some better explanations of competitive advantage and economic rents
than industrial organization theories. Second, the use of the resource-based theory with
extensions is extremely popular in strategic management literature. However, older industrial
organization theories are also exploited in recent research. In other words, there are no signs
that the resource and the knowledge-based view and the dynamic capabilities perspective have
completely replaced the old paradigms. As for compatibility of the resource-based theory and
older paradigms, this requirement is satisfied: the resource-based view is at least on one point
different from the industrial organization theories (Conner, 1991). Therefore, the resource-
based perspective with the new extensions - the dynamic capabilities view and the knowledge-
based view - is a novel theory of the firm. However, it can not pretend to be a single theory of
strategic management that is a multi-paradigmatic field. It seems that the scientific change in
strategic management occurred in an evolutionary way.

4. Case of Interfirm Collaboration Research in Shipbuilding

11
This section is devoted to the philosophy of science issues of collaboration in the shipbuilding
industry. Management research in the shipbuilding industry context is not widely researched
area. Other sides of shipbuilding activity are researched more extensively (Encheva et al.,
2007a; 2007b; 2008; Solesvik, 2007a; 2007b; Solesvik and Encheva, 2008; 2009; 2010). The
maritime sector can be roughly divided into two parts: (a) shipping and shipping services; and
(b) shipbuilding and associated services (Solesvik and Westhead, 2010). The importance of
the research of collaboration in the shipbuilding industry is stipulated by importance of the
whole maritime sector and shipbuilding in particular in the economy of Norway. There are
over fifty shipyards in Norway situated alongside the West coast. The European shipyards
struggle severely with competition from Asian (Japanese, South Korean, and Chinese)
shipbuilders. One of the ways for the European shipbuilders to keep the competitive
advantage is to join forces with other actors, in other words, to collaborate with customers,
suppliers, and even competitors (Solesvik, 2006; 2008; 2011). Strong collaboration ability is
actually named among the strengths of the Asian shipyards allowing them to compete
effectively with European shipbuilders and achieve leading positions in the world since the
mid-1980s. Currently the first place in world shipbuilding belongs to South Korea, China has
the second position, and Japan is number three (OECD, 2008). The research is aimed at
exploring the nature of the collaborative relationships in the context of shipbuilding, motives
for joining collaborative agreements, and advantages and disadvantages related to
collaborative work.

Besides the resource-based theories, the research can be grounded on the shipping cycle
theory (Stopford, 1997). This theory can be used to explore the influence of the cycles that
occur in the shipbuilding industry on collaboration patterns. Such recombination will be a
novel contribution to the research. The shipbuilding market is one of the four shipping
markets, together with the freight market (where shipowners find customers for their
transportation services), the sales and purchase market (where used vessels change owners),
and the demolition market (where old vessels are dismantled and utilized) (REF). All these
markets are interconnected with each other (Solesvik, 2011). Changes in one of the markets
may cause changes in other three markets. For example, increased freight rates for crude oil
may stimulate shipowners to order more new vessels - the prices for used tankers will increase
- and the older tanker vessels will not be laid-out, but exploited as long as possible.

12
In order to improve our knowledge of collaboration in the shipbuilding industry, it is
important to merge the debates among the resource-based scholars (Rumelt, 1984; Wernerfelt,
1984; Barney, 1986), the knowledge-based view proponents (Conner and Prahalad, 1996;
Grant, 1996), and the dynamic capabilities researchers (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et
al., 1997). These three theoretical approaches are part of the resource-based theory (Acedo et
al., 2006).

The resource-based view claims that the sources of sustained competitive advantage of the
firm are inside the firm, namely that are the businesses have unique and valuable resources
and capabilities that are rare, hard to imitate, imperfectly substitutable, and mobile, and may
attain and keep competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Combs and Ketchen, 1999; Dollinger,
2003, Teece et al., 1997). The resource-based motives are often crucial for a firm’s decisions
to join collaborative relationships.

Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) argued that the emerging knowledge-based view of the firm
provides new horizons for inter-firm collaboration research. Knowledge acquisition is one of
the important goals and outcomes of interfirm collaboration. It has been argued that
knowledge is the major productive resource of the firm (Grant, 1996). Hamel (1991) has
defined collaboration as “a race to learn” (p.85). In the same vein, Child et al. (2005) argue
that organizational learning in all its aspects is a driver in collaboration relationships.
Nevertheless, as Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996) noted, the process of learning from the
inter-firm collaboration is not always smooth, and although alliances give an opportunity for
firms to learn, considerable research advises that acquiring resources from collaboration may
be lengthy and costly.

There are three main groups of dynamic capabilities: adaptive capability, innovative
capability, and absorptive capability (Wang and Ahmed, 2007). As for the research within
collaboration, alliancing, i.e., ability to get new resources from other firms, is named as one of
the key dynamic capabilities. Other dynamic capabilities of the firms include knowledge
creation procedures and strategic decision making (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).

In the light of the present research on collaboration in the shipbuilding context, three theories
(the RBV, the knowledge-based view, and the dynamic capabilities view) are compatible
since the two latter perspectives have their source in the RBV. The fourth perspective – the
shipping cycles theory – is a theory of maritime economics. Multidisciplinary studies are

13
rather common in strategic management. It is not possible to compare theories from different
sciences, but scholars can use them together to explore phenomena. Using an interpretivist
approach the future studies on collaboration can seek to answer the question of how
collaborative patterns in the shipbuilding industry depend on the stages of the shipping cycle.

5. Philosophical Underpinnings of the Research

The future studies of collaboration in the shipbuilding context are advised to take an
interpretative approach. Interpretivism emerged as a critique of positivism. Wilhelm Dilthey
introduced the notion of Verstehen – comprehension. By this he meant that knowledge in
social sciences can be obtained by understanding the meaning of certain phenomena, in
contrast to finding cause-effect principles in positivist studies. The idea of Verstehen was
further developed by Max Weber (2009). He considered on objectivist ontology as a necessary
condition for conducting social science research. As Boudon (1984:31) argued:
“For Weber, to understand an individual action is to acquire sufficient means of
obtaining information to understand the motives behind it. In his view, observers
understand the action of an observed subject as soon as they can conclude that in
the same situation it is quite probable that they too would act in the same way.
…As can be seen, understanding in the Weberian sense implies the ability of the
observer to put him or herself in the actor’s place, but does not in any way imply
that actor’s subjectivity is immediately transparent”.

Interpretive research is based mainly on the subjectivist ontological position (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979), but also includes some elements of objectivism (Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.,
2008). Weber tried to bridge interpretivism and positivism by pursuit of objectivity. In his
opinion, Ideal types are constructs that social scientists can employ to explain the social
world. Ideal types do not reflect a real world, they are constructs created for understanding
actions and situations. The interpretivism is closer to an ‘emic’ approach, which means the
investigation of constructs, categories, and distinctions that are meaningful for the culture
under scrutiny (Denzin, 1989). Epistemologically, interpretivism is the opposite of positivism.
Positivists believe that reality exists beyond the researcher’s mind. Interpretivists try to create
knowledge through explanations of the phenomenon that reflect the researcher’s experience,
objectives, background, etc. Regarding the research of collaboration patterns among
shipbuilding enterprises, it is more interesting to understand people’s perceptions regarding
the motives of collaboration on the stages of depression and recovery in the shipbuilding

14
market than to determine cause-effect laws. Qualitative studies are therefore recommended to
explore collaboration issues in shipbuilding.

The positivistic approach, on the contrary, postulates that researchers and objects are
independent. In the interpretivist research, the observer and research object influence each
other. The knowledge is created in the process of interaction between the scientists and the
object of research. To be valid the results of the interpretivist study must be credible,
dependable, confirmable, and transferable (Weber, 2004). Reliability of interpretivist studies
consists in awareness of the researcher that his or her conclusions are objective. In positivism
the main criteria of reliability is a possibility of replication of the results by other researchers.

Conclusions
The paper has taken a close look at the resource-based view, the dynamic capabilities
perspective, and the knowledge-based view. The paper sets out the first task: to explore
whether the resource-based theory of the firm is a new paradigm in strategic management. In
order to understand whether the resource-based theory is a new theory or an extension of
existing paradigms, the Kuhnian framework of scientific revolutions has been applied.
Thomas Kuhn developed important concepts in the philosophy of science: the concept of
paradigm, normal science and scientific revolutions, and incommensurability of paradigms.
The discipline of the philosophy of science has changed after Kuhn’s book was published.

There are still debates between proponents of the resource-based theory and their rivals on
whether this theory is something novel. In conclusion, it is possible to say that the resource-
based view with its complementarities – the knowledge-based view and the dynamic
capabilities approach – is one of the dominating paradigms in the discipline at the present;
however, it is not mature yet. The resource-based theory emerged in an evolutionary mode. It
can be named a new paradigm of strategic management, but not the only one within the field.
The emergence of the resource-based theory has changed a normal way of science. A great
number of publications in strategic management literature based on this theoretical foundation
have appeared.

15
 References

Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1960), The Anatomy of Judgment: An Investigation into the Processes

of Perception and Reasoning, Hutchinson, London.

Acedo, F. J., C. Barroso and J. L. Galan (2006), "The resource-based theory: Dissemination
and main trends", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 621-636.

Agassi, J. (1996). “The philosophy of science today”, in S. G. Shanker (Ed.), Philosophy of

Science, logic and mathematics in the twentieth century, Routledge, London, New York, pp.
235-265.

Ansoff, H. I. (1965), Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for

Growth and Expansion, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Barney, J. B. (1986), "Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy",
Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1231-1241.

Barney, J. B. (1991), "Special theory forum. The resource-based view of the firm: Origins,
implications and prospects", Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 97-98.

Barney, J. B. (2002), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, N.J.

Barney, J. B. and D. N. Clark (2007), Resource-Based Theory: Creating and Sustaining

Competitive Advantage, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Boudon, R. (1984), La Place du Desordre, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris; quotations

from Theories of Social Change, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1986.

Child, J., Faulkner, D. and Tallman, S. B. (2005), Cooperative Strategy: Managing Alliances,
Networks, and Joint Ventures, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cohen, I. B. (1985), Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Combs, J. G. and D. J. Ketchen (1999), "Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance:

toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational
economics", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 867-888.

Connel, N. A. D., Klein, J. D. and Powell, P. L. (2003), "It's tacit knowledge but as we know
it: redirecting the search for knowledge", Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol.
54 No. 2, pp. 140-152.

Conner, K. R. (1991), "A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of
thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?"
Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-154.

Conner, K. R. and Prahalad, C. K. (1996), "A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge
versus opportunism", Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.

16
Denzin, N. K. (1989), Interpretive Interactionism, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2008), The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Thousand

Oaks, Calif., Sage.

Dollinger, M. J. (2003), Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources, Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River, N.J.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin J. A. (2000), "Dynamic capabilities: What are they?", Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, Nos. 10-11, pp. 1105-1121.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996), "Resource-based view of strategic alliance

formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms", Organization Science, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 136-150.
Encheva, S., Kondratenko, Y., Solesvik, M. Z., Tumin, S. (2008) Decision support systems in
logistics. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1060, No. 1, p. 254).
Encheva, S., Tumin, S., and Solesvik, M. Z. (2007a) Decision support system for assessing
participants reliabilities in shipbuilding. In Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international
conference on Automatic control, modelling and simulation (pp. 270-275). World Scientific
and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS).
Encheva, S., Tumin, S., and Solesvik, M. Z. (2007b) Intelligent decision support system for
evaluation of ship designers. In Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering
Systems (pp. 551-557). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, in H. Feigl and G.

Maxwell (ed.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy
of Science, Volume III), University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, pp. 28–97.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1981), “An attempt at a realistic interpretation of experience”, in Realism,

Rationalism and Scientific Method. Vol. 1 Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Vol. 1, pp. 44-96.

Friedrichs, R. W. (1970), A Sociology of Sociology, Free Press, New York.

Fuller, S. (2003), “Science & technology studies and the philosophy of social sciences”, in
Turner, S. P. and Roth, P. A. (Eds.) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, Blackwell, Malden, Mass., pp. 207-233.

Grandy, R. (2006), “Thomas Kuhn”, in S. Sarkar and Pfeifer, J. (Eds.) The Philosophy of
Science: An Encyclopaedia, Routledge, New York, pp. 419-431.

Grant, R. M. (2005), Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Blackwell, Malden, Mass.

Grant, R. and C. Baden-Fuller (2004), "A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances",
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 61-84.

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2008), Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and

emerging confluences. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage: 255-286.

17
Hamel, G. (1991), "Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within
international strategic alliances", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 83-103.

Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (1986), "Relationships among corporate level distinctive

competencies, diversification strategy, corporate structure and performance", Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 401-416.

Holmstrom, B. and J. Tirole (1989), “The theory of the firm”, in R. Schmalensee and Willig,
R. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier Science Publisher, Amsterdam, pp. 61-133.

Johannessen, K. S. (1985), Tradisjoner og Skoler i Moderne Vitenskapsfilosofi, Sigma,

Bergen (in Norwegian).

Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Kuhn, T. S. (1977), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and
Change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R. and Guth, W. D. (1969), Business Policy:
Text and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, Ill.

Masterman, M. (1974), “The nature of a paradigm”, Criticism and growth of Knowledge, in

Lakatos and Musgrave A (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 59-89.

Mir, R. and A. Watson (2000), "Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science: The
Case for a Constructivist Methodology." Strategic Management Journal 21(9): 941-953.

McMullin, E. (2008), “The virtues of a good theory”, in Psillos, S. and Curd, M. (Eds.) The
Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London and New York, 498-508.

Mintzberg, H. (1990), “Strategy formation: Schools of thought”, in Fredrikson, J. W. (Ed.)

Perspectives on Strategic Management, Harper Business, Philadelphia, pp. 105-236.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: a Guided Tour through
the Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York.

Nickles, T. (2006), “Scientific Revolutions”, in Sarkar, S. and Pfeifer, J. (Eds.) The

Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopaedia, Routledge, New York, pp. 754-765.

Nonaka, I. and R. Toyama (2007), “Why do firms differ? The theory of the knowledge-
creating firm”, in Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Knowledge Creation and Management:
New Challenges for Managers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 13-31.

OECD (2008), Challenge, Response & Opportunity: Evolution of World Shipbuilding

Industry, http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/41821797.pdf

18
Okasha, S. (2002), Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford, Blackwell.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993), "The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view",

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.

Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY, Anchor.

Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson.

Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Advantage. New York, Free Press.

Priem, R. L. and Butler, J. E. (2001), "Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for
strategic management research?", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 22-40.

Ricardo, D. (1817; 2001), Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, J. Murray, London.

Rumelt, R. (1984), “Towards a strategic theory of the firm”, in R. Lamb (Ed.) Competitive
Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556-570.

Sankey, H. (2006), Incommensurability. In S. Sarkar and J. Pfeifer (Eds.). The Philosophy of

Science: An Encyclopaedia. New York, Routledge: 370-373.

Schendel, D. (1994), "Introduction to the summer 1994 special issue - Strategy: search for
new paradigms", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 Special Issue: Strategy: Search for
New Paradigms), pp. 1-4.

Solesvik, M. Z. (2006), "Challenges for the Norwegian Maritime Sector in the Ukraine",
Naukovi Prazi, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 94-98.

Solesvik, M. Z. (2007a), "A collaborative design in shipbuilding: two case studies". In

Industrial Informatics, 2007 5th IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 299-304).
IEEE.

Solesvik, M. (2007b), "Offshoring decision making in the logistics of the Norwegian

shipbuilding yards". In WSEAS Conference in Dallas.—March (pp. 22-24).

Solesvik, M. Z. (2008), "Collaboration Model for Ship Design". In Cooperative Design,

Visualization, and Engineering (pp. 245-248). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Solesvik, M. Z. (2011), “Interfirm collaboration in the shipbuilding industry: the shipbuilding
cycle perspective”, International Journal of Business and Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp.
388-405.

Solesvik, M. Z. and Encheva, S. (2008), "Benefits and drawbacks of software platforms used
in cooperative ship design practice". In Proceedings of the WSEAS International Conference
on Applied Computing Conference (pp. 87-90). World Scientific and Engineering Academy
and Society (WSEAS).

19
Solesvik, M. Z. and Encheva, S. (2009), "Partner Selection for Interfirm Collaboration: The
Context of Ship Design". Y. Luo (Ed.): CDVE, LNCS 5738, 141-144.
Solesvik, M. Z., and Encheva, S. (2010). "Partner selection for interfirm collaboration in ship
design". Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(5), 701-717.

Solesvik, M. Z. and Westhead, P. (2010), “Partner selection for strategic alliances: case study
insights from the maritime industry”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 No.6,
pp. 841-860.
Sparrow, J. (1998), Knowledge in Organizations: Access to Thinking at Work, Sage, London.

Stopford, M. (1997), Maritime Economics, Routledge, London.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), "Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.

Wang, C. L. and Ahmed, P. (2007), "Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda",
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51.

Weber, M. (2009), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Simon and Schuster,
New York.

Weber, R. (2004), "The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view", MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No.1, pp. iii-xii.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), "A resource-based view of the firm", Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-180.

20