Skip to main content

The evolution of Wright’s (1932) adaptive field to contemporary interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences

Abstract

The concepts of adaptation and fitness have such an appeal that they have been used in other scientific domains, including the social sciences. One particular aspect of this theory transfer concerns the so-called fitness landscape models. At first sight, fitness landscapes visualize how an agent, of any kind, relates to its environment, how its position is conditional because of the mutual interaction with other agents, and the potential routes towards improved fitness. The allure of fitness landscapes is first and foremost that it represents a complex story about adaptation and fitness in one coherent image. Different accounts of fitness landscapes in different domains in the social sciences suggest that the properties and functions of fitness landscapes are attributed rather freely. These differences are testimony of the model’s versatility. At the same time, one will notice that the different approaches can also create ambiguity about the exact meaning and role of fitness landscapes in the social sciences. This article presents an extensive literature survey of the diverging interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences and discusses the implications in terms of how these models inform scientific inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The full list of databases is published here: http://nb5yg3wl6x.search.serialssolutions.com/.

  2. 2.

    These criticisms are that adaptation is a response to past environments, rather than an anticipation of the future, and that ‘fitness’ is not a property of a genotype alone.

  3. 3.

    Spin glasses derive from condensed matter physics and are models of disordered magnetic materials (Kauffman and Levin 1987). “A feature of spin-glasses called frustration helps account for the multi-peaked features of fitness landscapes.” (Kauffman 1993: 43).

  4. 4.

    An Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) is a strategy such that, if all the members of a population adopt it, there is no mutant strategy that would give higher reproductive fitness (Maynard Smith and Price 1973: 15; Maynard Smith 1982).

References

  1. Agar M (2004) We have met the other and we’re all nonlinear: ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complexity 10(2):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkemade F, Frenken K, Hekkert MP, Schwoon M (2009) A complex systems methodology to transition management. J Evol Econ 19:527–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Altenberg K (1997) NK fitness landscapes. In: Back T, Fogel D, Michalewicz Z (eds) The handbook of evolutionary computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  4. Altenberg L (1995) Genome growth and the evolution of the genotype-phenotype map. In: Banzhaf W, Eckman FH (eds) Evolution and biocomputation. Springer, Berlin, pp 205–259

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Altenberg L (1996) NK fitness landscapes. In: Back T, Fogel D, Michalewicz Z (eds) The handbook of evolutionary computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci 10(3):216–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atran S, Norenzayan A (2004) Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behav Brain Sci 27(06):713–730

    Google Scholar 

  8. Auerswald P, Kauffman S, Lobo J, Shell K (2000) The production recipes approach to modeling technological innovation: an application to learning by doing. J Econ Dyn Control 24(3):389–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Axelrod R, Bennett DS (1993) A landscape theory of aggregation. Br J Polit Sci 23(02):211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Babcock HM (1996) Democracy’s discontent in a complex world: can avalanches, sandpiles, and finches optimize Michael Sandel’s civic republican community. Georget Law J 2085–2103

  11. Barr J, Hanaki N (2008) Organizations undertaking complex projects in uncertain environments. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baum JAC (1999) Whole-part coevolutionary competition in organizations. Sage, London

  13. Baumann O, Siggelkow N (2012) Dealing with complexity: integrated vs. chunky search processes. Organ Sci Article Adv 24(1):1–17

  14. Becker MC, Knudsen T, March JG (2006a) Schumpeter, winter, and the sources of novelty. Ind Corp Change 15(2):353–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Becker M, Knudsen T, Stieglitz N (2006) Does adaptation cumulate? Structural responses to changing task environments

  16. Beinhocker E (1999) Robust adaptive strategies. Sloan Manag Rev 40(3):95–106

    Google Scholar 

  17. Beinhocker E (2006) The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blyth M, Hodgson GM, Lewis O, Steinmo S (2011) Introduction to the special issue on the evolution of institutions. J Inst Econ 7(3):299–315

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bocanet A, Ponsiglione C (2012) Balancing exploration and exploitation in complex environments. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst 42(1):15–35

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bolinska A (2013) Epistemic representation, informativeness and the aim of faithful representation. Synthese 190(2):219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bovaird T (2006) Developing new forms of partnership with the ‘market’ in the procurement of public services. Public Adm 84(1):81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Byrne D (1997) Social exclusion and capitalism: the reserve army across time and space. Crit Soc Policy 17:27–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Byrne D (1998) Complexity theory and the social sciences: an introduction. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Calcott B (2008) Assessing the fitness landscape revolution. Biol Philos 23:639–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Camuffo A, Furlan A, Romano P, Vinelli A (2008) Breathing shoes and complementarities: strategic innovation in a mature industry. Int J Innov Manag 12(2):139–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carley KM (1997) Organization and constraint-based adaptation. In: Eve RA, Horsfall S, Lee ME (eds) Chaos, complexity, and sociology: myths, models and theories. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 229–242

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carlisle Y, McMillan E (2006) Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive systems perspective. Emerg Complex Organ 8(1):2–9

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cartier M (2004) An agent-based model of innovation emergence in organizations: renault and ford through the lens of evolutionism. Comput Math Organ Theory 10:147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chae BK (2012) A framework for new solution development: an adaptive search perspective. Serv Ind J 32(1):127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang MH, Harrington JE (2000) Centralization vs. decentralization in a multi-unit organization: a computational model of a retail chain as a multi-agent adaptive system. Manage Sci 46(11):1427–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chettiparamb A (2006) Metaphors in complexity theory and planning. Plan Theory 5(1):71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Clark GL, Urwin R (2010) Innovative models of pension fund governance in the context of the global financial crisis. Pensions Int J 15(1):62–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Curran D, O’Riordan C, Sorensen H (2007) Evolving cultural learning parameters in an NK fitness landscape. Adv Artif Life 304–314

  34. Dekkers R (2008) Distributed manufacturing as co-evolutionary system. Int J Prod Res 47(8):2031–2054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dervitsiotis KN (2004) Navigating in turbulent environmental conditions for sustainable business excellence. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 15(5–6):807–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dervitsiotis KN (2007) On becoming adaptive: the new imperative for survival and success in the 21st century. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 18(1–2):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dooley KJ, Corman SR, McPhee RD, Kuhn T (2003) Modeling high-resolution broadband discourse in complex adaptive systems. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 7(1):61–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ellerman DP (2004) Parallel experimentation and the problem of variation. Knowl Technol Policy 16(4):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Elliott E, Kiel LD (1997) Nonlinear dynamics, complexity, and public policy: use, misuse, and applicability. In: Eve RA, Horsfall S, Lee ME (eds) Chaos, complexity, and sociology: myths, models and theories. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 64–78

    Google Scholar 

  40. Elliott E, Kiel LD (2004) A complex systems approach for developing public policy toward terrorism: an agent-based approach. Chaos Solut Fractals 20(1):63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Manage Sci 50(2):159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ettlie JE, Kubarek M (2008) Design reuse in manufacturing and services. J Prod Innov Manage 25(5):457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Eve RA, Horsfall S, Lee ME (1997) Chaos, complexity, and sociology: myths, models and theories. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fellman PV (2011a) Using complex adaptive systems tools to solve intractable problems in intelligence analysis and counter-IED operations

  45. Fellman PV (2011b) The complexity of terrorist networks. Int J Netw Virtual Organ 8(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fellman PV, Clemens JP, Wright R, Post JV, Dadmun M (2007) Disrupting terrorist networks, a dynamic fitness landscape approach

  47. Freeman RB (2000) Single peaked vs. diversified capitalism: the relation between economic Institutions and outcomes (NBER working paper 7556 ed.). NBER, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Frenken K (2006a) A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Struct Change Econ Dyn 17:288–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Frenken K (2006b) Innovation, evolution and complexity theory. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  50. Garrido N (2004) The desirable organizational structure for evolutionary firms in static landscapes. Metroeconomica 55(2):318–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gavetti G, Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: cognitive and experiental search. Adm Sci Q 45(1):113–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gavetti G, Levinthal D, Rivkin JW (2005) Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy. Strateg Manag J 26:691–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gavrilets S (1997) Evolution and speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 12(8):307–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gavrilets S (2003) Perspective: models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? Evolution 57(10):2197–2215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species (Monographs in population biology 41 ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gavrilets S, Gravner J (1997) Percolation on the fitness hypercube and the evolution of reproductive isolation. J Theor Biol 184(1):51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Geisendorf S (2010) Searching NK fitness landscapes: on the tradeoff between speed and quality in complex problem solving. Comput Econ 35:395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gerrits L (2012) Punching clouds: an introduction to the complexity of public decision-making. Emergent Publications, Litchfield Park

    Google Scholar 

  59. Geyer R, Pickering S (2011) Applying the tools of complexity to the international realm. Camb Rev Int Aff 24(1):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ghemawat P, Levinthal D (2000) Choice structures and business strategy. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, self-published pdf

  61. Girard M, Stark D (2003) Heterarchies of value in Manhattan-based new media firms. Theory Cult Soc 20(3):77–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hart JP (1999) Maize agriculture evolution in the eastern woodlands of North-America: a Darwinian perspective. J Archaeol Method Theory 6(2):137–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hart JP (2001) Maize, matrilocality, migration, and northern Iroquoian evolution. J Archaeol Method Theory 8(2):151–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Haslett T, Osborne C (1999) Local rule theory: an ecological model of organizational stability and change. Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

  65. Haslett T, Osborne C (2002) Local rules: some propositions for their establishment and continuation. Monash University Faculty of Business and Economics

  66. Haslett T, Osborne C (2003) Local rules: emergence on organizational landscapes. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 7(1):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Haslett T, Moss S, Osborne C, Ramm P (2000) Local rules and fitness landscapes: a catastrophe model. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 4(1):67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Helmreich S (1999) Digitizing ‘development’: balinese water temples, complexity and the politics of simulation. Crit Anthropol 19(3):249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hornstein DT (2005) Complexity theory, adaptation, and administrative law. Duke Law J 913–960

  70. Hovhannisian K (2004) “Imperfect” local search strategies on, technology landscapes: satisficing, deliberate experimentation and memory dependence (ROCK working papers). University of Trento: Department of Computer and Management Sciences

  71. Jermias J, Gani L (2004) Integrating business strategy, organizational configurations and management accounting systems with business unit effectiveness: a fitness landscape approach. Manag Account Res 15(2):179–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Johnsen N (2008) Sewall Wright and the development of the shifting balance theory. Nat Educ 1(1)

  73. Kaplan J (2008) The end of the adaptive landscape metaphor? Biol Philos 23(5):625–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Katz D, Stafford D, Provins E (2008) Social architecture, judicial peer effects and the ‘evolution’of the law: toward a positive theory of judicial social structure. Ga State Law Rev 23

  75. Kauffman S (1989) Cambrian explosion and Permian quiescence: implications of rugged fitness landscapes. Evol Ecol 3(3):274–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kauffman S (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  77. Kauffman S (1995a) Technology and evolution: escaping the red queen effect. McKinsey Q 1:118–129

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kauffman S (1995b) At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  79. Kauffman S, Johnsen S (1991) Coevolution to the edge of chaos: coupled fitness landscapes, poised states, and coevolutionary avalanches. J Theor Biol 149:467–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kauffman S, Levin S (1987) Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J Theor Biol 128:11–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Kauffman S, Weinberger E (1989) The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. J Theor Biol 141(2):211–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Kauffman S, Lobo J, Macready WG (2000) Optimal search on a technology landscape. J Econ Behav Organ 43(2):141–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kindt D, Cholewinski M, Kumai W, Lewis P, Taylor M (1999) Complexity and the language classroom. Acad Lit Lang 67:235–258

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kitts B, Edvinsson L, Beding T (2001) Intellectual capital: from intangible assets to fitness landscapes. Expert Syst Appl 20(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Klijn E (2008) Complexity theory and public administration: what’s new? Public Manag Rev 10(3):299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Knudsen T, Levinthal D (2007) Two faces of search: alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ Sci 18(1):39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Knudsen T, Stieglitz N (2007) Taming the antagonistic forces of exploration and exploitation in organizational search. Paper presented at CCSM 2007

  88. Knudsen T, Stieglitz N (2008) Corporate search: exploration and exploitation in multiple markets

  89. Knuuttila T (2011) Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Stud Hist Philos Sci A 42(2):262–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kuhn SL (2006) Trajectories of change in the Middle Paleolithic of Italy. In Hovers E, Kuhn SL (eds) Transitions before the transition: interdisciplinary contributions to archeology. Springer, US

  91. Kuhn SL, Stiner MC (2006) What’s a mother to do? Curr Anthropol 47(6):953–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  93. Lansing JS (2003) Complex adaptive systems. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:183–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Lansing JS, Kremer JN (1993) Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. Am Anthropol 95(1):97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Lazer D, Friedam A (2007) The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Adm Sci Q 52(4):667–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lee D, Van den Steen E (2010) Managing know-how. Manag Sci 56(2):270–285

  97. Levinthal D (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag Sci 43(7):934–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Levinthal D, Warglien M (1999) Designing for local action in complex worlds. Organ Sci 10(3):342–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Lovejoy WS, Sinha A (2010) Efficient structures for innovative social networks. Manage Sci 56(7):1127–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Marengo L, Dosi G (2005) Division of labor, organizational coordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving. J Econ Behav Organ 58(2):303–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Mason W, Watts D (2011) Collective problem solving in networks. Available at SSRN 1795224

  102. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  103. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246(5427):15–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. McCandlish DM (2011) Visualizing fitness landscapes. Evolution 65(6):1544–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. McCarthy IP (2004) Manufacturing strategy: understanding the fitness landscape. Int J Oper Prod Manag 24(2):124–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. McCarthy IP, Tan YK (2000) Manufacturing competitiveness and fitness landscape theory. J Mater Process Technol 107:347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. McKelvey B (1997) Perspective-quasi-natural organization science. Organ Sci 8(4):351–380

  108. McKelvey B (1999) Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: strategies for rugged landscapes. Organ Sci 10(3, Special Issue: Application of Complexity Theory to Organization Science):294–321

  109. Merry U (1999) Organizational strategy on different landscapes: a new science approach. Syst Pract Action Res 12(3):257–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Mesoudi A, O’Brien MJ (2008) The cultural transmission of great basin projectile-point technology II: an agent-based computer simulation. Am Antiq 73(4):627–644

    Google Scholar 

  111. Michael B (2004) Explaining organizational change in international development: the role of complexity in anti-corruption work. J Int Dev 16(8):1067–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Mischen PA, Jackson SK (2008) Connecting the dots: applying complexity theory, knowledge management and social network analysis to policy implementation. Public Adm Q 32(3):314

    Google Scholar 

  113. Monge P, Lee S, Fulk J, Weber M, Shen C, Schultz C, Frank LB (2011) Research methods for studying evolutionary and ecological processes in organizational communication. Manag Commun Q 25(2):211–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Moran P, Simoni M, Vagnani G (2011) Becoming the best: by beating or ignoring the best? Toward an expanded view of the role of managerial selection in complex and turbulent environments. J Manage Gov 15:447–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Neuman M (2000) Communicate this! does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? J Plan Educ Res 19:343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. O’Brien MJ, Bentley RA (2011) Stimulated variation and cascades: two processes in the evolution of complex technological systems. J Archaeol Method Theory 18(4):309–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. O’Donnell D, O’Regan P, Coates B, Kennedy T, Keary B, Berkery G (2003) Human interaction: the critical source of intangible value. J Intell Cap 4(1):82–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Olson EE, Eoyang GH (2001) Facilitating organization change. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  119. Osbom RN, Hunt JG (2007) Leadership and the choice of order: complexity and hierarchical perspectives near the edge of chaos. Leadersh Quart 18(4):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Palmer R (1991) Optimization on rugged landscapes. In: Perelson AS, Kauffman S (eds) Molecular evolution on rugged landscapes. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, pp 3–25

  121. Pascale RT (1999) Surfing the edge of chaos. Sloan Manag Rev 40(3):83–94

    Google Scholar 

  122. Pathak SD, Day JM, Nair A, Sawaya WJ, Kristal MM (2007) Complexity and adaptivity in supply networks: building supply network theory using a complex adaptive systems perspective. Decis Sci, 38(4):547–580

  123. Perelson AS, Kauffman S (1991) Molecular evolution on rugged landscapes. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City

  124. Peschard I (2011) Making sense of modeling: beyond representation. Eur J Philos Sci 1(3):335–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Pigliucci M (2008) Sewall Wright’s adaptive landscapes: 1932 vs. 1988. Biol Philos 23(5):591–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Plutynski A (2008) The rise and fall of the adaptive landscape? Biol Philos 23:605–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Porter M, Siggelkow N (2008) Contextuality in activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Acad Manag Perspect 22(2):34–56

  128. Rellihan M (2012) Adaptationism and adaptive thinking in evolutionary psychology. Philos Psychol 25(2):245–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt WJE, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN (2011) Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends Cogn Sci 15(2):68–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Reschke C (2006) Psychology in entrepreneurship and economic evolution. DRUID summer conference

  131. Rhodes ML (2008) Complexity and emergence in public management: the case of urban regeneration in ireland. Public Manag Rev 10(3):361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Rhodes ML, Donnely-Cox G (2008) Social entrepreneurship as a performance landscape: the case of ‘frone line. E:Co 10(3):35–50

    Google Scholar 

  133. Rivkin JW (2000) Imitation of complex strategies. Manage Sci 46(6):824–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2002) Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes. Complexity 7(5):31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2006) Organizing to strategize in the face of interactions: preventing premature lock-in. Long Range Plan 39(6):591–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Room G (2011) Complexity, institutions and public policy: agile decision-making in a turbulent world. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  137. Roos J, Oliver D (1999) From fitness landscapes to knowledge landscapes. Syst Pract Action Res 12(3):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Ruhl JB (1996a) The fitness of law: using complexity theory to describe the evolution of law and society and its practical meaning for democracy. Vanderbilt Law Rev 49

  139. Ruhl JB (1996b) Complexity theory as a paradigm for the dynamical law-and-society system: a wake-up call for legal reductionism and the modern administrative state. Duke Law J 45(5)

  140. Ruhl J (1997) Thinking of environmental law as a complex adaptive system: how to clean up the environment by making a mess of environmental law. Houston Law Rev 34(4)

  141. Ruhl J (1999) Sustainable development: a five-dimensional algorithm for environmental law. Stanf Environ Law J 18

  142. Ruhl J, Ruhl H (1997) The arrow of the law in modern administrative states: Using complexity theory to reveal the diminishing returns and increasing risks the burgeoning of law poses to society. UC Davis Law Rev 30

  143. Samoilenko S (2008) Fitness landscapes of complex systems: insights and implications on managing a conflict environment of organizations. E:Co 10(4):38–45

    Google Scholar 

  144. Schettkat R (2003) Institutions in the economic fitness landscape: what impact do welfare state institutions have on economic performance?. Institute for the study of labor, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  145. Schneider V, Bauer JM (2007) Governance: prospects of complexity theory in revisiting system theory. Ann Meeting Midwest Polit Sci Assoc, Chicago 14

    Google Scholar 

  146. Siggelkow N (2001) Change in the presence of fit: the rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Acad Manag J 44(4):838–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward fit. Adm Sci Q 47:125–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Siggelkow N, Levinthal D (2003) Temporarily divide and conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Siggelkow N, Levinthal D (2005) Escaping real (non-benign) competency traps: linking the dynamics of organizational structure to the dynamics of search. Strateg Organ 3(1):85–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 1–15

  151. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA

  152. Simon HA (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. Decision Organ 1:161–176

  153. Sinha KK, Van de Ven AH (2005) Designing work within and between organizations. Organ Sci 16(4):389–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Situngkir H (2009) Evolutionary economics celebrates innovation and creativity-based economy. IUP J Knowl Manag 7(2):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  155. Solomon J (1998) Technology in the elementary school: blind variation and selective retention. Res Sci Educ 28(1):153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Sommer SC, Loch CH (2004) Selectionism and learning in projects with complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty. Manage Sci 50(10):1334–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Stark D (2000) For a sociology of worth. Int Aff 1100:3355

    Google Scholar 

  158. Strumbsky D, Lobo J (2002) If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it: extremal search on a technology landscape. Santa Fe Institute working paper

  159. Sword L (2007) Complexity science conflict analysis of power and protest. Emergence-Mahwah-Lawrence Erlbaum 9(3):47

    Google Scholar 

  160. Swoyer C (1991) Structural representation and surrogative reasoning. Synthese 87(3):449–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Tamariz M (2009) Evolutionary transitions and co-evolutionary dynamics in biology and in culture. In: Muscio H, Lopez G (eds) Proceedings of the XVth congress of the union for prehistoric and protohistoric sciences. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 103–110

    Google Scholar 

  162. Tan J (2007) Phase transitions and emergence of entrepreneurship: the transformation of Chinese SOEs over time. J Bus Ventur 22(1):77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Teisman GR, Klijn E (2008) Complexity theory and public management. Public Manag Rev 10(3):287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Toh Y, So H (2011) ICT reform initiatives in Singapore schools: a complexity theory perspective. Asia Pacific Educ Rev 12(3):349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Urry JC (2008) Climate change, travel and complex futures. Br J Sociol 59(2):261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Van Hulst M (2008) Town hall tales: culture as storytelling in local government. Delft, Eburon

    Google Scholar 

  167. Vidal JM (2004) The effects of co-operation on multi-agent search in task-oriented domains. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 16(1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Weber BH (1998) Origins of order in dynamical models. Biol Philos 13:133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Weinberger E (1990) Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference. Biol Cybern 63:325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Weisberg M, Muldoon R (2009) Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philos Sci 76(2):225–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Weiss KM (2004) The smallest grain in the balance? Evol Anthropol Issues News Rev 13(4):122–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Westhoff FH, Yarbrough BV, Yarbrough RM (1996) Complexity, organization, and Stuart Kauffman’s the origins of order. J Econ Behav Organ 29(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Whitt RS (2009) Adaptive policymaking: evolving and applying emergent solutions for U.S. communications policy. Fed Commun Law J 61(3):483–589

    Google Scholar 

  174. Winter S (2005) Developing evolutionary theory for economics and management. In: K Smith, M Hitt (eds) Great minds in management: the process of theory development. ISBN 9780199276813, pp 509–546

  175. Winter SG, Cattani G, Dorsch A (2007) The value of moderate obsession: insights from a new model of organizational search. Organ Sci 18(3):403–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Woody A (2004) More telltale signs: what attention to representation reveals about scientific explanation. Philos Sci 71(5):780–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16(2):97

    Google Scholar 

  178. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proc Sixth Int Cong Genet 1:356–366

    Google Scholar 

  179. Wright S (1949) Adaptation and selection. In: Jepson GL, Simpson GG, Mayr E (eds) Genetics, paleontology, and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 365–389

  180. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations (2): the theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank information specialists Judith Gulpers and Gusta Drenthe of the university library of Erasmus University Rotterdam in helping us in making our literature search complete and comprehensive. We also would like thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful recommendations. This work was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Veni grant no. 451-10-022.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lasse Gerrits.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gerrits, L., Marks, P. The evolution of Wright’s (1932) adaptive field to contemporary interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences. Biol Philos 30, 459–479 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9450-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fitness landscapes
  • Theory transfer
  • Scientific inquiry
  • Social sciences