Agree.

 

From: AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AW: [AFEEMAIL] Response to comments about the social fabric matrix.

 

Non-NU Email


 

Hi, Greg, and all,

 

I very much argued in favor of some methods combination, and you seem to agree in the end, if I got that right:

 

“This exchange has stimulated me to think that an endeavor that needs to be undertaken is to enter ABM, equational systems, computation systems, and the like each into a SFM in order to articulate missing components of each and to compare similarities and differences. That is, make those approaches the problems to be defined and analyzed with the SFM.”

 

I do not see that ABM necessarily carries a particular set of assumptions, and namely not necessarily neoclassical mainstream ones. But I agree that ABMs can easily lead to any “measurement without theory”. But a number of institutionalist young scholars have already shown that it can be fruitfully used in institutionalist research.

 

So, my suggestion was: starting from the safer ground of a SFM for some defined problem setting, we should try in future institutionalist network/matrix research to fill in proper ABM algorithms for parts of the SFM accessible this way, i.e. computable. But not just to show their shortcomings but to constructively qualify the SFM research.

 

best,

wolfram.

 

 

 

 

Von: AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> Im Auftrag von Gregory Hayden
Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Mai 2021 02:49
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [AFEEMAIL] Response to comments about the social fabric matrix.

 

Attached please find my response to comments about the social fabric matrix.