Path Dependence and Path Creation: AlternativeTheoretical and Methodological Perspectives onStrategy, Innovation and Entrepreneurshipjoms_918 733..735Pathdependencehas beenatopicof continuous andenduringinterest instrategyresearch on capabilities and routines (e.g. Teece et al., 1997), in entrepreneurship andinnovation research on technological design trajectories (e.g. Garud et al., 2002), and ininstitutional economics research on the persistence of institutions and governance struc-tures (e.g. North, 1990). The recent growth in interest has been spurred by a resurgenceof meta-theoretical reections across these literatures on questions of agency and adapt-ability, alongside historical and institutional path dependencies (e.g. Garud and Karne,2001). Theanswers tothesequestions comeinvarious shapes andsizes, includingemerging theories of institutional entrepreneurship and a move towards a focus on themicro-foundations of capabilities in strategy research and of institutions in organiza-tional theory.Giventhis surgeinresearchonpathdependence, alongsidetheemergingissuesaddressedbyresearchinmultipleelds, weinvitedscholarswithaninterestinpathdependence to debate its denition and application across the management and orga-nizational literatures, and to progressively suggest theoretical clarications and method-ological recommendations that could help research move forward.The result is a simultaneously provocative and inspiring debate, as captured in thisissues PointCounterpoint. Although we do not wish to steal any of the thunder from theauthors of the PointCounterpoint, sufce it to say that they take substantively differentperspectives onthe denitionandusefulness of the notionof pathdependence. At the sametime, theyrecommenddrasticallydifferentmethodsforresearchingthecreationandpersistent inuence of strategic, technological, or institutional paths over time.Intheir Point article, VergneandDurand(2010) taketheir inspirationfromthemathematical roots of the notion of path dependence and, using formal logic, rene theconstructdenitionof pathdependence. Theydeneitasaprocessinwhichinitialconditions are followed by a series of contingent (chance) events whose inuence on thepath taken is larger than the initial conditions. When this happens, it changes the initialoutcome distribution, with outcomes varying with time. Indeed, once a path has beencontingentlyselectedinthis way, it maybeself-reinforced(forexample, becauseofincreasing returns) and may be locked-in, as an important outcome, when there is noexogenous shock that unsettles the entire system. With this strict denition, Vergne andDurand are able to differentiate path dependence fromvarious other constructs which, at 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation2010Blackwell PublishingLtdandSocietyfor theAdvancement of Management Studies.Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA.Journal of Management Studies 47:4 June 2010doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00918.xan abstract level, all suggest that history matters. These constructs include well-knownnotions such as absorptive capacity and resource accumulation in strategy research, andstructural inertia and imprinting in institutional and population ecology research. Theirrened denition also sets clear parameters to researching path dependence. Specically,theysuggestthatpathdependencecanonlybedirectlyevidencedinsimulationsandexperiments given that it is practically impossible to isolate structural causes when weobserve a unique historical trajectory (Vergne and Durand, 2010, p. 736).Garud, Kumaraswamy and Karne (2010) take the opposite position in their Coun-terpoint article. Rather than continuing with efforts to clarify and rene our understand-ing of path dependence, they suggest shifting to a different ontology, which they term aspath creation. Whilst they do not deny the importance of emergent outcomes at a systemslevel that may have a hold over individual actors, their interest is in understanding howactorsarenotonlyembeddedin, butalsoco-construct, suchsystems. Theirpositioncontrasts with Vergne and Durand (2010) in that they theorize directly about actors aspart of emerging paths or systems rather than actors being placed within, and thus beingconfronted and constrained by, such paths or systems. Path creation is dened from arelational ontology that considers agency as part of nets of unfolding actions that emergearoundtopicsandevents,withactorsbeingabletoinuence(butnotdetermine)theprocesses that unfold. Specic attention is given in this perspective to the narratives andnarrativeabilityofactors,whichallowsthemtomobilizepastmemoriesandpresentexperiences in order to imagine alternative future states and actions. Consistent with theirontology, Garud et al. (2010) challenge the use of those methods, such as simulations andexperiments, as advocated by Vergne and Durand (2010). They argue that these methodswill have little ecological validity and may restrict researchers to a focus on a select set oftestable parameters. Instead, the suggestion is to study path creation and path depen-dence in the real world, combining an overall longitudinal research design with a focus onreal time observations (as events unfold) and narrative accounts of actors who imagineand iterate between the past, present, and future to create, shape or follow viable paths.Together, these two contributions in this PointCounterpoint help clarify and advanceour theoretical understanding of path dependence and path creation, and their applica-tion in research on management and organizations. Vergne and Durands (2010) effortshelp us dene the construct space of path dependence vis--vis related notions in strategyand institutional research. Garud et al. (2010) shift the paradigmatic frame which allowsthem to broaden our understanding of embedded agency, as embodied in their theori-zationof pathcreation. Wehopeyouenjoythedebatethat unfolds inthePointCounterpoint and, as always, we encourage youtoengage withit usingthe newCorrespondence feature on the JMS website at http://www.respond2articles.com/jms.Please feel free to post comments or to elaborate on any of the arguments.The EditorsREFERENCESGarud, R. andKarne, P. (2001). Pathcreationasaprocessof mindful deviation. InGarud, R. andKarne, P. (Eds), Path Dependence and Creation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 138.The Editors 734 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management StudiesGarud, R., Jain, S. andKumuraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurshipinthesponsorshipofcommontechnological standards: thecaseof SunMicrosystems andJava. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 196214.Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. andKarne, P. (2010). Pathdependenceorpathcreation?. Journal ofManagement Studies, 47, 76074.North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. StrategicManagement Journal, 18, 50933.Vergne, J. and Durand, R. (2010). The missing link between the theory and empirics of path dependence:conceptual clarication, testability issue, and methodological implications. Journal of Management Studies,47, 73659.Path Dependence and Path Creation 735 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies