Cards on the table, I actually like Scott's ideas. The general sentiment in the field is that they're interesting, but they haven't borne out as a general theor

Cards on the table, I actually like Scott's ideas. The general sentiment in the field is that they're interesting, but they haven't borne out as a general theory. This paper is not a good argument in support of Scott though. The methodology relies far too heavily on the notoriously lacking independence of SCCS cultures and language, then fails to fully consider whether the assumptions underlying the rest of the methodology hold. I'm pretty certain they don't. I can see why the authors took the steps they did, but they really should have noticed some red flags at multiple points in the process, based on what's in the paper.