ABSTRACT
The use of the term vertical in the CCS approach opens up analytical opportunities but also risks conceptual constriction if one sees it as a study of levels rather than of networks. If we picture for a moment a high-rise office building that houses the staff of a company, one could conduct a study that compares the way that lower-level workers on the first few floors and senior management on the upper floors interpret and enact the company’s mission on corporate social responsibility. Such a study would literally be a vertical comparison and might generate insights into how gender, class, race, and age influence the interpretation of social responsibility. However, an interpretation of the vertical axis as a comparison of pre-determined stratified levels (e.g., the administrative staff on the second floor; the regional managers on the twelfth) does not allow for the study of interactions among the employees with different positions in the company or for informal flows of knowledge from one floor in the building to another that one cannot necessarily anticipate before launching a research project.
