Insiders, Outsiders, and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link Insiders, Outsiders and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields:A Core-Periphey Perspective ABSTRACT Building on recent research emphasizing how legitimacy depends on consensus among audiences about candidates' characteristics and activities, we examine the relationship between cultural producers' (candidates) position in the social structure and the consecration of their creative work by relevant audiences. We argue that the outcome of this process of evaluation in any cultural field, whether in art or science, is a function of (1) candidates' embeddedness within the field, and (2) the type of audience, i.e., peers vs. critics, evaluating candidates' work.Specifically, we hypothesize that peers are more likely to favor candidates who are highly embedded in the field while critics will not show such favoritism. We find support for these hypotheses in the context of the Hollywood motion picture industry. The theoretical implications of the results are discussed.

The Art of Representation: How Audience-specific Reputations Affect Success in the Contemporary Art Field

“…For example, due to their concern for preserving the norms and exclusiveness of film actors, the peer audience in the Hollywood motion-picture industry focuses on attributes such as actors' network position; in contrast, the film critic audience focuses on attributes such as film novelty and creativity and is not interested in actors' network positions (Cattani et al, 2014). Similarly, Pontikes (2012) found that software companies with ambiguous organizational forms were discounted among the consumer audience that evaluates these companies because this audience valued clarity.…”

“…Most of this research operates under the assumption that actors have a single overall reputation and, furthermore, that reputation holders interact with an audience with homogenous concerns (Fombrun, 1996;Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997). However, recent research has shown that the same set of actors can face multiple audiences and that these audiences vary in their sources of concern and uncertainty (Cattani, Ferriani, & Allison, 2014;Kim & Jensen, 2014;. This development allows for the possibility that even when actors have built a positive reputation, the return from such a reputation may not be uniform and may depend on the type of audience with which they interact.…”

When Does Medici Hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the Signaling Effect of Extraneous Stakeholder Relationships in the Field of Cultural Production

“…We investigate how the relationship with a specific stakeholder group outside the field, namely corporate donors, affects an organization's evaluation by its peers -an evaluation typically dependent upon the respect of field-level norms. One crucial type of resource provided by peers is acclaim legitimacy (Bourdieu, 1993) or peer recognition (Cattani, Ferriani & Allison, 2014). This social endorsement rewards organizations at the core of the field and grants the power "to implement [their] ideas and gain the visibility necessary for them to be recognized as valuable" (Cattani & Ferriani, 2008: 825).…”

“…Thus, displaying a relationship with corporate stakeholders is associated with commercial interests and may be perceived to be at odds with the ethos of artistic occupation (Schwartz, 1997). This, in turn, may be viewed as a sign that the organization is distancing itself from the core of the field, which will subsequently result in lower peer recognition (Cattani et al, 2014).…”

“…We employ a mixed-method approach as it allows us to create a theoretically robust account of "peer recognition". Because this construct, imported from sociology (Lamont, 2012;Zuckerman, 2012;Cattani et al, 2014), is novel to management literature and cannot be explained and measured outside the context that gives it the form and content, a mixed approach method is most appropriate (Edmondson & McManus, 2007;DiStefano, King & Verona, 2015). The first empirical section is explorative in nature and aims at situating our theoretical arguments and setting up our hypotheses within our context.…”