Emerging Trends: Social Classification
Media
Part of Emerging Trends: Social Classification
- Title
- Emerging Trends: Social Classification
- extracted text
-
Emerging Trends:
Social Classification
ELIZABETH G. PONTIKES
Abstract
Social classification influences how people interpret their surroundings. Classification helps organize people’s knowledge and guide how they reason about
new objects. Although people perceive classification as reflecting an objective,
natural reality, to a large extent, it is constructed through contested social processes.
Foundational research on classification focused on this social construction, on how
actors conform to social categories, and on the penalties that accrue to actors who
do not conform. Recent research has built on and questioned these foundations.
Whether categorical boundaries are strong or weak affects how consequential
categorization is; in some situations, there are rewards to categorical nonconformity,
and for any classification there are multiple audiences with different perspectives
on what social categories mean and how they confer value. This entry concludes by
suggesting promising new directions for future research in social classification.
INTRODUCTION
Classification permeates our social lives. From a person’s occupation, to her
ethnic group, to the type of food she prefers, classification guides the way
we think and how we are evaluated. Classification is ubiquitous because
it is a primary cognitive tool used by humans to understand and interpret their surroundings. By sensibly grouping things together, categories
help people reduce the complexity of their environment, making it more
tractable. Classification can be heavily institutionalized, for example, when
governments give rights and privileges to segments of the population, such
as creating a category of voters who are over the age of 18, or in some cases
enforcing a race-based classification that favors one group over another.
In other instances, occupational groups administer classification, such as
in medicine where professionals are categorized as physicians, nurses, or
physicians’ assistants. In many cases, classification is informal, such as when
we categorize people we know as colleagues, acquaintances, or close friends.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Classification is social in nature. To create order out of a messy reality,
classification includes some actors, excludes others, and redefines still others
to fit within established boundaries. The act of classifying draws social
distinctions among people and objects, and where boundaries are drawn
is somewhat arbitrary. If there are benefits to being classified in certain
categories, it is likely that actors will contest their classification, and in
response others may try to reinforce categorical boundaries. Race-based
classification is a notorious example of this sort of contested social order. In
cases such as apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow in the southern United
States, basic human rights depended on classification into racial categories.
Because racial categories can be defined in a multitude of ways, classification was frequently contested. In response, governments created elaborate
apparatuses to sort their citizenry by race. Even in less contentious systems
of classification, how an entity is categorized has important implications; for
example, whether a song is categorized as “country music,” “pop,” or “rap”
will determine its airplay, the types of people who will hear it, and as a result
how popular it becomes. Classification is especially consequential for actors
who do not clearly fit into an established category. For example, whether an
electronic device that one can use to make calls, browse the Internet, and
edit documents is considered a “phone,” “smart phone,” or “computer” will
affect whether people purchase the product and how much they pay for it.
Classification arises not only as a result of characteristics innate to objects
or actors but also as a result of social negotiations that define categorical
boundaries.
The way people and objects are classified influences thought, behavior, and
even material outcomes. As a result, much scholarly research investigates
how classifications are created and enforced and how they are consequential.
This entry will review foundational research in social classification, highlight
important recent research that both builds on and questions foundational
knowledge, and identify promising directions for future research.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
CONCEPTS AND COGNITION
Concepts are mental representations used to organize knowledge. For
example, people decide what to buy at the grocery store by relying on
concepts that classify food as meat, vegetables, or fruit. They determine
which restaurants to patronize using categories such as fast food, Mexican,
or pizzeria. Concepts allow people to reason about new objects, so if they
encounter a chair, they know to sit on it, to use an automobile to drive long
distances or a bike to travel short distances (with some physical exertion).
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
3
Concepts determine how people understand and react to the world around
them. Social classification is influential, because it creates categories that
correspond to these mental representations.
The psychology of concepts is central to social classification, so a brief
overview is provided here. In what is now called the “classical view,” concepts are represented by rule-like definitions that determine which objects
are included and excluded. In this view, an object is either a part of category
or it is not, and there is no distinction between category members, so that
no object is more typical of the concept than another. Although research
over the past 40 years has discredited this view, there is not yet consensus
about an overarching theory to replace it (for a review of current theories
of concepts, see Murphy (2004)). However, there is agreement that the way
concepts work is much messier. Most categories cannot be comprehensively
defined by a set of characteristics, so although birds are animals that fly,
penguins that do not fly are still considered birds. It turns out that category
membership is a continuum rather than a binary distinction. Therefore,
olives are considered partly included in the fruit category, and sinks are
somewhat of a kitchen utensil. This means that concepts have a typicality
structure, where some items are highly typical of a category and some are
atypical.
The way concepts work translates to classification. As mental concepts have
fuzzy boundaries, distinctions within social classification will as well. This
provides room for people to negotiate boundaries, alter categorical definitions, and lobby for inclusion or exclusion—setting the stage for social classification.
THE SOCIAL NATURE OF CLASSIFICATION
Early foundational research focused on the social nature of classification.
Durkheim (1912) first drew attention to classification as social in origin. He
proposed that categories are collective representations that structure social
life. This contrasted with two views: one which took categories as naturalized, objective descriptions of the world that were a priori to experience, and
the other which saw categories as individually constructed concepts. However, neither of these views can explain that classification is both culturally
variable and shared by many individuals. Durkheim suggested that categories are “social facts” that emerge through interactions among many people. People internalize categories in order to integrate into the social order.
Scholars built on these ideas to suggest not only that classification is social
but also that it is socially constructed. Berger and Luckman (1967) introduced
this idea in The Social Construction of Reality, in which they show that social
categories are based partly on subjective perceptions. Although some social
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
constructionists take the position that there is no objective reality and all
experience is constructed, a constructionist perspective need not be this
extreme. The view of Berger and Luckman (1967) is that there is a “dual character of society in terms of objective facticity and subjective meaning.” In this
way, social classification is based on facts, but the process of grouping objects
and drawing boundaries creates a reality that is subjective in many ways
(for more on symbolic and social boundaries, see Lamont & Molnar, 2002).
A number of examples illustrate this point. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which might seem unlikely to be social in nature, is
less a list of the causes of death, as it is a set of compromises among different parties. The terms of negotiation included the number of categories
that should be included, whether they should be stable across time, their
specificity, how vague categories could be, and whether to give precedence
to the seat, nature, or biological factors of the disease (Bowker & Star, 1999).
In country music, storytelling and folk music events were deliberately used
to construct bluegrass as the authentic form of the genre (Peterson, 1997). The
creation of the art museum form involved art professionals, patrons, and corporations who had different ideas about what the form and function of an art
museum should be (DiMaggio, 1991).
These examples indicate that although classification is socially constructed,
it is not determined based on the designs of one individual or group. Rather,
it is created through interaction among communities. For example, producers and consumers interact to create artistic classification systems. A set of
producers cannot impose a categorical structure on consumers, nor does
artistic classification naturally arise from exogenously defined consumer
tastes (DiMaggio, 1987). Categories reflect collective representations based
on broad agreement about where to draw boundaries and what categories
represent. At the same time, these shared understandings can change over
time. Thus, the creation of classification involves multiple constituencies in
an ongoing, dynamic process.
CONFORMITY AND PENALTIES TO MISCLASSIFICATION
Ironically, although classification systems are created in a negotiated, contested social process, once there are collective understandings about categories, classification is naturalized. It becomes a part of the basis for the social
order and is internalized by people. This creates pressure for actors and the
objects they produce to conform to social categories. A number of studies
show that individuals, organizations, and products adopt accepted procedures, appearances, and behavior in order to be viewed as legitimate. The
more there are social rewards for being considered a part of a particular category, the stronger the pressures to conform will be. To the extent that actors
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
5
can make changes to fit into a category they will: country music performers wear boots, hats, and talk about their (sometimes exaggerated) southern
roots; organizations implement HR departments and grievance procedures
because that is considered the proper way to deal with employees.
When it is impossible to change a characteristic to conform, if the rewards
associated with a social category are great enough, people will still lobby
for inclusion by negotiating categorical boundaries. This is seen in societies
where social rewards are granted through race-based classification. Under
apartheid in South Africa, many people applied to contest their official
race classification based on their biology, location, social associations, and
more—with the vast majority from people who were barely excluded from
the high-status category, those classified as “colored” applying to be reclassified as “white.” Although it is desirable to be in a high-status category, it
is also important to simply fit into any category. Even this system, which
placed severe penalties on being in a low-status social category, in many
ways “wreaked the most havoc” on people who fell in between classifications. This is because all aspects of social life were governed by strict
divisions along racial lines, and anyone who remained on the boundaries
could not comfortably fit into a social group (Bowker & Star, 1999).
Strong pressures to conformity arise because there are penalties to objects
and actors that do not conform to social categories. People use concepts to
facilitate reasoning, and so it is more difficult to evaluate people or objects
that do not fit into cognitive schemas. Research in market settings has demonstrated strong sanctions for objects that are not coherently classified. Zuckerman (1999) proposes that there is a “zone of legitimacy” that objects must fall
into, so that they can be compared with other objects along familiar dimensions. He shows that organizations that do not conform to the classification
structure of analysts suffer penalties on the stock market.
In the language of concepts, people prefer objects that are typical of a category to those that are atypical. In many cases, this translates into a preference
for specialists, or objects that do not span categorical boundaries. Hsu (2006)
shows that films classified in many genres receive lower ratings as compared
to films that are in fewer genres. Moreover, this is driven by whether there is
a consensus about how to classify the film. Films that are in multiple genres
are harder for people to make sense of, and therefore are less likely to fit with
people’s tastes.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
CATEGORICAL BOUNDARIES
The research above shows that social classification depends on collective
understandings that are continually renegotiated. This means that even
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
though social categories are naturalized, inducing conformity and leading
to sanctions for those that do not conform, classification is also continually
changing. At any given point in time, there will be strong collective consensus surrounding some social facts but weaker agreement on others. Recent
research has investigated the consequences of this by studying how the
strength of boundaries in social classification affects people’s evaluations.
Although foundational research highlights that boundary construction
is subjective and contested, earlier studies regarding the consequences of
social classification investigated categories that were well bounded with
high social consensus. These types of categories are collective representations that structure people’s reasoning, interpretations, and evaluations.
Recent research suggests that this provides an incomplete understanding
of classification. All social categories do not equally sway people’s perceptions and evaluations. Theories of concepts and categories suggest that a
category’s distinctiveness and how much consensus there is about its social
meaning affect how influential a category is.
When categories have strong boundaries, there are clear divisions about
which objects are included and which are excluded. The stronger the boundary, more the category comports with the classical view of concepts, so that
there are few items that are considered barely in or barely out of the category. Conversely, when boundaries are weak, there are many atypical items
that can fall into the consideration set of the category. This means that collectively, people will not have as strong a sense that items in the category should
conform to a certain set of standards.
Studies show that when there is not a social consensus about the boundaries
of social categories, there are fewer penalties for objects that are not coherently classified. For instance, before there was a general consensus about the
characteristics of a minivan, many types of models were rated as equally
appealing. However, as social agreement developed about the minivan product category, the same models that did not conform to the new standard
were rated as less appealing (Rosa, Porac, Runser-Spanjol, & Saxon, 1999).
More generally, when the classification system for R.G. Dunn & Co, a credit
rating agency, was becoming established, companies that crossed categorical boundaries did not receive lower ratings. However, when the classification system became institutionalized, the same boundary spanners were
penalized (Ruef & Patterson, 2009). This is not limited to classification that is
emerging; within a system of classification, there are fewer penalties to spanning fuzzy categories as compared to spanning categories with distinctive
boundaries (Negro, Hannan, & Rao, 2010).
At the same time, weakly bounded categories confer fewer advantages.
This is because categories with weak boundaries do not elicit a clear set of
standards people should use to compare objects, and they are not as effective
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
7
at helping people organize information. As a result, people have more
difficulty interpreting objects in these categories. Thus, people evaluate
items in well-defined categories more positively than those in categories
with weak boundaries. The study of Kovács & Hannan (2010) of online
restaurant reviews illustrates both effects: restaurants in weakly bounded
categories received lower ratings than those in distinctive categories. However, category spanning is more detrimental when categorical boundaries
are strong.
BENEFITS OF AMBIGUITY
A second area of cutting-edge research questions whether having unclear
social classification will always be problematic. As detailed above, numerous studies document how actors and the objects they produce conform to
social classification, and that those that do not conform suffer penalties. Yet
despite this, most systems of classification contain crisscrossed, overlapping,
and vague categories, with many atypical objects. If ambiguous classification
is so problematic, how can this persist?
A number of recent studies show that ambiguity in classification is beneficial in a number of situations. In the traditional view, conforming to distinctive social categories is advantageous because these objects are familiar,
easy to interpret, and perceived as legitimate. However, the requirement to
conform to categorical expectations can be a tall order. When categories represent collective expectations and have strong boundaries, they are highly
constraining. In other words, there are strict prescriptions of what an actor
must do or be in order to be considered typical of the category. Categories
with vague boundaries provide leniency that allows actors flexibility to not
conform. Actors that wish to explore, try something new, or challenge the
status quo will necessarily be atypical. Without leniency and atypicality, classification would not change and the social order would not evolve.
In a competitive environment, it is an actor’s distinctive qualities that will
determine whether it is chosen from a set of rivals. As a result, in markets,
successful organizations blend conforming to categories to facilitate interpretability with asserting uniqueness in order to show superiority over a
rival. Recent research shows that when organizations self-classify, they use
categorical ambiguity and category straddling to their advantage. Granqvist,
Grodal, and Woolley (2012) show that the ambiguous “nanotechnology” category provided leeway for organizations without nanocapabilities to claim to
be part of the category without facing scrutiny. Pontikes and Barnett (2014)
show that in the software industry, organizations are more likely to enter
lenient market categories precisely because a wide range of organizations can
do so without sanction. At the same time, the vagueness of these categories
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
still leads to problems with interpretability, and so organizations are also
more likely to exit. Benefits of ambiguity are not limited to self-classification.
Fleischer (2009) shows that ambiguous rating systems allowed brokerage
firms to maintain credibility when evaluating producers from whom they
also received fees. They deliberately introduced a lack of interpretability into
their classifications, which meant they could rate client producers in a positive sounding way while still conveying that the equity was not as strong as
others in the portfolio.
Ambiguity can also be beneficial when it comes to external evaluations.
Pontikes (2012) shows that venture capitalists, who are interested in creating
new categories, prefer to invest in organizations that are not coherently classified. Because they look for novelty, conformist organizations are unappealing. Smith (2011) finds that on average atypical hedge funds receive lower
capital investment. However, for these nonconformist funds, short-term positive performance is more highly rewarded, and short-term negative performance is less penalized, because investors do not have clear standards for
evaluating performance fluctuations of atypical funds.
THE ROLE OF AUDIENCE
Recent research has brought to the fore the role of audience in social classification. Social classification is meaningful when it is used by groups of
individuals. For any system of classification, there is at least one audience
for whom social categories are relevant. As a result, the role of audience is
either implicit or explicit in every study of classification. At the same time,
audience is often either defined at a very general level (e.g., “society”), or on
an ad hoc basis specific to the empirical context being analyzed (e.g., a set of
critics). However, if, at a fundamental level, social categories are collective
understandings, then it is critical to develop a more general theory about
who comprises the collective and how classification develops when there are
multiple or segmented audiences.
Hannan, Pólos, and Carroll (2007) tackle this issue in a theoretical model of
category emergence. In this model, every aspect of classification (e.g., labeling or development of category schemas) is defined with respect to an audience. The model implies that the structure of the audience affects whether
social consensus develops around a category. Further, different segments of
an audience can have different perspectives on classification. Therefore, a
film critic may define the documentary genre differently than a casual filmgoer. The model allows one type of audience (in this case, presumably the
critic) to be more engaged in the domain than another, and it also allows an
individual to play multiple roles. Therefore, a producer can also play the role
of audience, both creating objects that others classify, and using classification
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
9
to make sense of the objects that they and others produce. Critics are modeled as a distinct audience, but they need not play a prized role as the primary
intermediary in a domain. This means that this model can apply to domains
where classification emerges from informal interaction among multiple audiences, as well as contexts where classification is deliberately constructed by
intermediaries.
Studies show that general implications can be drawn regarding how audience structure affects classification. Koçak, Hannan, and Hsu (2009) segment
the audiences for eBay auctions by a person’s level of engagement. They find
that the mix of highly engaged versus mass audience members affects how
much consensus develops around categorical meaning, valuation, and the
development of a category language. Kovács and Hannan (2010) demonstrate that enthusiast audience members react less negatively to category
spanning within a domain. Pontikes (2012) shows that reactions to nonconformity depend on the perspective of the audience. An audience of venture
capitalists who prize novelty prefer nonconformist organizations, whereas
consumers, for whom interpretability is important, gravitate toward organizations that are unambiguously classified.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Research on classification has established how interplay between individual and collective understandings creates social categories that affect how
people understand and evaluate objects and other actors. There is an inherent endogeneity in this system: people use social classification to interpret
objects in the world around them, but every individual’s unique reading of
the meanings and boundaries of social categories contributes to changing collective understandings as classification evolves. Scholars are just beginning
to unpack these complex feedback loops. This section outlines promising
directions for future research.
INFORMAL CLASSIFICATION
From early research scholars emphasized that the creation of social classification involves interactions among multiple disparate individuals. As
Durkheim ([1912] 2001) put it:
Collective representations are the product of a vast cooperative effort that
extends not only through space but over time; their creation has involved
a multitude of different minds associating, mingling, combining their ideas
and feelings—the accumulation of generations of experience and knowledge
(p. 18).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
This cooperative effort is not deliberately coordinated, but it arises through
informal social interaction. Social categories can be codified, but they need
not be. What is most powerful about social classification is that it draws
on implicit, tacit understandings about how people and objects should be
grouped and how they relate. Whether in markets, artistic fields, or professions, meaningful classification represents default concepts that are widely
shared.
Yet, much research uses lists created by the government, critics, rating agencies, or other enthusiasts as official representations of default classification in
a domain. This presents two problems: it assumes that one audience’s categorical definitions are shared among all relevant audience segments, and it
smooths over ongoing negotiations over boundary definition, so that it may
appear that all categories reflect the same amount of social consensus. In
domains where intermediaries have strong influence or where classification
is codified and institutionalized across audience segments, this may be an
appropriate strategy. However, this cannot capture how classification works
in contexts where classification is informal, where audience segments have
different representations, or where boundaries are vague and changing.
To bridge this gap, future research should investigate informal classification. This can include the categories people use to identify objects, how social
categories are described, or which objects are grouped together in articles,
informal rankings, or other reports that seek to describe or define a domain.
These data can be collected for multiple audience segments and compared.
This presents a more difficult data collection task as compared to compiling
a list from one source. However, the relatively recent availability of text data
in electronic form, which includes current online articles and blogs as well as
historic information that has been scanned, and software for text extraction
and analysis, makes this type of analysis tractable. Examples include using
articles from multiple industry and popular media publications, text from
online reviews, self-descriptions from press releases or Web sites, and blogs
as initial sources of data. To represent perspectives of different audience segments, data can be collected from a few sources in one domain. The next
challenge is making sense of this unstructured data. This can be done using
topic modeling, software programs that use probabilistic models based on
word association to discover underlying topics among a collection of documents (for an overview of topic models, see Blei 2012). Researchers can
integrate these data with more traditional classification lists to investigate the
extent to which people use categories as documented on official lists in informal categorization, and the extent to which informal conversations influence
the composition of these lists over time.
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
11
STRATEGIC USE OF CLASSIFICATION
Another unexplored topic is the strategic use of classification. Personal
motives underlie all types of communication, even when people try to be
objective. However, little research in classification has explored strategic
considerations on the part of the audience member who classifies. Scholars
have shown that considerations of personal gain strongly influence groups
that lobby for inclusion or exclusion in negotiating the boundaries of social
categories, but most studies presume that once categories are established,
classification is based on the characteristics of the objects. However, research
that explores benefits of ambiguity suggests that classification can be used
strategically, for instance, when actors take advantage of vague boundaries
to project different messages to multiple constituencies.
Strategic classification has been examined in research on framing. Drawing from Goffman’s influential work, this literature shows that actors present
themselves using frames that influence how people interpret their activities.
This especially applies to self-classification, where people attempt to be seen
as a social type that is valued and distance themselves from identities that
are stigmatized, regardless of how accurate either classification is. However,
scholars often treat strategic considerations as if they were at odds with classification based on “objective” features, assuming that actors classify based
on either personal motives or an item’s characteristics. However, it is likely
that both types of considerations are employed in most instances of social
classification, especially when objects are peripheral or straddle categorical
boundaries. These issues are not limited to self-classification; as Fleischer
(2009) relates, intermediaries strategically use ambiguity in classification to
satisfy demands from multiple audiences. Treating strategic considerations
as an integral part of classification will help deepen our understanding of
how social categories are created and used.
LEVELS AND DIMENSIONS OF CLASSIFICATION
Levels of hierarchy within the systems of classification have been well studied. However, less is known about the level at which classification is applied
to an individual or object. For instance, in markets, is relevant classification at
the level of the organization or its products? In the music industry, is it at the
level of the label, artist, album, or song? Do audiences classify an individual,
or the role he or she plays? These issues are especially relevant when it comes
to penalties that arise when an object straddles categorical boundaries. It is
possible that there are penalties for products being in multiple categories, but
not for organizations, or for artists that dabble in a few musical genres, but
not for labels that do the same. It may not be problematic for an individual to
be categorized in many ways overall, for example, as a physician, husband,
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
and fisherman, but perhaps it is important that he have a single identity when
acting in a specific role (e.g., when performing surgery). For any individual
context, it may be straightforward to identify the level to which classification
will apply and the extent to which incoherence will be problematic. However, in order to make generalizations regarding the effects of classification,
it is critical to develop a theory regarding the levels of classification.
A related topic concerns dimensions of classification. One entity can be classified in multiple, unrelated ways. The above example of a person classified
as a physician, husband, and fisherman, compared to a person who is classified as a physician, lawyer, and janitor, illustrates how multiple classifications
can have different interpretations. Similarly, an organization that is classified
as a car dealership, candy shop, and fabric store, is interpreted differently
from the one classified as a car dealership, franchise, and private company.
The extent to which straddling categories make an object incoherent may
depend on whether the categories lie in the same or different dimensions.
However, this raises the question of how to define the dimensions of classification. It will be interesting for future research to tease these issues apart.
DYNAMIC CLASSIFICATION
Finally, an important direction for future research is to unpack how these topics fuel dynamics in social classification. One of the most interesting aspects
of classification is that in the present it is perceived as a stable, objective
system for structuring the social order. And yet, social categories are continually changing. Previous research has explored these dynamics in terms
of how activists challenge categorical boundaries or push for regulations to
stabilize classification. However, classification also evolves through individual, microlevel processes. These might be spurred when someone interprets
a category in a slightly different way, and when this use catches on, when
the producer of an atypical product asserts that it is part of a resource-rich
market for strategic reasons, or when classification shifts levels. Individual
changes in how classification is used contribute to changing collective understandings. This causes classification to evolve. Understanding this process is
an important direction for future research.
SUMMARY
Classification provides a foundation for how people think and reason, and as
a result it has the potential to affect almost any aspect of social life. Although
classification is based on an entity’s observed characteristics, social processes
are integral to how boundaries are established. This is especially important
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
13
because how objects are classified also affects how they are valued. Foundational research has established that, to a large extent, classification is socially
constructed. Further, objects that are difficult to interpret through social classification are penalized. Recent research has both expanded on these foundations and questioned some of the conclusions. Categories vary in terms of
boundary strength, and the distinctiveness of a category affects how influential it is. In addition, there are benefits to ambiguity and nonconformity
within classification, especially for actors interested in novelty, exploration,
or disrupting the status quo. Finally, the role of audience is central to classification. To theorize about collective representations, we must identify who
the collective is. Different audiences can develop different views of the meanings of social categories as well as preferences for different categorical types.
Promising directions for future research include investigating informal classification, strategic labeling, levels of classification, and classification dynamics. Pursuing these avenues will provide a deeper understanding of how
social classification is created, how it is used, and how it evolves.
REFERENCES
Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55, 77–84.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440–455.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project:
U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In W. J. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Durkheim, É. (Ed.) [1912] (2001). The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Fleischer, A. (2009). Ambiguity and the equity of rating systems: United States brokerage firms, 1995–2000. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 555–574.
Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. (2012). Hedging your bets: Explaining executives’ market labeling strategies in nanotechnology. Organization Science.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences,
codes and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hsu, G. (2006). Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’ reactions to
spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51,
420–450.
Koçak, O., Hannan, M. T., & Hsu, G. (2009). Audience structure and the development
of schemas and category systems in markets. Unpublished Manuscript.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Kovács, B., & Hannan, M. T. (2010). The consequences of category spanning depend
on contrast. In G. Hsu, G. Negro & O. Kocak (Eds.), Categories in markets: Origins
and evolution. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.
Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Negro, G., Hannan, M. T., & Rao, H. (2010). Categorical contrast and audience appeal:
Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Industrial and Corporate Change,
19, 1397–1425.
Peterson, R. A. (1997). Creating country music: Fabricating authenticity. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Pontikes, E. G. (2012). Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification
affects multiple audience evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 81–118.
Pontikes, E. G., & Barnett, W. (2014). The persistence of lenient market categories.
Working Paper. The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive
dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63, 64–77.
Ruef, M., & Patterson, K. (2009). Credit and classification: Defining industry boundaries in nineteenth century America. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 486–520.
Smith, E. (2011). Identities as lenses: How organizational identity affects audiences’
evaluation of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56,
61–94.
Zuckerman, E. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.
FURTHER READING
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
ELIZABETH G. PONTIKES SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth G. Pontikes is Associate Professor of Organizations and Strategy
at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her research focuses
on market classification and innovation. She has studied this in the context of
the software industry, the computer industry, and also has studied negative
categorization in the context of the Red Scare in Hollywood. She is currently
working on projects focused on identity, innovation, and classification for
technology analysts in rap lyrics. Her work has been published in a number of scholarly journals including Administrative Science Quarterly, American
Sociological Review, Management Science, and Sociological Science.
Emerging Trends: Social Classification
15
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Kin-Directed Behavior in Primates (Anthropology), Carol M. Berman
Close Friendships among Contemporary People (Sociology), Matthew E.
Brashears and Laura Aufderheide Brashears
Problems Attract Problems: A Network Perspective on Mental Disorders
(Psychology), Angélique Cramer and Denny Borsboom
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Gestural Communication in Nonhuman Species (Anthropology), Simone Pika
Social Relationships and Health in Older Adulthood (Psychology), Theodore
F. Robles and Josephine A. Menkin
Vocal Communication in Primates (Anthropology), Katie E. Slocombe
Emerging Trends: Shaping Age by Technology and Social Bonds (Sociology),
Annette Spellerberg and Lynn Schelisch
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray