Peer Identification as Social Stratification: Comparing Media and Network Measures of Status in US Universities

Authors

  • David Cavazos Tarleton State University
  • William Ritchie James Madison University
  • Steven Harper James Madison University

Keywords:

social networks, peer identification, organizational status

Abstract

This research investigates the extent to which peer group identification serves as a measure of university status. Examining Association of American Universities (AAU) member institutions reveals that university peer groups exhibit many of the same stratification qualities as social networks. Specifically, higher-status universities tend to have more reciprocal ties with one another while lower-status universities, in addition to having more reciprocal ties with institutions of similar status, have more one-way ties with higher-status institutions. These findings are then used as a basis to illustrate how peer group networks can be used as an alternative measure of university status. Network-based measures are then compared with media rankings to illustrate a surprising disconnect between network-based status and media status.

References

Anand, N. &Watson, M. R. (2004). Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 59-80.

Aldrich, H. &Fiol, M. C. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.

Arikan, A. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capabilities of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 658-676.

Balkundi, P. & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structures effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49-68.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bedeian A., Cavazos, D., Hunt, J. & Jauch L. (2010). Doctoral degree prestige and the academic marketplace: A study of career mobility within the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(1), 11-25.

Benjamin, B.A. & Podolny, J.M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 563-589.

Borgatti, S.P. (2002). NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software, Harvard: Analytic Technologies

Brass, D.J, Galaskiewicz, J, Greve, H. R. & Tsai, W (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 47(6), 795-817.

Brinkman, P. T.& Teeter, D. J. (1987). Methods for selecting comparison groups. New Directions for Institutional Research, 53, 5-23.

Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Negro, G. & Perretti, F. (2008). The structure of consensus: Network ties, legitimation and exit rates of U.S feature film producer organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1), 145-182.

Contractor, N.S., Wasserman, S. &Faust, K. (2006). Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681-703.

Corley, K. & Gioia, D. (2000). The rankings game: Managing business school reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3: 319-333.

Davis, G.F. & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 1-37.

Deephouse, D. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26: 1091-1112.

DiMaggio, P.J. & W.W.Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Elias, Jacquelyn. (2022, March 24). Who does your college think its peers are? The Chronicle of Higher Education.https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-does-your-college-think-its-peers-are?

Elsbach, K., D. & Kramer, R. M. (1996) Members responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week ranking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442-476.

Galaskiewicz, J. & Burt, R. S (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 88-105.

Gibbons, D. (2004). Network structure and innovation ambiguity effects on diffusion in dynamic organizational fields. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 938-951.

Gioia, D. & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good vs. looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 107-120.

Glick, W. H. (2008). Rainman or pied piper? Moving business schools beyond media rankings with mass customization and stakeholder education. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(1), 18-23.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(2), 481-510

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. &Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Hargadon, A.B. & Douglas, J.Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476-501.

Hurley, R. G. (2002). Identification and assessment of community college peer institution selection systems. Community College Review, 29(4), 1-27.

King, M. D. & Haveman, H. A. (2008). Antislavery in America: The press, the pulpit, and the rise of antislavery societies. Administrative Science Quarterly,53(3), 492-528.

Lu, J., Ma, X. (2008). The contingent value of local partners business group affiliations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 295-314.

Morgeson, J. &Nahrgang, J. D. (2008). Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the Business Week Rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 26-41.

Owen-Smith, J. &Powell, W. (2008). Networks & Institutions. in R. Greenwood (ed.), The Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. New York, NY. Sage.

Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.

Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33-60.

Podolny, J. M., & Philips, D., J. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Industrial and Corporate Change. 5(2), 453-471.

Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special Issue Winter), 29-44.

Rao, H., Davis, G. F., Ward, A. (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ to join the New York Stock Exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 268-292.

Ring P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483-498.

Sauder, M., Lynn, F. & Podolny, J.M. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38: 267-283.

Scott, R. (2002). Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Speicher, A. L. (1990). The association of American universities: A century of service to higher education: 11. available online www.aau.edu/about.

Sharkey, A. J., & Bromley, P. (2015). Can Ratings Have Indirect Effects? Evidence from the Organizational Response to Peers’ Environmental Ratings. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 63–91.

Suddaby, R. & Greenwood R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 50(1), 35-67.

Tayar, M. (2017). Ranking LGBT inclusion: Diversity ranking systems as institutional archetypes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34(2), 198-210.

Wade, J. B., Porac J.F., Pollock, T.G. & Graffin, S.D.( 2006). The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 643-660.

Washington, M. &Zajac, E. (2005). Status evolution and competition: theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (2), 282-296.

Wasserman, S, & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, J. M, & Foschi, M. (1988). Overview of Status Generalization.in, J.M Webster & M. Foschi (Eds), Status generalization: New theory and research, pp. 1-22. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Zemsky, R. (2008). The rain man cometh – again. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(1), 5-14.

Downloads

Published

2023-02-27

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023)

Section

ABR Journal Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).