Abstract
For organizations, as for individuals, status position governs access to a variety of valued rewards. To uncover the causes of status position, recent research has focused on the relationship between the attributes of individual organizations and their standing in a status hierarchy. Although this research has made valuable contributions to our understanding of both the consequences of status to organizations and the determinants of status, its emphasis on organizational attributes has not addressed how the characteristics of status systems shape the nature and distribution of these positions. Drawing on data from 134 in-depth interviews with law school administrators and faculty, this article investigates how variations in the characteristics of status systems influence status processes. Concentrating on the theoretically underdeveloped role that third parties play in status systems, I examine how a third party change – the emergence and increasing popularity of the U.S. News and World Report’s law school rankings – has had powerful effects on the shape of the status hierarchy of legal education as well as the values that underlie this hierarchy. These changes have, in turn, transformed the landscape of positions that are available to actors, the process by which these positions are allocated among various actors, and the bases upon which this allocation is carried out.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abel, R. L. (1989). American lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 563–589.
Blau, P. M., & Marguiles, R. Z. (1974). The reputation of American professional schools. Change, Winter, 42–47.
Carrington, P. (2003). On rankings: A response to Mitchell Berger. Journal of Legal Education, 53, 301–304.
Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine.
Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 178–184.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
Form, W. H., & Stone, G. P. (1957). Urbanism, anonymity, and status symbolism. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 505–514.
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11, 225–250.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Anchor.
Goode, W. J. (1978). The celebration of heroes: Prestige as a control system. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gould, R. V. (2003). Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Han, S.-K. (1994). Mimetic isomorphism and its effect on the audit services market. Social Forces, 73, 637–664.
Heimer, C. (2001). Cases and biographies: An essay on routinization and the nature of comparison. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 47–76.
Heinz, J. P., & Laumann, E. O. (1982). Chicago lawyers: The social structure of the bar. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Klein, S., & Hamilton, L. (1998). The validity of the U.S. news and world report rankings of the ABA law schools, study commissioned by the American association of law schools, available at http://www.aals.org/validity.html.
Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.
Marguiles, R. Z., & Blau, P. (1973). The pecking order of the elite: America’s leading professional schools. Change, November, 21–27.
Merton, R. K. (1960). ‘Recognition’ and ‘excellence’: Instructive ambiguities. In A. Yarmolinsky (Ed.), Recognition of excellence: Working papers (pp. 297–328). New York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Mills, C. W. (1963). The sociology of stratification. In I. L. Horowitz (Ed.), Power, politics, and people: The collected essays of C. Wright Mills (pp. 305–324). New York: Oxford University Press.
Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.
Podolny, J. M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 458–483.
Podolny, J. M., & Phillips, D. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Journal of Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 453–472.
Podolny, J. M., & Stuart, T. E. (1995). A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1224–1260.
Podolny, J. M., Stuart, T. E., & Hannan, M. T. (1996). Networks, knowledge, and niches: A sociological examination of worldwide competition in the semiconductor industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 659–689.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2002). Inequality, status, and the construction of status beliefs. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 323–340). New York: Plenum.
Ridgeway, C. L., Kuipers, K. J., Boyle, E. H., & Robinson, D. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63, 331–350.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2006). Strength in numbers? A comparison of law and business school rankings. Indiana Law Journal, 81, 205–227.
Sauder, M., & Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effect of U.S. News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law and Society Review, 40.
Schmalbeck, R. (1998). The durability of law school reputation. Journal of Legal Education, 48(4), 568–590 (December).
Shrum, W., & Wuthnow, R. (1988). Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 882–912.
Smigel, E. O. (1969). The wall street lawyer. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Speier, H. (1935). Honor and social structures. Social Research, 2, 74–97.
Stevens, R. (1983). Law school: Legal education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.
Stevens, M. L. (2003). Five affirmative actions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Atlanta, Georgia: August 15–18.
Stuart, T., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 315–349.
U.S. News and World Reports (1990–2003). America’s Best Graduate Schools.
Veblen, T. (1994 [1899]). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Dover.
Zemans, F. K., & Rosenblum, V. G. (1981). The making of the a public profession. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
Zimmerman, J. L. (2001). Can American business schools survive? Simon School of Business Working Paper no. FR 01–16.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.
Zuckerman, E. W. (2000). Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 591–619.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sauder, M. Third parties and status position: How the characteristics of status systems matter. Theor Soc 35, 299–321 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9005-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9005-x