Search

Category emergence has been a central question in organization theory. Yet, we still do not understand what drives category persistence and updating during emergence as new information arises. We investigate this question through a rich set of oral histories and archival materials on the emergence of the category AIDS from 1978 to 1985. We show that the initial proto-category's features and causal theories cohered with its stigmatized moral meanings. Over time, anomalies challenging these features and theories spurred a minority of medical professionals to update the category's causal theory. However, a silent majority resisted updating the category because the new causal theory conflicted with the proto-category's moral meanings, challenging the clear moral boundary dividing what was perceived as worthy from what was perceived as unworthy. As a result, the majority silenced the vocal minority's updated understandings and withheld resources from the category. This article contributes to the literature on categorization by showing that conflicts between category dimensions can stifle updating, amplify imprinting, and prolong category persistence. Particularly, the dichotomous nature of the moral dimension might hinder the updating of other dimensions, such as the causal one, despite accumulated evidence suggesting the need for updates. We show that calls for category updating backed solely by rational arguments may fail to persuade the silent majority and may falter until the moral boundary is punctured and the category is morally reappraised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most literature on aesthetic innovation has focused on single producers who use radical aesthetic innovation to differentiate their products. However, a few scholars, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggest that when gazed at from the category level, aesthetic innovation usually occurs as incremental variations of a dominant aesthetic. Extant theory fails to account for why we see cycles of shift and stability in the dominant aesthetic of a category. In this study, we identify the mechanisms that drove such shifts and stability in the dominant aesthetic of the hearing aid category from 1945 to 2015. Leveraging this study, we develop theory showing that alignment or misalignment between category meanings and recent cultural trends spurs producers to generate new categorical aspirations to associate their category with new sets of meanings. However, producers introduce radical new aesthetic innovations only when a change in product form allows them to experiment. Examining aesthetic evolution at the category level helps to shed light on category-level patterns of aesthetic shifts and stability, why attempts to differentiate outside the dominant aesthetic are rare, and why product aesthetics across a category shift synchronously between dominant aesthetics. Furthermore, we enhance understanding of the roles of culture in category evolution and of aesthetics in the construction of category meaning, and we show how such meanings are periodically and collectively renegotiated in mature categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do first movers into a new industry sometimes gain an advantage simply because of the fact that they are perceived by audiences to be more authentic than second movers, whereas in other contexts such second movers are perceived as no less authentic than first movers? We theorize that this difference hinges on the amount of costly, risky "legitimation work" that entrants are perceived to have conducted in their efforts to establish that the new organizational form is reliable and acceptable. Whereas a first mover must expend great effort to reassure skeptical audiences that the new form coheres with their norms and that it can meet and even exceed their standards, later arrivals are often able to appropriate such legitimacy once it has been established. But such appropriation by the second mover makes its (often implicit) claim of original insight or vision seem less authentic than that of the first mover. In three complementary online experiments on audience reactions to online healthcare startups, we find support for our prediction that followers suffer from a lower consumer preference because they are perceived to have done less work in establishing the new form's legitimacy. Our results show that when follower firms show evidence of participation in legitimation work, it may overturn the default interpretation and reduce the authenticity discount. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.17215. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on technology management has increasingly focused on the sociocognitive elements of the industry life cycle. One of these elements, category labels (words, in most cases) and its role in shaping market understandings, has recently become of interest to scholars. As industries evolve, stakeholders generate a plethora of category labels. However, we know relatively little about why some category labels are used repeatedly, whereas others are abandoned. Drawing on semantic networks theory, we argue that the familiarity and creativity of category labels drive their adoption. We hypothesize that low levels of familiarity hinder comprehension, but too much familiarity increases the cost of obviousness. Likewise, low levels of creativity do not trigger curiosity, whereas too much creativity spurs dissonance. We use two methods to address these hypotheses. First, we study the early smartphone industry, finding support for an inverted U-shaped relationship between both the familiarity and creativity of category labels and their adoption, even after controlling for alternative explanations, such as technology and design characteristics. Second, we find consistent results through two online experiments that broaden the scope of our study and address potential endogeneity concerns in our field data. Our paper expands the literature on the evolution of technology industries by showing that familiarity and creativity are distinct dimensions that influence the sociocognitive dynamics of an emerging industry. We also contribute to the categorization literature by theorizing about the contestation that occurs among category labels and providing empirical evidence of the factors that affect their adoption. Funding: Financial support was received from the National Science Foundation [Grant 1027408] and the Slatkin Family Fund Research Grant. Keywords: technology management * category labels * categories * industry evolution * creativity * familiarity * semantic networks, Introduction During an industry's early stages, stakeholders hold multiple, simultaneous understandings of the industry's products (Kaplan and Tripsas 2008, Anthony et al. 2016). Scholars have examined this sociocognitive dimension through [...]

Scholars have long debated how rigor can be achieved in qualitative analysis. To answer this question, we need to better understand how theory is generated from data. Qualitative analysis is, at its core, a categorization process. Nevertheless, despite a surge of interest in categorization within the social sciences, insights from categorization theory have not yet been applied to our understanding of qualitative analysis. Drawing fromcategorization theory, we argue that the movement from data to theory is an active process in which researchers choose between multiple moves that help themto make sense of their data. In addition, we develop a framework of the main moves that people use when they categorize data and demonstrate that evidence of these moves can also be found in past qualitative scholarship. Our framework emphasizes that, if we are not sufficiently reflexive and explicit about the active analytical processes that generate theoretical insights, we cannot be transparent and, thus, rigorous about how we analyze data. We discuss the implications of our framework for increasing rigor in qualitative analysis, for actively constructing categories from data, and for spurring more methodological plurality within qualitative theory building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To gain attention and build support for new categories, market entrepreneurs often define a new category through its contrast with related, established offerings. Existing research has largely focused on the benefits of this oppositional categorical positioning. In this study, we explore how this strategy might be a double-edged sword. Through a longitudinal inductive study of the e-cigarette category in the U.S. (2007–2017), we develop theory on the risks of associating with an already established category. In our empirical case, we document how value-based distinctions between cigarettes and e-cigarettes became eroded and the e-cigarette category grew increasingly stigmatized. We then propose several mechanisms through which the symbolic and social boundaries between a new and an established category can weaken and the stigma associated with an existing category can become diffused, intensified, and generalized—both across organizational features and across organizations in the new category. This case allows us to investigate the processes by which strategies to legitimize categories may backfire and to consider the role that a diverse set of core and peripheral stakeholders—who enter the market with pre-existing knowledge and motivations—play in category stigmatization processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of innovation is a relatively young and fast-growing branch of social science. Mainly inspired by the work of Joseph Schumpeter and by other research traditions outside the economics […]