Call for Papers

Inspired by the general theme of the 41^st EGOS Colloquium, this sub-theme calls for empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers either (1) creatively studying classification and evaluation phenomena or (2) creatively investigating the relationships between the research streams co-existing within sociology of classification and evaluation (Lamont, 2012; Zuckerman, 2012; Helgesson & Muniesa, 2013).
 
Classification and evaluation practices are ubiquitous, including, but not limited to, algorithms and ratings in online platforms (Barbe et al., 2023, Cudennec & Huynh 2023, Orlikowski & Scott, 2014), company valuations (Cudennec & Durand, 2023) or sustainability certifications and labels (Richard et al., 2017). Hence, some refer to today’s world as the “society of evaluation” (Dahler-Larsen, 2011) or as the society of “indicators, scores and ratings” (Mau, 2020).
 
Relatedly, concepts related to evaluation and classification are flourishing in organization studies – including for instance the ones moments of valuation (Antal et al., 2015), ranking entrepreneurship (Rindova et al., 2018), valuation entrepreneurship (Sgourev, 2021), statactivism (Bruno et al., 2014) or evaluative frames (Benner & Beunza, 2023).
 
Unfortunately, this obscures a darker matter: as this field of study flourishes, the concepts became ambiguous, and the research streams coexisting in this field of study became fragmented. We suggest that one way to make sense of this body of literature is to follow Fourcade’s (2016) terminology, that distinguishes between nominal, cardinal, and ordinal evaluations. Nominal evaluations refer to the evaluations of similarities, or differences, in terms of what things are, or are not – an area enlightened for instance by research on categories and categorization (Hannan et al., 2019). Cardinal evaluations entail the evaluations of similarities or differences in terms of magnitude – an area invested among others by the sociology of quantification and ratings (Espeland & Stevens, 2008). Ordinal evaluations relate to the evaluations of similarities, or differences, in terms of relative orderings – a range of phenomena tackled among others by research on social evaluations (Pollock et al., 2019).
 
This sub-theme welcomes papers trying to move the sociology of classification and evaluation forward, either by studying empirical contexts overtaking cutting-edge research within each of these streams, or by trying to cross-fertilize these emerging lines of reasoning. Hence, we are interested in empirical and theoretical papers which might cover, but are not limited to, questions related to:
 
Dynamics of evaluations. Existing research often assumes a two-stage evaluation process, viewing categorization as a necessary step for quantification and relative ordering (Lamont, 2012). However, “cardinality is often a powerful argument for the emergence of nominal categories” as Fourcade (2016: 179) argues, suggesting that categorization could also be a consequence of quantification and evaluation processes.

• In this perspective, how do nominal, cardinal and ordinal evaluations interplay dynamically in different contexts?

• And what are the implications of such dynamics?

• How do these forms of evaluations compare in terms of nominal, cardinal, and ordinal evaluations?

• How does the shift from one form of evaluation to another unfold within organizations?

• What happens when these different forms of evaluations coexist?

 
Moral dimension of evaluations. Classifications are not neutral information tools; rather classifications carry over moral values (Arjaliès & Durand, 2021; Boltanski, 1987; Bowker & Star, 1999).

• How do classifications become loaded with values, or conversely, become value-neutral?

• How does this dynamic affect other evaluation processes?

The economies of worth framework (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006) provides here a powerful analytical tools to starts exploring the moral dynamics underlying evaluation practices (Grattarola et al., 2024).
 

Actors of evaluations. Prior research makes implicit assumption on the roles and characteristics of different actors involved in evaluation processes. Studies often assume an evaluative “division of labor” (Grodal, 2018), for instance, treating actors evaluating claims as “peripheral communities” of fields under study.

• How do actors’ positions in a field shape their participation to evaluation processes and under which conditions?

• What is the division of evaluation labor in organizations?

• How does such a division of labor emerge?

 
Empirical and methodological approach to evaluations. We believe that the sociology of evaluation might creatively put in perspective core methodological concepts of both qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Nominal evaluation, as classification process, is core to inductive qualitative analysis (Grodal et al., 2021), while cardinal and ordinal evaluations seem to be the prerogative of quantitative scholars. Yet, quantitative methods have recently advanced research on classifications, especially when relying on computational AI tools related to language (Aceves & Evans, 2024). Conversely, qualitative investigations open the black box of how quantitative evaluation tools are built.

• How can methodological research on qualitative classification and computational approaches to classification enrich one another?

References

• Aceves, P., & Evans, J.A. (2024): “Mobilizing Conceptual Spaces: How Word Embedding Models Can Inform Measurement and Theory Within Organization Science.” Organization Science, 35 (3), 788–814.

• Arjaliès, D.-L., & Durand, R. (2019): “Product categories as judgment devices: The moral awakening of the investment industry.” Organization Science, 30 (4), 885–911.
• Barbe, A.-S., Gond, J.-P., & Hussler, C. (2023): “The power implications of the shift to customer reviews: A field perspective on jobbing platforms operating in France.” Organization Studies, 44 (8), 1309–1331.
• Benner, M.J., & Beunza, D. (2023): “The Influence of Analysts on Innovation: An Evolutionary View of Evaluative Frames.” Academy of Management Review, in press, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0122.
• Boltanski, L. (1987): The Making of a Class. Cadres in French Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bowker, G.C., & Star, S.L. (1999): Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Bruno, I., Didier, E., & Vitale, T. (2014): “Statactivism: Forms of action between disclosure and affirmation.” Partecipazione e conflitto: The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies, 7 (2), 198–220.
• Cudennec, A., & Durand, R. (2023): “Valuing Spanners: Why Category Nesting and Expertise Matter.” Academy of Management Journal, 66 (1), 335–365.
• Cudennec, A., & Huynh, C.W. (2023): “In the Mood for Odd? The Role of Affective Factors in the Evaluation of Categorical Atypicality.” Poetics, 101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2023.101838.
• Dahler-Larsen, P. (2011): The Evaluation Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Espeland, W.N., & Stevens, M.L. (2008): “A sociology of quantification.” European Journal of Sociology/Archives européennes de sociologie, 49 (3), 401–436.
• Fourcade, M. (2016): “Ordinalization: Lewis A. Coser memorial award for theoretical agenda setting 2014.” Sociological Theory, 34 (3), 175–195.
• Grattarola, A., Gond, J.-P., & Haefliger, S. (2024): “Traduttore, traditore? Gains and losses from the translation of the economies of worth.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 26 (1), 137–159.
• Grodal, S., (2018): “Field expansion and contraction: How communities shape social and symbolic boundaries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 63 (4), 783–818.
• Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A.L. (2021): “Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building.” Academy of Management Review, 46 (3), 591–612.
• Hannan, M.T., Mens, G.L., Hsu, G., Kovács, B., Negro, G., et al. (2019): Concepts and Categories: Foundations for Sociological and Cultural Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Helgesson, C.F., & Muniesa, F. (2013): “For what it’s worth: An introduction to valuation studies.” Valuation Studies, 1 (1), 1–10.
• Lamont, M. (2012): “Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.
• Mau, S. (2020): “Numbers matter! The society of indicators, scores and ratings.” International Studies in Sociology of Education, 29 (1–2), 19–37.
• Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2014): “What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector.” Organization Science, 25 (3), 868–891.
• Pollock, T.G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V.P., & Han, J.H. (2019): “Which of these things are not like the others? Comparing the rational, emotional, and moral aspects of reputation, status, celebrity, and stigma.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (2), 444–478.
• Rindova, V.P., Martins, L.L., Srinivas, S.B., & Chandler, D. (2018): “The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research.” Journal of Management, 44 (6), 2175–2208.
• Sharkey, A., Kovacs, B., & Hsu, G. (2023): “Expert critics, rankings, and review aggregators: The changing nature of intermediation and the rise of markets with multiple intermediaries.” Academy of Management Annals, 17 (1), 1–36.
• Sgourev, S.V. (2021): “Materiality as a basis for valuation entrepreneurship: Re-modeling impressionism.” Organization Science, 32 (5), 1235–1255.
• Zuckerman, E.W. (2012): “Construction, Concentration, and (Dis)Continuities in Social Valuations.” Annual Review of Sociology, 38 (1), 223–245.
•