Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf) 

Setting the Rules of the Market Game: The Social Construction of Quality

Quality seems to be self-evident in markets. In fact, this taken-for-granted quality is an important constituent of markets. Yet, determining what counts as quality is a contested process that shapes which goods succeed and which organizations thrive (Beckert & Musselin, 2013; Kovács & Sharkey, 2014). Inspired by the general theme of the 43rd EGOS colloquium, “The Games We Play,” this sub-theme calls for papers that share the view that the definition of quality is a critical rule in the game: the principles that shape how organizations play and strategize. We contend that central to this construction of qualities and values are classification processes, that is, the listing and sorting of entities according to a defined logic or set of principles (Bowker & Star, 1999; Rao et al., 2003). In turn, words and numbers are both central to these processes, serving as the primary means through which meaning is suggested and contested in markets.

We aim to deepen our understanding of such processes, and to that end, we welcome empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers that study the construction of qualities in markets, their antecedents, their unfolding, or their consequences.

How Categories and Classification Processes Shape the Market Game

In markets, actors constantly negotiate and contest what counts as valuable, authentic, or legitimate (Lamont, 2012). Research on categories and classifications in markets has focused on how objects are allocated into categories and on ordinalization—the relative ordering of objects in a category (Fourcade, 2016).

Relatedly, in examining objects as diverse as restaurants (Kovács et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2003), food products (Weber et al., 2008), venture companies (Cudennec & Durand, 2023), modern art (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010), antiques (Millo et al., in press), gig-work tasks (Barbe et al., 2023), or hearing aids (Krabbe & Grodal, 2023), a body of work has shown that the qualities of products, services, or organizations are not intrinsic attributes, but the outcome of complex classification processes (Antal et al., 2015; Beckert & Musselin, 2013; Durand et al., 2017; Zuckerman, 2012). These works have made substantial progress in explaining the consequences of classification: how categorical fit shapes audience evaluation, how spanning categories attracts penalties, and how new categories gain legitimacy over time.

This sub-theme follows up on this trajectory and aims to try and understand better such classification processes by examining their unfolding and interplay. We welcome studies across different types of markets, while also inviting papers that explore less-theorized or emerging forms of classification, including AI-driven ones.

Words and Numbers: An Invitation to Bridge Two Conversations

Much of the existing research on classification processes has examined the role of words, explaining how market participants participate in classification processes by leveraging language constructs such as metaphors, frames, analogies, or claims (Granqvist & Siltaoja, 2020; Taeuscher & Lounsbury, 2025). This work shows that linguistic framing is not merely rhetorical: by invoking category labels, organizations seek to shape the evaluative criteria audiences apply to them (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Navis & Glynn, 2010). Methodologically, many studies draw on quantitative analysis of textual archival data, including news media articles (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019), earnings calls (Gouvard et al., 2023), synopses (Kovacs et al., 2023), or online reviews (Kovacs et al., 2014).

A distinct research stream has focused on the role of numbers, explaining how market participants participate in classification processes by using quantitative measures such as metrics, rankings (Espeland & Sauder, 2007), formulas (MacKenzie & Millo, 2002), scores, or indexes (Berman et al., 2020; Millo, 2007). Much of this research has relied on qualitative methods—including historical analyses, single-case or comparative case studies (Fourcade, 2011)—and explains that classifications are materially enacted through market devices, defined as the sociotechnical arrangements that format comparison, stabilize evaluative criteria, and qualify goods (Karpik, 2010; Muniesa et al., 2007).

Reviewing these two streams of work, we note a curious and potentially fruitful symmetry: research on linguistic categories and classifications has predominantly used quantitative methods to analyze texts, while research on numerical categories and classifications has relied on qualitative case studies. This methodological crossover hints at untapped possibilities for mixed-methods work, unexplored methodological reflections, as well as for theoretical cross-fertilization.

Accordingly, this sub-theme invites papers that explore further the role of words and numbers in the construction of qualities in markets, including ones studying their possible interplay, or ones connecting established theoretical and/or methodological traditions. We also note that the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools may blur the distinction between words and numbers, and we welcome papers that address this development, whether as a methodological resource or as a substantive phenomenon.

Questions

Contributions may address, but are not limited to, the following:

• How do categorization and ordering processes interplay dynamically in different types of markets or over time as markets develop?

• How and when do market intermediaries take part in the construction of quality in markets?

• How do organizations use numbers to position, frame, compare, or legitimize their market offerings?

• How do market devices discursively construct markets?

• When do organizations use linguistic constructs (e.g., metaphors, claims, reviews) or numerical measures (e.g., scores, rankings, ratings) to construct the quality of their offerings?

• How do AI-based classification, recommendation, or scoring systems shape the construction of qualities in markets?

• How to leverage AI-based classification, recommendation, or scoring systems to study unquestioned aspects of the construction of qualities in markets?

• What new methodological tools can be developed to study the words and numbers used in classification processes?

This sub-theme offers an opportunity to bring two, hitherto separate, research traditions into a productive dialogue, generating new theoretical and methodological possibilities or understanding how markets construct what counts.

• Antal, A. B., Hutter, M., & Stark, D. (Eds.). (2015). Moments of valuation: Exploring sites of dissonance. Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Barman, E., Hall, M., & Millo, Y. (2020). Demonstrating value: How entrepreneurs design new accounting methods to justify innovations. European Accounting Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1770113
• Beckert, J., & Musselin, C. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing quality: The classification of goods in markets. Oxford University Press.
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press.
• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
• Cudennec, A., & Durand, R. (2023). Valuing spanners: Why category nesting and expertise matter. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 335–365.
• Durand, R., Granqvist, N., & Tyllström, A. (2017). From categories to categorization: A social perspective on market categorization. In From categories to categorization: Studies in sociology, organizations and strategy at the crossroads (Vol. 51, pp. 3–30). Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
• Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.
• Fourcade, M. (2016). Ordinalization: Lewis A. Coser Award for theoretical agenda setting in sociology address. Sociological Theory, 34(3), 175–195.
• Gouvard, P., Goldberg, A., & Srivastava, S. B. (2023). Doing organizational identity: Earnings surprises and the performative atypicality premium. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(3), 781–823.
• Granqvist, N., & Siltaoja, M. (2020). Constructions, claims, resonance, reflexivity: Language and market categorization. Organization Theory, 1(4), Article 2631787720968561. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720968561
• Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2019). From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent US biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 865–893.
• Karpik, L. (2010). Valuing the unique: The economics of singularities. Princeton University Press.
• Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1281–1304.
• Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and consumer value ratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organization Science, 25(2), 458–478.
• Kovács, B., Hsu, G., & Sharkey, A. (2024). The stickiness of category labels: Audience perception and evaluation of producer repositioning in creative markets. Management Science, 70(9), 6315–6335.
• Kovács, B., & Sharkey, A. J. (2014). The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 1–33.
• Krabbe, A. D., & Grodal, S. (2023). The aesthetic evolution of product categories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(3), 734–780.
• Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221.
• MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 107–145.
• Millo, Y. (2007). Making things deliverable: The origins of index-based derivatives. The Sociological Review, 55(Suppl. 2), 196–214.
• Millo, Y., Coslor, E., & Barnes, J. (in press). Hardening by design: Imagined audiences and the design of epistemic technologies for art and antiques valuation at Sotheby’s (1967–1985). Organization Studies. Advance online publication.
• Muniesa, F., Millo, Y., & Callon, M. (2007). An introduction to market devices. The Sociological Review, 55(Suppl. 2), 1–12.
• Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.
• Taeuscher, K., & Lounsbury, M. D. (2025). It is not the whole story: Toward a broader understanding of entrepreneurial ventures’ symbolic differentiation. Academy of Management Journal, 68(3), 648–668.
• Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567.
• Zuckerman, E. W. (2012). Construction, concentration, and (dis)continuities in social valuations. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 223–245.