Page - (000130) - in Knowledge and Networks

123 This chapter focuses on status to theorize the relationship between OMRT dynamics and social processes, in particular collective learning. In neostructural vocabulary social processes differ from OMRT dynamics. In a collective of interde- pendent members, social processes are combined and iterated actions and interac- tions that help these members manage the dilemmas of collective action by constituting a form of social discipline that the same members consider to be legiti- mate, at least temporarily. OMRT dynamics are the micro- and macrophenomena that shape and reshape these social processes and can be considered as being among the determinants thereof. The process taken as an example in this chapter is collec- tive learning. In this process status is a central relational infrastructure (Blau, 1964; Krackhardt, 1990; Lazega, 1992). Indeed, the quest for status (an individual’s importance) in the collective, which presupposes participation in status competi- tion, is another way of seeking to modify one’s opportunity structure to one’s advan- tage. Social status is an inevitable basis for strategies intended to modify opportunity structures. In effect, the multiple dimensions of social status can be measured as concentrations of different kinds of resources. Network analysis offers measures (essentially, centrality and prominence), that identify heterogeneous and endoge- nous forms of status (and not simply exogenous forms as in Weber). From a more endogenous perspective, a person can achieve status in many local ways, such as by demonstrating great competence, assuming administrative responsibilities, gaining popularity, concentrating various sorts of specific assets, or even receiving the endorsement of members with status. Status competition paves the way to a man- date to represent the collective, control resources, gain authority, and define the terms of social exchanges, but also to protect one’s regulatory interests and partially resist being thrust from “above” into overt competition. Status will thus help construe and measure these dynamics for an indispensable process of collective action and social life in communities in which it is a nota- ble relational infrastructure: collective learning. This example will illustrate that such infrastructures have a salient role in linking OMRT and social processes. Theorizing these dynamics shows that geographers, historians, and sociologists have a strong interest in collaborating in research on OMRT structuration and on the social costs it entails. Illustration: A Spinning-Top Model of Collective Learning It may be useful to start this exploration with an empirical case study that illustrates some of the complexities of OMRT dynamics. The research was used to explore the OMRT model and permits a look at intraorganizational learning networks at the intersection of the sociology of organizations, economic sociology, and the sociol- ogy of law. Intraorganizational learning has been considered a significant process in organizations ever since the publication of March and Simon’s (1958) perspective. The relevance of studying this process has grown with the number of knowledge- intensive organizations, which thrive on innovation, and with the concomitant 7 Organized Mobility and Relational Turnover as Context for Social Mechanisms…