Page - (000151) - in Knowledge and Networks

144 both ideal types, although the core is fragmented and rearranged in the course of the process. Although this macro-topological investigation is itself important to understand- ing field dynamics, I claim in this chapter that it is necessary to add the actor’s tra- jectory into the analysis. If a field migrates from a normative logic toward a competitive one, what happens to the members of the incumbent elite? Assuming that they are able to sustain their dominant position through coercion or by hoarding key resources in the field, what is their fate as the field migrates to a competitive logic? Are they displaced and expelled? Or are they able to reconnect? The goal of this paper is to address these lines of inquiry by using of the coevo- lutionary and network perspectives, taking as an example the evolution of jazz musicians’ trajectories from 1930 to 1969. I begin by exploring the structural changes in the jazz field during those almost four decades. I have also obtained a blockmodeling image of musicians’ networks throughout this period in order to understand how musicians associated with different trajectories were positioned vis-à-vis each other. The jazz case provides a rich context for understanding the shift between types of field configurations given the transformations it experienced during these decades and the correspondent impact on musicians’ trajectories (Kirschbaum, 2007). Furthermore, the geographic location of recording sessions became less centralized in New York (specifically) and the United States (in gen- eral). Results shown later in the chapter suggest that competitive fields present a lower distinction between core and periphery than do normative fields. Increasing centrifugal forces causes a paradigm crisis. As a result, although a new elite emerges and become central, members of the former elite eventually play the role of brokers when younger musicians become distant from each other. Normative and Competitive Field Structures Anand and Peterson (2000) and Peterson and Anand (2002) identify two kinds of organizational fields: normative and competitive.1 Within normative fields, individ- uals are driven mainly by norms established by dominant authoritative actors. Central players dominate peripheral actors by controlling the field’s main resources and schemata.2 It is unsurprising, therefore, that innovations are usually introduced top-down, relatively buffered from competitive pressures. Along these lines, a classical example of a normative field is described by DiMaggio’s (1991) research on U.S. art museums that shows central players sanctioning the field’s norms. 1 Fields are defined as “a community of organizations that partakes a common meaning system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside the field” (Scott, 1995, p. 56). 2 A schema is defined as “the set of shared assumptions, values, and frames of reference that give meaning to everyday activities and guide how organization members think and act” (Rerup & Feldman, 2011, p. 578). C. Kirschbaum