Page - (000152) - in Knowledge and Networks

145 In contrast, individuals in competitive fields are less constrained by normative rules and driven more by competitive forces. In contrast to action driven by norma- tive rules established by authority, action impelled by competitive forces registers a balance between innovation and imitation (Anand & Peterson, 2000). Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King (1991) provide the example of the transformation of the radio broadcasting industry in the United States, showing that most innovations were introduced by peripheral actors. Both these ideal-type depictions of a field evoke a core-periphery network topol- ogy. But while innovations within normative fields are first adopted at their core, in competitive fields they are initially created and adopted on the periphery. Nevertheless, in both depictions it is assumed that the overall core-periphery struc- ture remains the same, or that changes are too subtle to be accounted for. Undoubtedly it is possible to envisage distinct mechanisms in play that help generate equivalent core-periphery structures. Within normative fields, dominant actors are assumed to use their power to remain at the core of the field. Conversely, new musicians enter- ing the field are attracted to established players, a process that creates an asymmet- ric structure (Barabási, 2003). Because individuals prefer to connect to prominent actors who control key resources, peripheral actors will connect more frequently to core actors than with each other. As a result, a core-periphery structure emerges in which the field is dominated by a cohesive core that is surrounded by a fragmented periphery. Alternative mechanisms may also work to generate an equivalent core-periphery structure in competitive fields. Although core actors cannot simply coerce periph- eral actors to follow standards and rules, they may be able to exert influence. This occurs because central actors have better access to information (Lena & Pachucki, 2013). Furthermore, peripheral actors may still attempt to connect to core actors in order to associate with high-status musicians (Podolny, 2001). In spite of this apparently similar outcome in competitive and normative fields, it can be asked whether the asymmetry between core and periphery is actually the same. While most resources in normative fields are controlled by core actors, in competitive fields resources are more freely allocated among musicians. To illus- trate this distinction, it is useful to look at a recording session in these different settings. In the normative phase of the jazz field, bandleaders are usually hired by recording companies under long-term contracts. This situation gives bandleaders considerable powers of discretion to employ sidemen of their choosing for the planned recording sessions. In the competitive phase of the jazz field, by contrast, musicians do not have long-term contracts with recording companies (Perrow, 1986). Although the latter approach represents an instability factor, it also encour- ages a musician to constitute a band by inviting sidemen to play together, with lower production costs making it possible for them to record samples to send to recording companies. The combination of the centripetal tendency (new musicians continuing to look to play with core actors) with the centrifugal force (cheap production and distribution costs enabling higher levels of entrepreneurship activity) can result in a core-periphery structure in which peripheral actors may present higher cohesion among themselves than is seen in a normative configuration’s structure. This 8 Trajectory Types Across Network Positions: Jazz Evolution from 1930 to 1969