Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs

Ridgeway, Cecilia L.; Erickson, Kristan Glasgow

doi:10.1086/318966

Cited by 279 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies embodying open systems assumptions, particularly those regarding what is negotiated, the impact of the negotiation on the broader organizational system and when the negotiation takes place, are more readily accessible to the broader field of organizational studies than are those that rest on closed systems assumptions. These results are consistent with observations that other research that has bridged micro-interactions and macroorganizing processes, such as status construction theory (Ridgeway and Balkwell 1997;Ridgeway and Erickson 2000), has been broadly influential (Stolte et al 2001). Thus, knowledge sharing reflects the compatibility of assumptions between micro-process research and organizational studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Incompatible Assumptions: Barriers to Producing Multidisciplinary Knowledge in Communities of Scholarship

Bendersky

McGinn²

2007

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Incompatible Assumptions: Barriers to Producing Multidisciplinary Knowledge in Communities of Scholarship

Bendersky

McGinn²

2007

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Because opportunities are contingent on prior experience (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990;Shane, 2000), social actors will vary in the cultural knowledge and experience they have to enact these opportunities. Social actors possessing the relevant cultural knowledge and experience deemed necessary by others to define and exploit a particular opportunity will be able to position themselves as the only ones capable of bringing the opportunity to fruition (Ridgeway et al, 1998;Ridgeway and Erickson, 2000). Thus, social differences will enable some entrepreneurs to achieve ''celebrity'' status and the possession of distinctive cultural knowledge will represent an important source of competitive advantage (Rindova et al, 2003).…”

Section: The Cultural Cognitive Schoolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. What do entrepreneurial opportunities look like? How do firms discover and exploit these opportunities to create value and sustain competitive advantage? This paper reviews the strategic management and entrepreneurship literatures to identify the nature and character of entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial strategies that firms employ to seize and commercialize these opportunities. Three emerging schools are identified. The economic school argues that entrepreneurial opportunities exist as a result of the distribution of information about material resources in society. The cultural cognitive school argues that entrepreneurial opportunities exist as a result of environmental ambiguity and the cultural resources available to interpret and define these opportunities. Finally, the sociopolitical school stresses the role of network and political structures in defining entrepreneurial opportunities. We integrate these perspectives to offer a way to improve understanding of the opportunity creation and exploitation process.

show abstract

“…Research in the literature on expectation states similarly finds that characteristics such as gender often become associated with anticipated performance even when there is no actual relationship between the characteristic and outcome (e.g., Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch, 1972;Ridgeway and Erickson, 2000). In other words, an individual's gender may elicit presumptions about his or her ability to perform a particular task in cultural contexts in which there are gendered assumptions about ability, even in situations in which gender is orthogonal to ability.…”

Section: Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Bench to Board: Gender Differences in University Scientists’ Participation in Commercial Science

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines gender differences in the participation of university life science faculty in commercial science. Based on theory and field interviews, we develop hypotheses regarding how scientists' productivity, co-authorship networks, and institutional affiliations have different effects on whether male and female faculty become "academic entrepreneurs". We then statistically examine this framework in a national sample of 6,000 life scientists whose careers span more than 20 years. We find sharp gender differences in participation in for-profit ventures, which we measure as the likelihood of joining the scientific advisory board (SAB) of a biotechnology firm. Compared to men, women life scientists are much less likely to advise forprofit biotechnology companies. We also identify factors that contour this gender difference, including scientists' co-authorship network structure and the level of support for commercial science at their universities. Surprisingly, we find that the (conditional) gender gap is largest among faculty members at the highest status institutions.

show abstract

Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs

Cited by 279 publications

References 20 publications

Incompatible Assumptions: Barriers to Producing Multidisciplinary Knowledge in Communities of Scholarship

Incompatible Assumptions: Barriers to Producing Multidisciplinary Knowledge in Communities of Scholarship

Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities

From Bench to Board: Gender Differences in University Scientists’ Participation in Commercial Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About