IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation or deviation? The relationship between boundary crossing and audience evaluation in the music field

Author

Listed:
  • Yongren Shi
  • Yisook Lim
  • Chan S Suh

Abstract

Prior research in organizations has shown that the spanning of distinct social categories usually leads to an unfavorable reaction from the audience. In the music field, however, a recombination of categories has long been celebrated as a major source of innovation. In this research, we conduct a systematical research on the effect of spanning behavior by musicians with a particular focus on the structural heterogeneity of categorical boundaries. We first ask whether the blending of distinct music genres is penalized in the music field, and then investigate how the outcomes of spanning behavior are differentiated by the structural characteristics of each genres. After collecting a comprehensive dataset of musicians in the United States from diverse sources including AllMusic, iTunes, and MusicBrainz, we construct a two-mode network of musicians and subgenres. In calculating musicians’ genre-spanning behavior, we suggest a new diversity metric by incorporating the affinity between genres. Our results suggest that genre-generalist musicians who combine distinct music genres are more likely to be devaluated by listeners compared to genre-specialists who adhere to a single genre. Moreover, we find that musicians tend to be more penalized when they blend genres that have nonporous boundaries rather than penetrable boundaries. This research expands our understanding of the conditions under which boundary crossing leads to negative audience evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongren Shi & Yisook Lim & Chan S Suh, 2018. "Innovation or deviation? The relationship between boundary crossing and audience evaluation in the music field," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203065
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203065
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203065&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203065?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Mathieu Jacomy & Tommaso Venturini & Sebastien Heymann & Mathieu Bastian, 2014. "ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Giacomo Negro & Ming D. Leung, 2013. "“Actual” and Perceptual Effects of Category Spanning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 684-696, June.
    5. Joseph Lampel & Theresa Lant & Jamal Shamsie, 2000. "Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 263-269, June.
    6. Andrew Leyshon, 2009. "The Software Slump?: Digital Music, the Democratisation of Technology, and the Decline of the Recording Studio Sector within the Musical Economy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(6), pages 1309-1331, June.
    7. Michael T. Hannan & László Pólos & Glenn R. Carroll, 2007. "Language Matters, from Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies," Introductory Chapters, in: Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies, Princeton University Press.
    8. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Hayagreeva Rao, 2011. "Category Reinterpretation and Defection: Modernism and Tradition in Italian Winemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1449-1463, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gianluca Carnabuci & Elisa Operti & Balázs Kovács, 2015. "The Categorical Imperative and Structural Reproduction: Dynamics of Technological Entry in the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1734-1751, December.
    2. Elizabeth G. Pontikes & William P. Barnett, 2015. "The Persistence of Lenient Market Categories," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1415-1431, October.
    3. Ad van den Oord & Arjen van Witteloostuijn, 2018. "A multi-level model of emerging technology: An empirical study of the evolution of biotechnology from 1976 to 2003," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Zhang, Lin & Qi, Fan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Liang, Liming & Campbell, David, 2023. "Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing specialization in scientific careers," SocArXiv ep5bx, Center for Open Science.
    5. Elizabeth George Pontikes, 2022. "Category innovation in the software industry: 1990–2002," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1697-1727, September.
    6. Haochuan Cui & Tiewei Li & Cheng-Jun Wang, 2023. "Climbing up the ladder of abstraction: how to span the boundaries of knowledge space in the online knowledge market?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Leone Sciabolazza, Valerio & Souza, Daniel, 2022. "The interdisciplinarity dilemma: Public versus private interests," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    8. Edward N. Gamble & Simon C. Parker & Peter W. Moroz, 2020. "Measuring the Integration of Social and Environmental Missions in Hybrid Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 271-284, November.
    9. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    10. David G. McKendrick & Michael T. Hannan, 2014. "Oppositional Identities and Resource Partitioning: Distillery Ownership in Scotch Whisky, 1826–2009," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1272-1286, August.
    11. J. Cameron Verhaal & Olga M. Khessina & Stanislav D. Dobrev, 2015. "Oppositional Product Names, Organizational Identities, and Product Appeal," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1466-1484, October.
    12. Alicia Barroso & Marco S. Giarratana & Samira Reis & Olav Sorenson, 2016. "Crowding, satiation, and saturation: The days of television series' lives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 565-585, March.
    13. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Gino Cattani & Joseph F. Porac & Howard Thomas, 2017. "Categories and competition," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 64-92, January.
    14. Ming D. Leung & Amanda J. Sharkey, 2014. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Evidence of Perceptual Factors in the Multiple-Category Discount," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 171-184, February.
    15. Heewon Chae, 2022. "Income or education? Community‐level antecedents of firms' category‐spanning activities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 93-129, January.
    16. Olga M. Khessina & Samira Reis, 2016. "The Limits of Reflected Glory: The Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Product Name Similarity in the U.S. Network TV Program Industry, 1944–2003," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 411-427, April.
    17. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Magali Fassiotto, 2015. "Category Signaling and Reputation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 584-600, April.
    18. Giovanni Formilan & Cristina Boari, 2021. "The reluctant preference: communities of enthusiasts and the diffusion of atypical innovation [Management fashion]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(3), pages 823-843.
    19. Giacomo Negro & Ming D. Leung, 2013. "“Actual” and Perceptual Effects of Category Spanning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 684-696, June.
    20. Candiani, Juan Antonio & Gilsing, Victor & Mastrogiorgio, Mariano, 2022. "Technological entry in new niches: Diversity, crowding and generalism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.