Sauder: Interlopers and Field Change: The Entry of U.S. News into the Field of Legal Education

Michael Sauder (University of Iowa, Department of Sociology) Interlopers and Field Change: The Entry of U.S. News into the Field of Legal Education, 53 Adm. Science Q. 209 (June 2008).  Here is the abstract:

This article analyzes a process by which established organizational fields change through the incorporation of new field-level actors. Drawing on 137 in-depth interviews with U.S. law school administrators and faculty, the paper demonstrates how the U.S. News & World Report rankings of law schools gained a foothold in the field of legal education, how the dynamics of the field helped entrench the field position of USN and its rankings despite spirited opposition from key actors, and how these same dynamics explain how a seemingly minor change—the addition of a single actor to the roster of existing field actors—transformed many aspects of this field. A close examination of this new model of field change enhances field theory by underscoring how field characteristics, such as the interconnections among actors and the web of mutual influence that these imply, themselves can facilitate change. Substantively, this research provides insight into the way that those who measure, credential, or certify key field actors and activities can achieve pervasive influence over the fields they evaluate.

Brayden King (Brigham Young University, Department of Sociology) reviews the paper in Influential Interlopers, excerpted below the fold:

The paper uses in-depth interviews to examine the effect that the entry of the U.S. News law school rankings had on the interorganizational relationships within the field and on the organizational identities of law schools. Sauder illustrates that the “wedging in” of a single, disproportionately influential actor can significantly alter an organizational field, causing transformations that are not reducible to shifts in institutional logics or exogenous shocks.

One reason I like the paper is because it emphasizes the role of organizational actors in shaping their environments and identifies the conditions in which certain organizational actors are likely to be influential. Many stories of institutional change emphasize features of the institutional environment without leaving much space for the “on-the-ground processes that facilitate or inhibit such change” (228). With rich interview data, Sauder is able to examine in detail the reactions that other field actors had to the intrusion of the law school rankings. But Sauder is careful to acknowledge that not all organizations are equally effective in shaping their environment. In fact, some law schools were (and are) resistant to the rankings, but their resistance was relatively ineffective because the U.S. News had quickly become naturalized as a central member of the legal education field. By establishing itself as a neutral third-party arbiter of quality (based in the “procedural legitimacy” of the ranking system) and as an institution that already had a wide audience, the U.S. News established itself as an influential player. Thus, the paper speaks to the mechanisms of intra-field influence. It’s well worth a read.

Hat Tip: Belle Lettre.)