Fighting “factory fiction”: How marginal actors resist the dominant in UK book publishing

Isabel Brüggemann; Paul Tracey; Jochem Kroezen

doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28

Fighting “factory fiction”: How marginal actors resist the dominant in UK book publishing

Isabel Brüggemann
, Paul Tracey
, Jochem Kroezen

Department of People and Organisations

University of Cambridge

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › Academic

Abstract

This study gives insights into how marginal actors are able to resist a logic that has started to characterise a field. Based on the case of how small independent book publishers in the UK fight the increasing commercialisation of trade publishing that has led to the emergence of “factory fiction”, we identify three groups of resistant actors: preservers, who maintain an alternative minority logic, innovators, who purify a minority logic, and reformers, who radicalise a minority logic. We find that non-powerful, marginal actors can radically detach themselves from a dominant logic through causing internal logic shifts in a way that allows them to build a distinct niche for themselves. Our multi-level process model of institutional resistance suggests that resistance is a creative, rather than destructive, process that can lead to the emergence of new alternative norms, which give meaning to actors located at the periphery of a field. We contribute by addressing the issue of power asymmetries within institutional fields, giving insights into how marginal actors can emancipate themselves from dominant logics. Furthermore, our concepts of logic purification and radicalisation challenge the common conceptualisations of a dilution or weakening of minority logics once another logic has started to become dominant.

Original language	English
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28
Publication status	Published - 2017
Event	77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2017 - Atlanta, United States Duration: 4 Aug 2017 → 8 Aug 2017

Conference

Conference	77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2017
Country/Territory	United States
City	Atlanta
Period	4/08/17 → 8/08/17

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The UK book publishing industry provides an ideal case to study resistance in the context of power asymmetries and logic shifts, as the industry recently experienced a dramatic increase in market concentration, which led to a situation in which 50% of the market share is being controlled by four publishing groups (Booksellers Association, 2014), and a historical shift in regard to the factors that impact publication decision-making. For a long time, the public image of book publishers had been “gatekeepers against the complete commercialisation of ideas” (Packer, 2014): They ensured the literary quality of books and furthermore provided new talent with a platform to develop. Yet, bestseller lists from several countries from the past four decades seem to reveal a transformation of publishing: Listed titles can often be grouped into popular genres, increasingly come from the same bestselling authors and are not recognised by literary critics (Verboord, 2011). In other words, one can observe an increased emphasis on commercial factors, which can be described as a shift away from an editorial logic, under which publishers’ major focus had been on developing networks with authors (“publishing as profession”), towards a market logic, associated with publishers’ focus on increasing profits and gaining advantage over competitors (“publishing as business”) (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). The pressures for UK book publishers to conform to a market logic are strong. First, many corporate retailers show themselves unwilling to stock titles that are not expected to turn into bestsellers. Their central buying departments follow clear market-orientated selection criteria. Second, fiction and poetry publishers who lack sufficient funds can apply for funding from the Arts Council England. In order to be considered, publishers have to submit an application that includes a description of the market potential of the titles they intend to publish. Publishers have a higher chance of securing funding in cases where their titles indicate a high market potential. At the same time, the UK book publishing industry has seen an increase in independent publishers (from 430 in 2009 to 600 in 2016, according to official numbers of members of the UK Independent Publishers Guild). Many of these newly founded independent publishing houses are highly dependent on Arts Council funding and corporate retailers, who decide whether their titles will be displayed in stores. Both funding bodies and retailers are thus important sources of pressures for conformity to field-dominating norms for these publishers. Yet, the books published by independent houses largely differ in type and content from those appearing on bestseller lists, i.e. those typically stocked by large retailers and funded by the Arts Council. This suggests that small independent publishers follow a different approach to publishing than that pursued by the majority of UK (corporate) publishing houses. We use qualitative data obtained from 36 in-depth interviews with editors, managing and marketing directors of 35 independent publishing houses, observations of major industry events, such as the London Book Fair, and historical accounts, including memoirs of prominent publishers and industry publications, to gain insights into this phenomenon. We coded for different components of institutional resistance - reflected in concrete organisational activities, and grouped these activities into broad types of organisational resistance to the dominant logic. This led us to identify three groups of actors who engage in different types of resistance. In a next step, we studied patterns underlying these types of resistance that emerged during our data analysis, namely how different embodiments of the minority logic were used by the different groups of actors as resources of resistance.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

Access to Document

10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28

Cite this

@conference{c96948028fe04d2f9f067b357401f09a,

title = "Fighting “factory fiction”: How marginal actors resist the dominant in UK book publishing",

abstract = "This study gives insights into how marginal actors are able to resist a logic that has started to characterise a field. Based on the case of how small independent book publishers in the UK fight the increasing commercialisation of trade publishing that has led to the emergence of “factory fiction”, we identify three groups of resistant actors: preservers, who maintain an alternative minority logic, innovators, who purify a minority logic, and reformers, who radicalise a minority logic. We find that non-powerful, marginal actors can radically detach themselves from a dominant logic through causing internal logic shifts in a way that allows them to build a distinct niche for themselves. Our multi-level process model of institutional resistance suggests that resistance is a creative, rather than destructive, process that can lead to the emergence of new alternative norms, which give meaning to actors located at the periphery of a field. We contribute by addressing the issue of power asymmetries within institutional fields, giving insights into how marginal actors can emancipate themselves from dominant logics. Furthermore, our concepts of logic purification and radicalisation challenge the common conceptualisations of a dilution or weakening of minority logics once another logic has started to become dominant.",

author = "Isabel Br{\"u}ggemann and Paul Tracey and Jochem Kroezen",

note = "Funding Information: The UK book publishing industry provides an ideal case to study resistance in the context of power asymmetries and logic shifts, as the industry recently experienced a dramatic increase in market concentration, which led to a situation in which 50\% of the market share is being controlled by four publishing groups (Booksellers Association, 2014), and a historical shift in regard to the factors that impact publication decision-making. For a long time, the public image of book publishers had been “gatekeepers against the complete commercialisation of ideas” (Packer, 2014): They ensured the literary quality of books and furthermore provided new talent with a platform to develop. Yet, bestseller lists from several countries from the past four decades seem to reveal a transformation of publishing: Listed titles can often be grouped into popular genres, increasingly come from the same bestselling authors and are not recognised by literary critics (Verboord, 2011). In other words, one can observe an increased emphasis on commercial factors, which can be described as a shift away from an editorial logic, under which publishers{\textquoteright} major focus had been on developing networks with authors (“publishing as profession”), towards a market logic, associated with publishers{\textquoteright} focus on increasing profits and gaining advantage over competitors (“publishing as business”) (Thornton \& Ocasio, 1999). The pressures for UK book publishers to conform to a market logic are strong. First, many corporate retailers show themselves unwilling to stock titles that are not expected to turn into bestsellers. Their central buying departments follow clear market-orientated selection criteria. Second, fiction and poetry publishers who lack sufficient funds can apply for funding from the Arts Council England. In order to be considered, publishers have to submit an application that includes a description of the market potential of the titles they intend to publish. Publishers have a higher chance of securing funding in cases where their titles indicate a high market potential. At the same time, the UK book publishing industry has seen an increase in independent publishers (from 430 in 2009 to 600 in 2016, according to official numbers of members of the UK Independent Publishers Guild). Many of these newly founded independent publishing houses are highly dependent on Arts Council funding and corporate retailers, who decide whether their titles will be displayed in stores. Both funding bodies and retailers are thus important sources of pressures for conformity to field-dominating norms for these publishers. Yet, the books published by independent houses largely differ in type and content from those appearing on bestseller lists, i.e. those typically stocked by large retailers and funded by the Arts Council. This suggests that small independent publishers follow a different approach to publishing than that pursued by the majority of UK (corporate) publishing houses. We use qualitative data obtained from 36 in-depth interviews with editors, managing and marketing directors of 35 independent publishing houses, observations of major industry events, such as the London Book Fair, and historical accounts, including memoirs of prominent publishers and industry publications, to gain insights into this phenomenon. We coded for different components of institutional resistance - reflected in concrete organisational activities, and grouped these activities into broad types of organisational resistance to the dominant logic. This led us to identify three groups of actors who engage in different types of resistance. In a next step, we studied patterns underlying these types of resistance that emerged during our data analysis, namely how different embodiments of the minority logic were used by the different groups of actors as resources of resistance.; 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2017 ; Conference date: 04-08-2017 Through 08-08-2017",

year = "2017",

doi = "10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28",

language = "English",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Fighting “factory fiction”

T2 - 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2017

AU - Brüggemann, Isabel

AU - Tracey, Paul

AU - Kroezen, Jochem

N1 - Funding Information: The UK book publishing industry provides an ideal case to study resistance in the context of power asymmetries and logic shifts, as the industry recently experienced a dramatic increase in market concentration, which led to a situation in which 50% of the market share is being controlled by four publishing groups (Booksellers Association, 2014), and a historical shift in regard to the factors that impact publication decision-making. For a long time, the public image of book publishers had been “gatekeepers against the complete commercialisation of ideas” (Packer, 2014): They ensured the literary quality of books and furthermore provided new talent with a platform to develop. Yet, bestseller lists from several countries from the past four decades seem to reveal a transformation of publishing: Listed titles can often be grouped into popular genres, increasingly come from the same bestselling authors and are not recognised by literary critics (Verboord, 2011). In other words, one can observe an increased emphasis on commercial factors, which can be described as a shift away from an editorial logic, under which publishers’ major focus had been on developing networks with authors (“publishing as profession”), towards a market logic, associated with publishers’ focus on increasing profits and gaining advantage over competitors (“publishing as business”) (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). The pressures for UK book publishers to conform to a market logic are strong. First, many corporate retailers show themselves unwilling to stock titles that are not expected to turn into bestsellers. Their central buying departments follow clear market-orientated selection criteria. Second, fiction and poetry publishers who lack sufficient funds can apply for funding from the Arts Council England. In order to be considered, publishers have to submit an application that includes a description of the market potential of the titles they intend to publish. Publishers have a higher chance of securing funding in cases where their titles indicate a high market potential. At the same time, the UK book publishing industry has seen an increase in independent publishers (from 430 in 2009 to 600 in 2016, according to official numbers of members of the UK Independent Publishers Guild). Many of these newly founded independent publishing houses are highly dependent on Arts Council funding and corporate retailers, who decide whether their titles will be displayed in stores. Both funding bodies and retailers are thus important sources of pressures for conformity to field-dominating norms for these publishers. Yet, the books published by independent houses largely differ in type and content from those appearing on bestseller lists, i.e. those typically stocked by large retailers and funded by the Arts Council. This suggests that small independent publishers follow a different approach to publishing than that pursued by the majority of UK (corporate) publishing houses. We use qualitative data obtained from 36 in-depth interviews with editors, managing and marketing directors of 35 independent publishing houses, observations of major industry events, such as the London Book Fair, and historical accounts, including memoirs of prominent publishers and industry publications, to gain insights into this phenomenon. We coded for different components of institutional resistance - reflected in concrete organisational activities, and grouped these activities into broad types of organisational resistance to the dominant logic. This led us to identify three groups of actors who engage in different types of resistance. In a next step, we studied patterns underlying these types of resistance that emerged during our data analysis, namely how different embodiments of the minority logic were used by the different groups of actors as resources of resistance.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This study gives insights into how marginal actors are able to resist a logic that has started to characterise a field. Based on the case of how small independent book publishers in the UK fight the increasing commercialisation of trade publishing that has led to the emergence of “factory fiction”, we identify three groups of resistant actors: preservers, who maintain an alternative minority logic, innovators, who purify a minority logic, and reformers, who radicalise a minority logic. We find that non-powerful, marginal actors can radically detach themselves from a dominant logic through causing internal logic shifts in a way that allows them to build a distinct niche for themselves. Our multi-level process model of institutional resistance suggests that resistance is a creative, rather than destructive, process that can lead to the emergence of new alternative norms, which give meaning to actors located at the periphery of a field. We contribute by addressing the issue of power asymmetries within institutional fields, giving insights into how marginal actors can emancipate themselves from dominant logics. Furthermore, our concepts of logic purification and radicalisation challenge the common conceptualisations of a dilution or weakening of minority logics once another logic has started to become dominant.

AB - This study gives insights into how marginal actors are able to resist a logic that has started to characterise a field. Based on the case of how small independent book publishers in the UK fight the increasing commercialisation of trade publishing that has led to the emergence of “factory fiction”, we identify three groups of resistant actors: preservers, who maintain an alternative minority logic, innovators, who purify a minority logic, and reformers, who radicalise a minority logic. We find that non-powerful, marginal actors can radically detach themselves from a dominant logic through causing internal logic shifts in a way that allows them to build a distinct niche for themselves. Our multi-level process model of institutional resistance suggests that resistance is a creative, rather than destructive, process that can lead to the emergence of new alternative norms, which give meaning to actors located at the periphery of a field. We contribute by addressing the issue of power asymmetries within institutional fields, giving insights into how marginal actors can emancipate themselves from dominant logics. Furthermore, our concepts of logic purification and radicalisation challenge the common conceptualisations of a dilution or weakening of minority logics once another logic has started to become dominant.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85046476536

U2 - 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28

DO - 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.28

M3 - Paper

AN - SCOPUS:85046476536

Y2 - 4 August 2017 through 8 August 2017

ER -

Fighting “factory fiction”: How marginal actors resist the dominant in UK book publishing

Abstract

Conference

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this