Rethinking ExpertiseRethinking Expertise, by CollinsHarry and EvansRobert. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. 159 pp. $37.50 cloth. 0226113604.

TLDR: In this paper, the authors argue that societal hierarchies, verticalities, and conflicts need to be part of the communication basis of transformation of labeled sets into classes, types into categories, and concepts into forms.

Abstract: Second, communication within the audience segments is repeatedly acknowledged as the basis of transformation of labeled sets into classes, types into categories, and concepts into forms. One needs to clarify this communication process, describe it, and understand it. Prior ecological works presumed that the classification task was incumbent to the observer, raising questions about the validity, existence, and durability of the categories and forms (e.g., Durand 2006). Undoubtedly, the formalization of diverse audiences’ comparative categorization proposed in the book represents a major reconceptualization, but the societal hierarchies, verticalities, and conflicts need to be part of the communication basis. Third, although the fourth part of the book deals with organizational change, loyal to the core assumptions of ecology theory, the organizations and their spokespersons do not seem able to influence the evolution of the fields, industries, or populations. Organizations hardly possess intentions, governance characteristics, or market and non-market resources to do better than adapt a multimeaning multi-audience reality, to wit to shape, carve, and influence the very selection criteria that rule the fields where they operate. Finally, more than the possibility of categorization, the ontological nature of forms and population is a question looming around the entire population ecology story, old and new style. Yesterday imposed by the ecologist as erudite observer, today forms and populations are “decentralized” to audiences. This displacement fills a caveat of the former version of population ecology. The next question worth investigation nevertheless lies in the epistemological nature and ontological status of concepts, categories, forms, and populations. Does the linguistic turn of organizational ecology open the Pandora’s box for a neo-constructivism, a post-realism about forms and populations? Organizational ecologists have long avoided the too-human considerations of politics and ideologies. However, the decentralization of categorization processes, the evanescence of group membership, and the importance given to (social and cultural) codes imply that beliefs, causal associations, and discursive elaboration are to integrate the newly refounded ecological corpus. Overall, I applaud the conceptual details, thorough definitions, and meticulous demonstrations of this book. Readers of the book will appreciate differently this new theorization of known themes, from full acceptance to some resistance. One may regret certain minimal or backhanded references to extant literature (in particular on social categorization, status construction, and organizational identity). One may reject premises (having a more political theory of legitimacy, a more controversial social positioning of audiences, and a more classificatory argument of audiences’ habitus). But everyone can make up their mind by reading and appreciating the conceptual qualities of this book.