Las redes sociales en la industria cinematográfica española¿existe relación entre la posición en la red y el reconocimiento social obtenido?

  1. Perruchas, François 1
  2. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel 1
  3. Escoto-Simó, Neus 1
  4. Mayte López-Ferrer
  1. 1 INGENIO (CSIC-UPV)
Revue:
Redes: Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales

ISSN: 1579-0185

Année de publication: 2014

Titre de la publication: Autores, lazos creativos y arte

Volumen: 25

Número: 2

Pages: 61-85

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5565/REV/REDES.509 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Redes: Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

In this paper, the relationship between status and social recognition in the Spanish film industry of the past 25 years, is researched, meaning status as a favored position in the network and using the film awards as an indicator of prestige and social recognition. Whether there are differences between national awards and foreign awards exist is also investigated. The film industry is considered as a network of relationships established through the sharing of movies. In the case of the film industry of a country, a language, a social environment, an artistic tradition, a fairly homogeneous financing system is shared. it is also shared social recognition achievement process through stable and periodic awards calls which are, as in any field, the objectification of social recognition. This reputation is due to both, to doing it well but also to the benefits of a good embedding in the system. There are differences in the endogenous effects of nets among national and international awards. And finally, there are gender inequalities in terms of the positions occupied in the network.

Références bibliographiques

  • Ahuja, G., Polidoro, F., & Mitchell, W. (2009). Structural Homophily Or Social Asymmetry? the Formation of Alliances by Poorly Embedded Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 941–958.
  • Anand, N., &Watson, M. R. (2004). Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 59–80.
  • Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In The Social Life of Things Commodities in Cultural Perspective(pp. 3–63). Cambridge University Press.
  • Blair, H., Culkin, N., & Randle, K. (2003). From London to Los Angeles: a comparison of local labour market processes in the US and UK film industries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 619–633.
  • Blair, H., Grey, S., & Randle, K. (2001). Working in film -Employment in a project based industry. Personnel Review, 30(1-2), 170–185.
  • Born, G. (2010). The social and the aesthetic: for a post-Bourdieuian theory of cultural production. Cultural Sociology, 4(2), 171–208.
  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press.
  • Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Negro, G., & Perretti, F. (2008). The structure of consensus: Network ties, legitimation, and exit rates of US feature film producer organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1), 145–182.
  • De Federico, A. (2009). La perspectiva del interaccionismo estructural para el análisis de redes sociales. Redes: Revista Hispana Para El Análisis de Redes Sociales, (17), 12.
  • DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1998). Paradox in project-based enterprise: The case of film making. California Management Review, 40(2), 125–+.
  • Degenne, A. (2009). Tipos de interacciones, formas de confianza y relaciones. Redes: Revista Hispana Para El Análisis de Redes Sociales, (16), 3–.
  • Ebbers, J. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2010). Disentangling the effects of reputation and network position on the evolution of alliance networks. Strategic Organization, 8(3), 255–275.
  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
  • Granovetter. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic-Action and Social-Structure -the Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
  • Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652. 84
  • Hauser, A. (1982). The Sociology of Art, trans. Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Jones, C. (1996). Careers in project networks: The case of the film industry. In The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York, Oxford University Press.
  • Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford University Press.
  • Krauss, J., Nann, S., Simon, D., Fischbach, K., & Gloor, P. (2008). Predicting Movie Success and Academy Awards through Sentiment and Social Network Analysis. ECIS 2008 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2008/116
  • Levy, E. (1991). And the winner is... the history and politics of the Oscar Awards. New York: Continuum.
  • López Ferrer, M. (2000). Bases de datos de Cine en CD-ROM: estudio descriptivo-comparativo. Métodos de Información, 7(38-39).
  • Lorenzen, M., & Taeube, F. A. (2008). Breakout from Bollywood? The roles of social networks and regulation in the evolution of Indian film industry. Journal of International Management, 14(3), 286–299.
  • Marfil Carmona, R., & Repiso Caballero, R. (2010). El análisis de redes aplicado al cine español. CDC Cuadernos de Comunicación, (4), 19–29.
  • Newman, M. E. J., Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (2002). Random graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 2566–2572.
  • Pereira, M., Barletta, F., & Yoguel, G. (2012). La evolución de la industria del cine argentino: un análisis desde la perspectiva de redes sociales. Retrieved from http://www.ungs.edu.ar/ms_ico/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Posici%C3%B3n-y-din%C3%A1mica-en-las-redes.-Un-an%C3%A1lisis-para-la-industria-del-cine-argentino.-20121027.doc
  • Rapoport, A. (1953). Spread of information through a population with socio-structural bias: I. Assumption of transitivity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 15(4), 523–533.
  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Singh, S. M. (2001a). Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study. British Medical Journal, 323(7327), 1491–1496.
  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Singh, S. M. (2001b). Survival in academy award-winning actors and actresses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(10), 955–962.
  • Rosenberg, L. (2004). The literary agent. In The movie business book(pp. 72–82). New York: Firesadi.
  • Rossman, G., Esparza, N., & Bonacich, P. (2010). I’d Like to Thank the Academy, Team Spillovers, and Network Centrality. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 31–51.
  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage.
  • Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.
  • Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.
  • White, H. C. (2009). Redes e historias. Redes: Revista Hispana Para El Análisis de Redes Sociales, (16), 1–.
  • Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, 1(6), 80–83.
La source de données: Dialnet