Critics, Ratings, and Society: The Sociology of Reviews (review)

Through what processes are reviews constructed, and what forms do these evaluations tend to take? These are just two of the many important questions taken up in Grant Blank’s Critics, Ratings, and Society: The Sociology of Reviews, which positions itself as “the first book on reviews.”(5)

Blank sets out to offer the first synthesis and elaboration of the sociology of reviews. Prior research on reviewers and reviews, in sociology and elsewhere, is composed mostly of case studies which make no attempt to build on one another to identify the basic principles of the production, content, or effects of reviews. Blank correctly asserts that this is a serious omission in scholarship, as reviews are not only pervasive but also carry enormous economic and cultural significance. The area is ripe for study.

Reviews are influential, and therefore at their most interesting, when they have credibility. The first task the book takes on is to explain why and under which circumstances reviews have credibility. Blank argues that credibility, defined as “the capacity to elicit belief” (5), can be generated through two different reviewing traditions: connoisseurial reviewing and procedural reviewing. Connoisseurial reviews, exemplified by the typical movie review or restaurant review, are generally discursive and committed to being well written. The mechanism underlying their credibility, Blank argues, is “the dependence on the ability of a person – a reviewer – who, because of unusual talents, extensive experience, or special training, has developed a refined sensitivity with respect to a certain product or genre.”(29) In addition to providing a positive or negative evaluation, reviews of this type are particularly good at exploring the complexities and nuances of the object under review, as well as commenting on the relationship between the object and the larger social and cultural environment.

Procedural reviews are exemplified by the kind of review Consumer Reports might publish of, say, digital cameras. A defining feature of procedural reviews is their reliance on “explicit tests”(34) and their careful adherence to “systematic procedures.”(35) Credibility in these reviews is generated through a transparent and mechanical testing of the relevant qualities of a set of objects. These reviews are influential because the tests themselves are self-evidently appropriate evaluators. In contrast to connoisseurial reviews, procedural reviews most often include quantitative data, are comparative (evaluating perhaps five objects against one another or as many as thousands at a time), and require collaboration to carry out. Blank astutely recognizes that many reviews blend connoisseurial and procedural elements (41).

These claims about review types are fleshed out with a case study of restaurant reviews and a contrasting case study of software reviews. One of the most valuable contributions of the book is the ethnographic and interview data on the production of reviews. The practical, ethical and strategic requirements of the review process – from choosing review objects to testing to writing up the evaluation – that are brought to light are new and interesting. The insights and claims about the connoisseurial/procedural distinction are further illustrated with data from reviews of movies and books (arts) and cars and computer hardware (consumer products). Blank argues that whether a review is more connoisseurial or procedural depends on a complex consideration of the characteristics of the object under review, the nature of the field within which the object is embedded (new or unstable), and the interests of the audience.

Blank analyzes reviews to develop the claim that the connoisseurial and the procedural are two distinct routes to the organizational creation of credible knowledge (151). Moreover, Blank puts forth a sociological model of choice that incorporates a focus on status hierarchies and the role that reviews play in describing, evaluating and ranking objects (193–4).

This book’s many virtues coexist with some distinct flaws. The most serious of these is the lack of balance between treating reviews as rankings and treating reviews as cultural productions with meanings and cultural resonances of their own. Although the book sets out to be comprehensive, it is clear...