By Authors: Milo Shaoqing Wang (Arizona State University); Christopher W. J. Steele (Alberta School of Business)
Interviewers: Sam Allen (University of Pittsburgh School of Business); Fangying Liu (BI Norwegian Business School)
Article link: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241265699
In your recent paper, you and your co-authors illuminate the role of state in the process of stigmatization. Can you please share how and when the idea for your article developed? Did you start with theory, data, or phenomena? During the review process, is that changed? During the process of conducting your coding and having your findings emerge, what was the most exciting moment, and when did it occur?
Milo: The project started in 2016 as my second-year paper, when I was a PhD student at the University of Alberta. I trained in history before transitioning to management, so contemporary Chinese history has always been a source of intellectual curiosity for me. In addition, several of my family members—including a surgeon, a government official, and a skilled worker—decided to become entrepreneurs in the 1980s and 1990s. Their personal experiences made China’s market transition, and especially the rise of private entrepreneurship, a fascinating phenomenon for me to explore.
At the outset, however, I did not frame the project as a study of stigma. Instead, I approached the phenomenon using the institutional logics perspective, which was the dominant lens I was working with at the time. During this early theoretical exploration, Chris provided greatly helpful guidance, and I invited him to join the project. Over the next several years, we experimented with and revised multiple framings, moving from institutional logics to broader conversations about institutional change and translation.
A major turning point came in 2020, when my other paper on the stigmatization of the medical profession in China was accepted at AMJ. At that moment, I suddenly realized that this project could be understood as almost the reverse story—not stigmatization, but the destigmatization of private entrepreneurs. This realization was especially exciting for me, because it allowed me to connect the two projects and to see them as part of a more coherent and cumulative research agenda on stigma. Rather than treating stigma as a one-off topic, I could now examine both how stigma is produced and how it is undone.
“At that moment, I suddenly realized that this project could be understood as almost the reverse story—not stigmatization, but the destigmatization of private entrepreneurs.”
Another particularly exciting moment came later, during the review process. In our original submission, we focused primarily on strategies of stigma reduction. However, encouraged by the editor and reviewers, we were pushed to move beyond a strategy-based account and to develop a more complex, process-oriented model of destigmatization. This shift occurred starting with the first resubmission and continued throughout subsequent rounds.
This reframing fundamentally changed how we thought about the project. It prompted us to be more open to examining the dynamic and evolving interactions among the state, private entrepreneurs, and the public, rather than treating the state as a monolithic actor or destigmatization as a linear process. As a result, the paper became not only theoretically richer but also, in our view, far more intriguing and reflective of the historical reality we were trying to capture.
Chris: As Milo says, the idea for the paper came to him early in the PhD program—and our collaboration grew out of some chats in a local coffee shop. If I remember rightly, Royston Greenwood connected us; he’s always been fantastically engaged with everyone’s ideas, and in building intellectual connections. I think he saw parallels in Milo’s interest in marketization and my work on societal logics and their grounding in history and collective memory. The paper that took shape in those early conversations was centered on how theories and practices could be translated across societal logics that positioned one another as morally suspect. The core idea was that private enterprise needed to be effortfully disentangled from its capitalist associations for it to be effectively morally decontaminated and assimilated into the logic of socialism during marketization. So, some core themes of the paper were present early on!
My experience of the interplay of theory and phenomenon was different to Milo’s, as I entered the project at a different moment. For me, the first experience of the phenomenon was theory-laden—what I saw in conversations with Milo simply was, for me, a practice travelling across societal logics, when the path was strewn with hurdles. Institutional theory provided a language that drew out details of the phenomenon, enabled us to see more of it, and drew some key themes into the light—especially the theme of moral decontamination. Then, as Milo became fascinated by the literature on stigma, it became clear that this theoretical vocabulary could give us an even more granular focus on this particular theme. In general, I’d say theory and data are entangled—the question is how you vary the theory-ladenness of your description of the phenomenon, and the theoretical languages you use, to help you see new, interesting things. Many versions of the paper could have emerged from this process—because there’s almost never just one coupling of theory and data that offers insight—but the stigma framing enthused us both, and gave Milo a boost of intellectual and emotional energy that carried us along!
You work with comprehensive data sources, yet the paper has only two authors. Could you tell us a bit more about the specific roles each of you played and what your collaboration looked like? And based on your experience, what would you recommend to young scholars to make the co-authoring process as smooth as possible?
Milo: I think we adopted a variant of an insider–outsider approach: I was more deeply immersed in the data, while Chris acted as a “devil’s advocate,” challenging and complementing my interpretations and theorization. I really enjoyed reading archival documents, newspaper articles, and oral histories about the market-transition period. For a while I spent so much time with the People’s Daily archives that my wife joked I was still doing a history PhD. Whenever I developed a new framework that I thought could explain the phenomenon, I would share it with Chris and we would have thorough discussions about interpretation and the emerging model.
In terms of specific roles: I led the archival reading, coding, and the assembly of the historical account and multi-source evidence. Chris pushed us to interrogate alternative explanations, to sharpen theoretical connections, and to stress-test the emergent mechanisms. That division worked well because it matched our strengths and kept the work moving.
For junior scholars who want smoother co-authoring, I recommend that they find coauthors who share their research taste but bring complementary skills. Shared enthusiasm keeps you motivated; complementary skills mean each person adds clear value. They should also work with people whom they like and trust. Trust reduces friction—you can give and receive hard feedback and create constructive tension that improves the final paper.
In short, our collaboration combined deep, independent archival work with continuous, critical dialogue. That mix—immersion plus rigorous questioning—helped us turn dense historical materials into a clear theoretical story.
Chris: I agree with Milo—we had a very productive style of collaboration that played to our strengths. Milo was always deeply immersed in the data and analysis—and in the intellectual conversation around destigmatization as well. I saw my role as being a theoretical sounding board and whetstone—immersing in the literature, reacting to and elaborating on theory-laden descriptions of the phenomenon, and helping hone the theoretical argumentation. The exact approach co-evolved with the project, but we had a lot of advantages as we calibrated: a shared theoretical language helped us build off each other’s ideas and enthusiasm; Milo’s immersion in the case and analysis kept my excitement about theoretical elaborations well grounded, even as that excitement helped us move from the specifics of the case to more general theory; and friendship meant we could also disagree agreeably whenever differences of interpretation arose.
“For junior scholars, I’d highlight a few interconnected things. Know yourself—the ways that you think and write successfully, and the tempos at which you work best. Not because it can’t be changed, but because that tells you the kinds of collaboration you’ll thrive in as you are.”
For junior scholars, I’d highlight a few interconnected things. Know yourself—the ways that you think and write successfully, and the tempos at which you work best. Not because it can’t be changed, but because that tells you the kinds of collaboration you’ll thrive in as you are. Do you hate to be rushed? Don’t start a collaboration with someone who churns things along at an incredible pace… It may seem obvious, but it’s often missed! Once you have a sense of your own style, curate a set of co-authors with as much care as you can: ask potential collaborators about their style (or ask their co-authors), and don’t rush. Then, treat each collaboration as a special case: think about how people’s skillsets and styles might best be put to work, both to enhance the project and to help them see how they’re doing so. Bear in mind that you have to take care of your bandwidth: even with the best co-authors in the world, sometimes you have to step back from a project because you’re juggling too much—and it’s better to be clear when you can’t contribute than to hang on regardless. I’ve been hugely lucky in my co-authors, both those on my CV and off it—not just because they’ve been excellent scholars, and often friends, but also because they’ve been really understanding when I needed to leave projects for one reason or another. Last, but not least, remember: you don’t have to collaborate! It’s okay to be anti-social and just work on saying something that you want to say, all on your own. You’re never truly alone anyway—friendly reviewers can always help.
Your finding regarding the supporting role of pragmatic arguments in destigmatizing private business in China was compelling. Many socially stigmatized categories (race, gender, social class, etc.) do not have as clearly defined pragmatic appeals for destigmatization (there isn’t as obvious of a “what’s in it for me/us?” answer in these stigmatization contexts). In consideration of your findings and work on destigmatization, do you have any insights on how the state may play a role in destigmatizing categories that have high degrees of moral salience, and less obvious connections to self-interest? How do/did you see the role of China’s collectivist tradition in facilitating a destigmatizing process that challenged traditional societal beliefs, but at the same time made pragmatic appeals to shared prosperity?
Milo: Great question. We were encouraged by the editor and reviewers to reflect on how transferable our findings are, and this pushed us to think more broadly. We believe our case speaks to situations beyond private entrepreneurship in China—especially to politically charged or morally fraught issues where pragmatic appeals can open a path to change. For example, debates about abortion provision and gene editing in the U.S., or water privatization and immigrant services in the U.K., all carry strong moral salience yet also contain potential pragmatic benefits that states or organizations can emphasize.
A key point we highlight is this: much prior work emphasizes moral arguments for reducing stigma. Yet when moral reframing is too risky or polarizing, pragmatic arguments become a more viable route. The central question then is: how can the state credibly link a morally charged category to clear, shared practical benefits? Our evidence from China shows this is not easy: it required sustained effort, coordinated framing, and institutional experiments to connect private entrepreneurship to national economic prosperity.
Regarding China’s collectivist tradition: we think it was incorporated into pragmatic frames, making them more resonant. Framing private entrepreneurship as contributing to “common prosperity” allowed leaders to present market activity as serving a collective national goal rather than selfish interests. This was a powerful framing that helped neutralize moral objections by tying private actors to widely accepted social aims.
In short, we do not suggest that pragmatic arguments are a universal fix, but they can be a powerful complementary strategy—especially when moral reframing is politically costly. The state’s task is to make those pragmatic links credible, visible, and aligned with broad social values.
Chris: I agree with Milo: this is an excellent question, one that resonates with some of the comments and suggestions we got from reviewers, and one with a complicated answer. As Milo points out, our argument is that eliciting and emphasizing pragmatic benefits is one way that efforts at destigmatization can gain traction before they rise above the radar—and to build up resilience in the face of potential backlash. It’s not the only way, or a prerequisite for success: instead, it might be useful more generally to think about a race between an emerging basis of support for the category and its escalating visibility; a race with many contingencies and paths. The nature of the pragmatic case might be very different—sometimes it may be less about gain, and more about the risk that stigmatization and its consequences may spread their reach; as the famous Niemöller poem reminds us. Sometimes, the basis of support might be less pragmatic than it is experiential—rooted not in what people can do for us, but just experience of them in the community. Sometimes visibility may grow so quickly, and prompt such a backlash, that potentially extreme pragmatic benefits never have a chance to materialize. The context and the evolution of the process both matter—and I’d similarly encourage us to see pragmatic frames as just part of the toolkit of destigmatization, to be deployed with nuance and contextual care.
One aspect of your paper that really impressed us is the writing. It reads almost like a chronicle—very engaging—and at the same time it is reader friendly. Would you be willing to share some advice on writing for young scholars and PhD students?
Milo: We worked very hard to construct a historical account that is both empirically nuanced and theoretically informative. One thing we consciously tried to avoid was a detailed chronology that lacked a clear theoretical thread or orientation. As someone trained as a historian who later moved into organization theory, one key lesson I learned was that findings should always balance empirical detail with a guiding theoretical framework. Rich facts matter, but they need to be organized around a clear analytical purpose.
At the same time, we paid close attention to readability. Chris is a wonderful English writer, and he played an important role in ensuring that the paper remained engaging and accessible to readers, even when dealing with complex historical material and specialized theoretical framing. In other words, strong academic writing combines careful evidence with a clear theoretical voice. When done well, it should allow readers to follow a complex historical process while staying oriented to the core ideas that the paper aims to advance.
Chris: I really appreciate Milo’s kind words, but I’d add that it’s easy to be a good editor and curator when you’re given good ideas and material to edit! In terms of advice, I agree with Milo about the need for a guiding theoretical framework that infuses data and illustrations with significance and situates them in an overarching narrative. I’d add two concrete suggestions:
One is to read, and read, and read. Reading papers and books with an eye to style and structure as well as content can be one of the best ways of internalizing the craft of writing. It can help you build up a sense of the techniques, styles and tropes that resonate with you, how they’re best put to work, and how they could inform your own distinctive style. More broadly, I’d say that the writing process can be when you do some of your best thinking, and that you want to develop a personal style that helps you think, and express, the kinds of thoughts you want to think. The conventions of the field leave plenty of space for personalization!
Another suggestion would be to try to read your work like a stranger—adopt an ethnographic eye to your work. Go through a draft and work out what each paragraph is really trying to say, in a single sentence: at that point, you can check whether it actually says that, whether it gets tangled up with tangents, and whether the sequence of single sentences coheres in a clean line of argument. Presenting work in progress is another neat way to do this—as slides also help distil ideas down into simple bits and pieces. The real substance and insight are so often in the elaborations, but the core logical structure can be easier to see when elaborations are stripped away. I owe this point to someone else; I think to Tom Lawrence, who is another wonderful co-author. But I’m confident he—or an unknown they—would be happy for the idea to spread!
Finally, is there something else you would like to share about the research process?
Milo: As mentioned earlier, the project was initiated in 2016. It was submitted in 2020 and ultimately accepted in 2024. A valuable lesson I learned from this experience is that good things take time to publish. When I wrote the first draft in 2016, I was new to the field. We tried not only various theoretical frameworks, but also different methodologies, such as topic modeling and mixed methods. Although we received positive comments, we also received critical feedback, such as “it reads more like a history,” “it does not look like an organization study,” or “the context is too narrow.” There were multiple times when I thought about giving it up or at least shelving it for a while. The review process was not easy either, as we were urged to collect and analyze a large amount of new data, engage with political science literature that was unfamiliar to us, and consider how this extreme case connects to other contexts… We are grateful for the editor’s careful guidance and the reviewers’ constructive comments, which pushed us to sharpen our arguments and improve the manuscript in many substantive ways. It was also through this process that I came to appreciate the importance of persistence and perseverance.
Chris: I agree with Milo about the importance of persistence and perseverance. I’d add that even in a ‘publish or perish’ era, there’s a real advantage to giving projects the time they deserve. I think we could have taken various easier off-ramps along the way to this paper, but it wouldn’t have become the piece it is, or be placed where it is. I see lots of junior scholars trying to juggle many different projects to increase the chances of a hit; I’d just say that, for some of us, juggling too much creates a lot of crashing crockery noises frontstage or backstage. Sometimes, having just a handful of things to work on can increase your speed, and your enjoyment of the research process—ensuring you have time to read, think, and write, and transform your understanding of the world in the process. I don’t want to sound too Panglossian, but it’s worth reminding ourselves sometimes that research can be a source of excitement and joy, as well as publications.
Also, though this is perhaps cliché, I want to say that we really appreciate the contributions of our editor and reviewers—this paper evolved massively during the review process, and we’re both grateful for the support and encouragement we got along the way, as well as the many useful comments and suggestions that led to the final product. The process was a genuinely generative conversation; and for all the stories of frustration we may sometimes share about reviewers, I think it’s worth celebrating the happy stories too!
I hope that reading this has been useful: I’ve been very lucky in this co-authorship and in many others; I hope some of our reflections above help others with collaboration as a practical craft!
Interviewer Bios:
Sam Allen is a 4th-year Ph.D Candidate in Organizational Behavior at the University of Pittsburgh School of Business. His research takes a meso-level approach to examine how sociohistorical patterns of inequality unfold in organizational and work-based contexts. He is particularly interested in exploring individuals’ sensemaking and interpretive processes during periods of institutional and occupational threat and uncertainty.
Fangying Liu is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Strategy at BI Norwegian Business School. Her research examines firm behavior through the lens of social evaluation. In particular, she studies the consequences of misconduct and hedge fund activism.