____ We would like to thank the editors of the Academy of Management Annals for their support and helpful comments. We also thank the participants in our various topic modeling presentations and reviewers and division organizers (specifically Peer Fiss and Renate Meyer) at the Academy of Management meetings. In addition, we would like to recognize Marc-David Seidel and Christopher Steele from the Interpretive Data Science (IDeaS) group for their role in germinating these ideas, Mike Pfarrer for his comments on a later draft of the paper, and Kara Gehman for her fine-grained edits on next-to-final drafts. Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to our life partners for not only putting up with, but actively discussing this paper as it evolved.

Stigma has become an increasingly significant challenge for society. Recognition of this problem is indicated by the growing attention to it within the management literature which has provided illuminating insights. However, stigma has primarily been examined at a single level of analysis: individual, occupational, organizational, or industry. Yet, cultural understandings of what is discreditable or taboo do not come from the individual, occupation, organization, or industry that is stigmatized; on the contrary, they come from particular sources that transcend levels. As such, we propose that current silos within the literature may not only be preventing engagement with insights from different levels of analysis, but, importantly, may be preventing us from truly understanding stigmatization as a social process. To address this issue, we review the stigma literature and then present an across level integrative framework of the sources, characteristics, and management strategies. Our framework provides a common language that integrates insights across these levels and enables a shift in attention from how actors respond to stigma to broader processes of stigmatization.

In this article, we take stock of the institutional logics perspective and highlight opportunities for new scholarship. While we celebrate the growth and generativity of the literature on institutional logics, we also note that there has been a troubling tendency in recent work to use logics as analytical tools, feeding disquiet about reification and reductionism. Seeding a broader scholarly agenda that addresses such weaknesses in the literature, we highlight nascent efforts that aim to more systematically understand institutional logics as complex, dynamic phenomena in their own right. In doing so, we argue for more research that probes how logics cohere and endure by unpacking the role of values, the centrality of practice, and the governance dynamics of institutional logics and their orders. Furthermore, we encourage bridging the study of institutional logics with various literatures, including ethnomethodology, phenomenology, professions, elites, world society, and the old institutionalism, to enhance progress in these directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 47 is July 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

In the wake of recent scholarly disquiet regarding organizational institutionalism, we argue for a more focused constitutive approach to institutional analysis that concentrates attention on the socio-cultural sources of actors and their behavior. To do so, we suggest that complementarities between world society institutionalism and the institutional logics perspective provide an opportunity to develop a richer, more critical approach to contemporary transformations in economy and society. Building upon nascent empirical directions in world society scholarship, we argue that bridging these theoretical research programs can seed a generative research agenda on the variegated challenges to the established world society order that underpins the liberal capitalist-democracy model. We argue that this should include research on the multiplicity of logics that undergird liberal as well as illiberal beliefs and practices. Foregrounding issues of power and inequality that are grounded in disparate configurations of logics, we suggest that new analytical tools related to the new structuralism and multimodal analysis can help advance the constitutive institutional project for which we advocate.

This study examines how the once prestigious medical profession in China has become criticized to the point of inducing widespread violence by patients. Drawing on archival documents, media articles, interviews, and secondary sources, we trace the lengthy and uneven trajectory by which the profession moved from collective approval through ambivalence towards stigmatization. We develop a process model of professional stigmatization that identifies dynamics that precipitate and then catalyze that trajectory; and highlight the underpinning mechanisms. By unpacking the complex process of stigmatization, the study extends understanding of how aspects of stigma emerge, and are attached by different stakeholders to a profession, and the consequences that follow. We conclude by highlighting implications for research on stigma and the challenge of stigma containment.