Wesley Helms

Let’s Not “Taint” Stigma Research With Legitimacy, Please

We propose that stigma and legitimacy are distinct constructs. Drawing from extant research, empirical observations, and the theoretical assumptions of both constructs we assert that, in spite of increasing efforts to equate stigma as illegitimacy, the opposite of legitimacy, that it is not. Specifically, we argue that organizations and their actors can be both stigmatized and legitimate at the same time. With this recognized, we propose a stigma-focused research agenda, separate from - and untainted by - legitimacy. Further, we propose an agenda that broadens conceptualizations of audiences and their dynamics, addresses how normal “deviants” take action in the face of stigma, and reconceptualises how audiences and the stigmatized interact.

Introduction: A Dialog on Stigma Versus Legitimacy, and How They Relate to Organizations and Their Actors

Recently, stigma research has reached an important threshold in management literature. With an increasing number of publications on the topic of stigma and related social evaluations, researchers run the risk of convoluting disparate concepts. At the same time, examining different components of a singular social evaluation can result in unique contributions that might be overlooked if not thoroughly unpacked. This dialogue presents two differing perspectives on the social evaluations of stigma and legitimacy. The authors discuss the merit of examining stigma as its own distinct construct and as a component of moral evaluation. The authors engage previous research to provide insights on the origins, antecedents, outcomes, processes and consequences of stigma from two different perspectives. Finally, established stigma researchers provide insight into the debate, drawing on previous research as well as their own foundational work.