Trained as a sociologist, my research lies at the intersection of economic sociology, sociology of organizations, and historical sociology. Using mixed methods, my past and ongoing work explores four main areas: 1) I am engaged in a book project that revisits a fundamental question in the history of science and technology in China; 2) the formation and influence of social networks on politics and economy, 3) organizational identities, and 4) the evolution and institutionalization of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Below, I elaborate on these themes and outline my future research agenda.
Revisiting the Needham Question
I am currently finalizing a co-authored book manuscript tentatively titled Revisiting the Needham Question: The Rise and Fall of Chinese Inventiveness, forthcoming in 2025 from Princeton University Press. The book revisits Joseph Needham’s seminal question: “Why and how did China cede its leadership in science and technology to Western countries in the 17th century and fail to launch its own Industrial Revolution?”
Our book addresses this question with empirical evidence from over 10,000 inventions and scientific discoveries, drawing on data meticulously coded from Science and Civilization in China over the past decade. We reframe the question by focusing on temporal variations within Chinese history rather than a static comparison between China and Europe. Specifically, we explore: 1) What enabled ancient China to lead the world in science and technology for centuries? and 2) Why—and crucially, when—did China begin to fall behind?
Our findings indicate that imperial China was at the forefront of technological advancement from the 5th century BCE to the 6th century CE, experienced a gradual decline from the 6th to the 13th century, and faced significant stagnation from the 14th to the 19th century. We propose a theory on the double-edged role of the state, introducing a tripartite typology of the imperial Chinese state that aligns closely with technological development patterns. This framework conceptualizes Chinese history as a journey through three distinct political phases with varied impacts on technology: 1) the polycentric state (5th century BCE to 6th century CE), characterized by political and ideological polycentrism; 2) the enabling state (6th to 13th century), marked by reduced ideological diversity and political polycentrism; and 3) the controlling state (13th to 19th century), where state capacity was concentrated on political absolutism and ideological uniformity.
The book’s findings offer significant policy implications: while the state should continue to provide financial and infrastructural support for science and innovation, it should avoid intervening in specific topics or industries. Emphasizing sustainable development, the research advocates for a balance where state support fosters long–term growth and innovation without stifling the autonomy and dynamism essential for a thriving, forward–looking economy.
Social Networks and Politics
I study network formation and its impact on politics. Regarding how networks and politics are intertwined, I focus on a specific historical context: the civil service examinations (CSE) in historical China, and how social networks played a role in this setting. By analyzing a unique dataset of 12,752 students who passed the CSEs between 1400 and 1580, my co-authored research has provided significant insights into this system. For instance, in the article “Intergenerational Mobility through Inhabited Meritocracy” published at Canadian Review of Sociology, we analyze the causal effect of social capital on upward mobility, distinguishing between the availability and mobilization dimensions of social capital. Our findings reveal that while availability of social capital (e.g., having ancestors in the bureaucracy) significantly impacted upward mobility, its mobilization (e.g., whether a student’s father was alive) was less crucial, suggesting that family legacy was more influential than individual agency.
Furthering on social networks and politics, our article “Group Boundary,” currently in its third round of minor revision at Social Forces, delves into the origins and consequences of native place ties among the political elite starting in the 15th century. We argue that a regional quota system introduced in 1427 inadvertently reinforced these ties, which then influenced examination and thus career outcomes. Our analysis reveals that examiners frequently favored students from their home provinces, thereby perpetuating regional inequality among political elites. This trend is further examined in the working paper “Hiring Managers,” where we employ insights from personnel economics to model the strategic discretion exercised by examiners in their hiring decisions. We find that network-based favoritism was tolerated because it ultimately led to superior post-hiring performance.
Organizational Identities
My research delves into both the supply and demand sides of how organizational identities are constructed and their broader implications. On the supply side, I explore how members of an organization create and communicate their collective image to attract and engage stakeholders. In my article “Becoming Buddhists,” published in the British Journal of Sociology, I document the emergence of a new organizational prototype within Buddhism. A group of elite university students, amidst various institutional constraints, became monks and founded a new temple. Through this process, they articulated their identity and their contribution to society, thus reshaping traditional practices in Buddhism in China.
Turning to the demand side, I analyze how organizational identities are perceived and evaluated by external audiences. In the co-authored article “Revolving around Political Connections,” forthcoming in Socio-Economic Review, I explore the negative signaling effect of government venture capital (GVC) backing on IPO valuations. The study argues that GVC, seen as a political connection, is perceived negatively by investors due to the stark contrast between state and private ownership. While GVC backing may initially help secure resources and an IPO quota, it subsequently signals a lack of managerial autonomy, which diminishes IPO valuations.
Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Interested in business and society integration, my research on CSR focuses on its institutional origins and evolution over time. In the article “Institutionalizing Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure” published in Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, we trace the historic websites of global Fortune 500 companies to understand the development of CSR reporting. Our findings show how companies transitioned from ad hoc mentions of CSR to adopting a formal reporting template in response to global initiatives like the Global Compact.
I also explore the organizational heterogeneity in CSR responses, particularly how founding imprints influence firms’ CSR practices. In a series of co-authored papers published in management and sociology journals, we analyze 1,037 firms in China and find that those established in the socialist era are more likely to emphasize labor themes but less likely to engage in environmental protection. This reflects the historical context of their founding.
As CSR continues to evolve, I am currently collaborating on a project examining how firms improve their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores. Specifically, we study the impact of the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 on Chinese firms’ CSR practices, finding that early adopters of CSR initiatives—those mobilized by the state post-earthquake—have since adapted more effectively to the emerging ESG framework.
Future Research
Examining the technological achievements of historical figures has inspired me to study today’s tech entrepreneurs. Many Chinese business leaders have built fortunes through tech-based ventures. Despite operating under a strong state, they have emerged as a significant social force, often expressing their views through social media. I plan to write a book exploring how they perceive and address inequality, particularly as it relates to the externalities of their tech businesses. The book will focus on the boundaries they define, the discourses they use, and the actions they take to influence society and policymaking.