orgstud-theory-development
GitHub用于构建组织研究论文的理论引擎，聚焦机制、过程模型或概念创新。通过明确行动者、社会结构与生成逻辑，区分贡献类型（如新流程、重构），确保理论具备预测力与解释力，而非仅描述数据。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill orgstud-theory-development -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "orgstud-theory-development",
"description": "Use when building the theoretical engine for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — the mechanism, process model, or conceptual move that constitutes the contribution. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis."
}
Theory Development (orgstud-theory-development)
When to trigger
- You have a rich phenomenon (from
orgstud-topic-selection) but no theoretical machinery that organizes it - Your "theory" is a set of labeled themes or a box-and-arrow diagram with no generative mechanism
- A reviewer says the theory is "thin," "descriptive," "a relabeling of the data," or "doesn't engage the literature it claims to advance"
- You must decide whether the contribution is a new construct, a process model, a reconceptualization, or a boundary condition
Theory is the deliverable at OS
This is the load-bearing skill in the pack. At OS the theory itself is the contribution — more so than the dataset or the estimator. The journal's European, sociologically-rooted tradition means process and interpretive theorizing are fully legitimate as the main claim (a different default from variance-template journals). Your job is to produce a generative theoretical move readers elsewhere can pick up and use.
State the mechanism / process logic, not just constructs:
- Name the actors and what they are doing (sensemaking, justifying, translating, resisting, categorizing, accounting, coordinating).
- Name the social structure they act within (institutional field, logic, hierarchy, network, category system, discourse, status order).
- Specify the generative logic: why does this actor, in this structure, produce this sequence or this outcome? For process work, specify the sequence and transitions (phases, feedback, turning points), not a static relationship.
- Specify boundary conditions and scope: where the mechanism holds, weakens, or reverses.
A test: can a reader predict a non-obvious implication — or re-see a familiar phenomenon — from your theory? If not, you have a label, not a contribution.
Branch by contribution type
| Contribution type | What "good" looks like at OS |
|---|---|
| New process model | Phases/turning points with explicit transition logic; a process figure; what each phase does that the prior one could not |
| Reconceptualization | An existing construct (e.g., legitimacy, identity, routine) redefined so that a puzzle dissolves or a new range of cases comes into view |
| Extending a tradition | A precise statement of what institutional/practice/sensemaking theory missed, and the specific amendment your evidence forces |
| Critical/reflexive | A theoretical account of how power, ideology, or taken-for-grantedness operates — critique that theorizes, not critique that only denounces |
| Theoretical synthesis / essay | Two conversations bridged into a usable new lens, with the move stated crisply enough to cite |
For inductive / grounded work
If theory is emergent, this skill still applies — in reverse. The mechanism and process model are the output, presented after the data structure (see orgstud-data-analysis). Still required: a named mechanism, a process model (usually a figure with phases and feedback), and an explicit statement of novelty relative to existing organization theory. A grounded theory can be the entire OS contribution — it need not be a stepping-stone to a later test. Avoid "theory by adjective" (calling a pattern "dynamic," "recursive," "emergent" without specifying the process).
For deductive / quantitative work
Hypotheses must be derived, each with its own causal-logic paragraph tied to the same core mechanism — not an asserted "bag of hypotheses." Moderators must be theoretically motivated, not data-mined. Even here, lead with the organizational mechanism the design illuminates; the estimator is in service of the theory.
Engaging social theory
OS expects live engagement with social theory, used precisely. If you invoke institutional logics, Bourdieu's capital/field, Foucauldian discipline, Weickian sensemaking, or practice theory, deploy the concept's actual machinery — do not name-drop it as ornament. Misusing a borrowed framework is a fast reviewer pushback.
Checklist
- A named generative mechanism (actors + structure + logic), not just constructs/themes
- For process work: sequence, phases, and transition logic specified (not a static X→Y)
- Boundary conditions / scope stated (where it holds, weakens, reverses)
- The move yields a non-obvious implication or lets readers re-see a familiar phenomenon
- Borrowed social theory used with its real machinery, precisely, not as ornament
- Inductive: theory is output, with a planned process figure and explicit novelty
- Deductive: each hypothesis derived from the shared mechanism; moderators motivated
Anti-patterns
- Box-and-arrow or theme-list models with no mechanism ("constructs in search of a story")
- "Theory by adjective" — naming a pattern instead of explaining how it works
- Variance framing forced onto a process phenomenon (or vice versa)
- Critique that denounces without producing a theoretical account
- Name-dropping Bourdieu/Foucault/Weick without using the framework's actual logic
- A contribution stated as a finding ("we find X") rather than a usable theoretical move
Output format
【Contribution type】process model / reconceptualization / extension / critical / synthesis
【Core mechanism】actors + structure + generative/processual logic
【Process structure (if applicable)】phases + transition logic
【Boundary conditions】where it holds / weakens / reverses
【Social theory engaged】framework + how its machinery is used
【Novel move】the non-obvious implication or re-seeing
【Next skill】orgstud-literature-positioning
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:09
