amj-literature-positioning
GitHub针对AMJ论文前端，通过理论对话定位替代简单文献缺口识别。涵盖张力、边界及问题化三种动机，指导构建引言与文献综述，明确研究在理论辩论中的位置与贡献。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amj-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amj-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when the front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation. Positions the paper among theories; it does not derive the hypotheses (amj-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing)."
}
Literature Positioning (amj-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The introduction reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting) rather than joining a debate
- The literature review is an annotated list of prior findings, not an argument
- Canonical theoretical works in the focal domain are missing or cited only in passing
- You are unsure which conversation the paper enters and which scholars are the audience
- A reviewer says "I don't see how this advances the literature" or "this misreads prior work"
The positioning move AMJ rewards
AMJ papers join an ongoing theoretical conversation and change it. The front end should name the conversation, show the unresolved tension or contradiction in it, and signal how this study resolves or extends it. "Gap-spotting" — pointing to an empty cell in a table of prior studies — is treated as a weak motivation; AMJ wants a problematization: surfacing and challenging an assumption the literature has taken for granted (Alvesson & Sandberg's problematization argument is the standard reference for this move). AMJ's From the Editors editorials repeatedly press the "so what?" and "who cares?" tests — your positioning must make the contribution matter to the broad management readership, not only a niche.
Three legitimate motivating moves
- Tension between theories — two literatures predict opposite things; your study adjudicates.
- Boundary/contingency — an established effect should not hold (or should reverse) under a condition the literature has overlooked, for a theoretical reason.
- Problematization — an assumption underlying a literature is questionable; relaxing it changes predictions.
A bare "gap" (no study has done X) is not on this list unless you supply the theoretical reason the gap matters.
Engaging the literatures
- Identify the focal literature (the conversation you join) and any supporting literatures (the lens or mechanism you import). Keep them distinct.
- Cite the canonical theoretical works that define the focal construct/theory, plus recent papers that show the conversation is live — favor AMJ and its AOM sister journals (AMR for the theory side, AMD for emerging phenomena) and, where the conversation spans them, ASQ and SMJ.
- Review to build your argument, not to catalog: each cited stream should end with the tension your study addresses.
- Place the paper relative to the closest 2–3 prior studies and say precisely how yours differs in mechanism, level, boundary, or design — not merely in context.
Front-end structure
A typical AMJ introduction: (1) hook the phenomenon, (2) name the conversation and the tension, (3) state the research question, (4) preview the theoretical approach and study, (5) state the intended contribution. The literature review/theory section then develops the streams in the order the hypotheses need them.
Checklist
- The introduction names a specific theoretical conversation, not an empty cell
- Motivation is a tension, boundary, or problematization — not bare gap-spotting
- Canonical theoretical works defining the focal construct are cited and used
- Recent AMJ/AMR/ASQ/SMJ papers establish the conversation is current
- Closest 2–3 prior studies are named with a precise statement of how this paper differs
- Each literature stream ends pointing at the tension this study resolves
- The intended audience (division/scholars) is clear from the framing
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting: "No prior work has examined X in Y" as the sole motivation.
- Citation dump: long lists of "(Author, year; Author, year)" with no argumentative thread.
- Misreading prior work: mischaracterizing a cited study (reviewers are often its authors).
- Context-only novelty: claiming contribution because the setting is new, not the mechanism.
- Burying the focal theory: the lens you actually use appears only in the methods.
- Ignoring the obvious rival literature: a reviewer's first move is to name the stream you skipped.
Output format
【Focal conversation】the literature/theory you join ...
【Motivating move】tension / boundary / problematization (state it)
【Supporting literatures】lens or mechanism imported ...
【Canonical works engaged】[...]
【Closest prior studies】[...] — how this paper differs: ...
【Audience】division / scholars ...
【Next step】amj-methods (match design to the question)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:13
