amr-literature-positioning
GitHub识别AMR稿件所属的理论对话并阐述如何挑战与延伸该对话。聚焦于构建理论张力而非文献综述，明确核心流派、定义构念，并通过添加缺失构念或桥接流派等方式确立贡献，避免泛泛而谈。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amr-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amr-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it \"challenges and extends\" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development)."
}
Literature Positioning: Whose Conversation, and How You Challenge It (amr-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- You have a puzzle but cannot name the theory stream you are arguing with
- Your literature section reads like a survey ("scholars have studied...")
- You cite broadly but engage no single conversation deeply
- A reader asks "so which theory are you extending, exactly?"
The principle: engage, don't summarize
AMR is a journal of conversations. Every accepted paper enters a specific theoretical conversation and moves it. The literature section is not a catalog of who-did-what — it is the set-up of the tension your theory will resolve. Two questions govern everything:
- Which conversation am I in? Pick the primary theoretical stream (e.g., the attention-based view; institutional logics; dynamic capabilities). A paper that is "in five conversations" is in none.
- How do I challenge AND extend it? AMR's hallmark phrase. You must do both: show a limit/contradiction in the existing theory (challenge) and offer the new theoretical machinery that resolves it (extend). Pure praise = no contribution; pure critique = no theory. AMR's scope explicitly welcomes work that "significantly challenges or clarifies existing theory."
As you characterize the conversation, define the constructs you build on or revise. Suddaby's AMR "Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization" (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419) is the field standard: each construct needs a precise definition, scope conditions, and clear semantic relationships to neighbors. Positioning that leaves core constructs fuzzy invites the "this is a relabel" objection.
Positioning moves (pick the one your puzzle supports)
| Move | What you do |
|---|---|
| Add a missing construct | Existing theory lacks a concept needed to explain the phenomenon; you introduce and define it |
| Re-specify a relationship | A relationship treated as direct is really mediated / moderated / recursive |
| Bound a theory | You theorize the conditions under which the existing theory holds vs. fails |
| Bridge two conversations | You connect two streams that have ignored each other, generating new propositions |
| Reconceptualize a construct | You split, merge, or redefine a construct, dissolving a standing debate |
| Shift the level | A construct theorized at one level (individual) is re-theorized at another (collective) with new dynamics |
Exemplar
Dyer & Singh's "The Relational View" (AMR 1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632) is model positioning: it names two dominant conversations (the resource-based view and the industry-structure view), shows both locate competitive advantage at the wrong unit, and opens new theoretical space (relational rents accruing to dyads/networks) — challenge AND extend, by argument, with no dataset. Cite the conversation in APA-style (AOM house style).
How to read the conversation (durable practice)
- Read the most recent AMR/AMJ theoretical pieces on the construct; reviewers are usually drawn from this stream.
- Track the conversation forward: what did the last 3–5 years add, and where did it stall?
- Identify the assumption the conversation shares — challenging a shared assumption is often the strongest move.
- Note the seminal anchor(s) the stream returns to; engage them directly, not just recent citations.
Checklist
- One primary theoretical conversation is named and justified
- The shared assumption / limit you target is stated explicitly
- Both halves present: what you challenge AND what you extend
- Recent (not only seminal) work in the stream is engaged
- Secondary literatures are clearly subordinate, used only to set up the move
- The section sets up a tension the theory will resolve — it does not merely report
Anti-patterns
- A "literature review" that summarizes findings instead of building an argument
- Breadth over depth: citing everyone, engaging no one
- Citing only seminal works and ignoring the live, recent conversation
- Critiquing existing theory with no constructive extension offered
- Claiming a "gap" rather than a tension (see
amr-topic-selection) - Positioning against a straw-man version of the existing theory
Output format
【Primary conversation】theory stream + seminal anchor
【Shared assumption / limit targeted】...
【Challenge】what existing theory cannot do
【Extend】the new theoretical machinery you will add
【Positioning move】add-construct / re-specify / bound / bridge / reconceptualize / shift-level
【Next step】amr-theory-development
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:14
