Orgsci Literature Positioning

---
name: orgsci-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning an Organization Science manuscript in the literature — identifying the organization-theory conversation it joins, problematizing rather than gap-spotting, and integrating across the disciplines (organization theory, strategy, sociology, economics, psychology) the journal draws on.
---

# Literature Positioning (orgsci-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- Your introduction reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting)
- You cannot name the specific conversation your paper joins
- Reviewers cite literatures you did not engage, or say "this is not positioned"
- Your micro paper ignores the macro literature on the same construct (or vice versa)

## Join a conversation, do not spot a gap

Organization Science is **interdisciplinary** — it draws on organization theory, strategy, sociology, economics, and psychology — so positioning is not citing everything; it is locating one conversation and advancing it. Replace gap-spotting with **problematization**: surface and challenge an assumption the existing literature takes for granted, then show how your study revises it. Because the editorial standard is **overall contribution** ("theoretical novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient"), positioning should make clear which contribution source you are claiming — new theory, new data, methodological insight, a new setting that tests generalizability, a sharper mechanism, or relevance to a social problem or grand challenge.

## Position across levels and disciplines

- **Name the home conversation.** One literature where your paper is unmistakably a member — and the canonical works that define it.
- **Bridge levels honestly.** If your phenomenon has both a micro and a macro literature (e.g., individual learning vs. organizational learning; identity vs. organizational identity), engage both and state which you extend. Organization Science readers span micro to macro; a one-sided review reads as parochial.
- **Translate borrowed theory.** When you import sociology, economics, or psychology, make the organizational stakes explicit — why does an organizations audience care?
- **Set up the contribution.** The positioning should leave the reader expecting exactly the contribution your discussion will deliver, no more and no less.

## Anti-patterns

- A "literature review" that summarizes everything and argues nothing.
- Gap-spotting ("understudied," "neglected") with no challenged assumption.
- Ignoring the sibling literature at the other level of analysis.
- Citing a discipline's theory without translating it to an organizational problem.

## Output format

```
【Home conversation】the one literature this paper joins
【Challenged assumption】what the field takes for granted that you revise
【Cross-level / cross-discipline bridges】micro↔macro, borrowed theory translated
【Contribution source set up】new theory / data / method / setting / mechanism / social relevance
【Next step】orgsci-methods or orgsci-contribution-framing
```