Amr Literature Positioning

---
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)."
category: marketing-and-growth
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Academy-of-Management-Review-Skills/skills/amr-literature-positioning/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Academy-of-Management-Review-Skills/skills/amr-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
---


# 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:

1. **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.
2. **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
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Academy-of-Management-Review-Skills/skills/amr-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`