amj-literature-positioning

1# Literature Positioning (amj-literature-positioning)
2 
3## When to trigger
4 
5- The introduction reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting) rather than joining a debate
6- The literature review is an annotated list of prior findings, not an argument
7- Canonical theoretical works in the focal domain are missing or cited only in passing
8- You are unsure which conversation the paper enters and which scholars are the audience
9- A reviewer says "I don't see how this advances the literature" or "this misreads prior work"
10 
11## The positioning move AMJ rewards
12 
13AMJ 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.
14 
15## Three legitimate motivating moves
16 
171. **Tension between theories** — two literatures predict opposite things; your study adjudicates.
18…