Literature Positioning (jpart-literature-positioning)

JPART reviewers are public-management theorists. A paper that cites a pile of PA work but never names the conversation it advances reads as atheoretical and stalls. The goal is to place the paper inside a live PA debate and state precisely what it changes.

When to trigger

• Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
• A reviewer said you "missed the core PA literature" or "don't engage the theory you claim to test"
• Your empirics are clean but the framing doesn't connect to a named PA theory
• You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior JPART/PAR papers

How JPART wants the literature engaged

1. Name the conversation, not a citation pile. Identify the specific PA debate — e.g., does PSM survive once selection is accounted for?, is red tape distinct from administrative burden?, does passive representation become active under which conditions? Cite the works that constitute it.
2. Engage the theory you claim to test. If the paper is "about" representative bureaucracy or PSM, it must engage that theory's canonical statements and its current frontier — not a generic PA review.
3. Name the gap as a theoretical one. Not "little is known about city X" — say what the theory mispredicts, under-specifies, or has never been tested against a credible design.
4. Position the contribution as a move. "Theory T predicts effect E via mechanism M; we show M is conditional on C / fails under selection / is better explained by M′."
5. Pre-empt the sibling-venue read. Make clear why this is a management-theory contribution, so a reviewer doesn't redirect it to PAR (too broad) or JPAM (policy analysis).

Contribution moves JPART reviewers can recognize

Pick one primary move and make the introduction serve it. Mixing several weak moves reads like a literature dump.

Engagement depth by paper type

Positioning audit

Before drafting, write a one-paragraph map with these five sentences:

1. The live JPART conversation is ___.
2. The dominant theoretical expectation is ___ because ___.
3. The closest paper has shown ___ but cannot distinguish ___ from ___.
4. This manuscript changes the conversation by showing ___.
5. The design can support that move because ___.

If sentence 5 is weak, go back to jpart-research-design before polishing the introduction. If sentence 4 is merely "we study a new place," narrow the venue or raise the theoretical move.

Anti-patterns

• A "literature dump" with no organizing PA debate
• Claiming to test a theory while engaging only adjacent empirical papers, not the theory itself
• Hiding the closest competitor JPART/PAR paper
• Self-citation that breaks anonymity (JPART is double-blind — cite your own work in the third person)
• "First to study" framing when the contribution is incremental to PA theory

Output format

【Conversation】the live PA debate this paper advances
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. the theory's canonical statement)
【Gap】what the theory mispredicts / under-specifies / has never been tested against
【Move】how this paper changes the theory
【Move type】boundary / mechanism / construct / institutional translation / design adjudication
【Closest competitor】what it cannot adjudicate
【Venue signal】why it is a management-theory contribution (not PAR/JPAM)
【Next】jpart-theory-building

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — real JPART papers by PA theory × method
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — JPART scope, keyword convention (theory/theme/method)