Topic Selection (orgstud-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have a phenomenon (a merger, a profession, an institutional disruption, a digital practice) but are unsure it can yield an OS-grade theoretical contribution
• The question is interesting empirically but reads as "describing a case" rather than advancing organization theory
• The paper could plausibly go to ASQ, Organization Science, JMS, or AMR and you need to decide which conversation it joins
• A coauthor wants a managerial-implications paper; OS wants a theory paper

What OS actually rewards

OS is a theory-first European journal: the unit of contribution is a move in an ongoing theoretical conversation about organizing, not a clean effect or a managerial fix. The strongest OS topics share three properties. (1) They are theoretically generative — the phenomenon is a window onto a mechanism, process, or tension that organization theory has not yet seen clearly (e.g., how institutional logics are reconciled in practice; how sensemaking breaks down; how power is reproduced through routines). (2) They are processual or relational — OS leans toward how organizing unfolds, becomes, is contested, which is why ethnographic, longitudinal, and historical designs thrive here. (3) They engage social theory — institutional theory, practice theory, Foucauldian power, Bourdieu, narrative/discourse, Weick — as a live interlocutor, not decoration.

A useful litmus test: write the sentence "This paper changes how we think about ____ in organizations." If the blank is a phenomenon ("AI adoption") rather than a theoretical object ("how organizations sustain control when expertise becomes machine-readable"), the topic is not yet OS-shaped.

Choosing the conversation (and the right venue)

OS does publish quantitative work, but the bar is the same: the numbers must illuminate an organizational mechanism, and the framing must read as organization theory, not applied econometrics.

From phenomenon to question

1. State the phenomenon in one sentence, then the theoretical puzzle it surfaces in a second — the gap or anomaly in existing organization theory.
2. Name the conversation you are entering (institutional, process, sensemaking, practice, critical) and one or two anchor works in it.
3. Decide whether the question is how/why it unfolds (process → likely qualitative) or whether/under what conditions (variance → quantitative); flag this for orgstud-methods.
4. Identify which OS reader would champion it — and which would desk-reject it as "interesting but not a theoretical contribution."

Checklist

• The contribution is a theoretical move in an OS conversation, not a description or a managerial recommendation
• The phenomenon is a window onto a mechanism/process/tension organization theory has not seen clearly
• You can name the specific conversation (institutional / process / practice / sensemaking / critical) and an anchor or two
• The venue choice vs. ASQ / Org Science / JMS / AMR is deliberate and defensible
• The how/why vs. whether/how-much form of the question is decided (feeds orgstud-methods)
• Process facts cited are in resources/official-source-map.md or marked 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准

Anti-patterns

• A phenomenon-driven paper ("a study of X") with no theoretical puzzle — the most common OS desk-reject
• Pitching managerial implications as the contribution; OS is not a practitioner outlet
• Borrowing a fashionable construct (resilience, ecosystem) as a label over an under-theorized observation
• Choosing OS to dodge the identification bar of an econ/AMJ venue — OS replaces it with a harder theory bar
• Naming "the literature" generically instead of the specific conversation the paper advances

Output format

【Phenomenon】one sentence
【Theoretical puzzle】the anomaly/gap in organization theory
【Conversation】institutional / process / practice / sensemaking / critical + anchor(s)
【Question form】how-why (process) / whether-how-much (variance)
【Venue check】why OS and not ASQ / Org Science / JMS / AMR
【Next skill】orgstud-theory-development