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)

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