---
name: jms-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning the contribution against the literature for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — locating the paper in a named theoretical conversation and showing what it adds. Stakes the contribution; it does not build the mechanism (jms-theory-development) or write the closing contribution paragraph (jms-contribution-framing).
---

# Literature Positioning (jms-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The literature review is a "camel train" — a chronological parade of citations with no argument
- A reviewer says "I don't see what this adds" or "this conversation has moved on"
- The paper cites broadly but never names the *specific* conversation it advances
- Reviewers from two sub-fields disagree about which literature the paper belongs to
- The framing oversells ("we are the first") or undersells (buries the contribution in a sub-clause)

## The JMS positioning bar

At JMS, positioning is not a literature survey — it is an **argument about where the conversation is stuck and how your paper unsticks it**. Because JMS is pluralist and internationally oriented, you must position against the *theoretical* conversation (e.g., institutional logics, dynamic capabilities, entrepreneurial ecosystems, paradox theory), not merely the empirical topic. The strongest JMS contributions do one of a few recognisable moves; name yours explicitly.

## Contribution archetypes — name your move

| Move | What it looks like | Risk JMS reviewers flag |
|------|--------------------|-------------------------|
| **Extend** | Push a theory into a new boundary, mechanism, or context | "Incremental" if the extension is obvious |
| **Challenge / revise** | Show an accepted relationship reverses or is conditional | Must be airtight; reviewers defend the orthodoxy |
| **Reconcile** | Resolve a contradiction between two literatures | Both literatures must be represented fairly |
| **Build** | Induce a new construct/process model from data (Path B) | "Description, not theory" if not abstracted |
| **Bridge** | Import a theory from another field to illuminate a management phenomenon | "Borrowed badly" if the source logic is misused |

Whatever the move, the contribution sentence should read: *"The conversation about [X] assumes/overlooks [Y]; this paper shows [Z], which changes how we understand [X]."*

## Positioning craft for JMS

- **Construct a tension, not a gap.** "Gap" framing invites "so fill it — who cares?" Tension framing ("the literature predicts both A and not-A under similar conditions") invites the reader to want your resolution.
- **Engage the closest, strongest work.** Cite the most threatening adjacent paper and say precisely how you differ — JMS reviewers are often the authors of that work.
- **Position internationally where it matters.** If your contribution turns on an institutional or national context, say why that context reveals something the (often US-centric) literature missed; this is a JMS strength.
- **Match the conversation to the venue.** A strategy-economics conversation belongs at SMJ; a process-philosophy conversation at Organization Studies; a US large-N micro-OB conversation at AMJ/JoM. JMS wants a *management/organization-theory* conversation with a phenomenon at its core.

## Checklist

- [ ] One **named** theoretical conversation the paper advances (not just a topic area)
- [ ] The contribution move is identified (extend / challenge / reconcile / build / bridge)
- [ ] Positioning is built as a tension or puzzle, not a "gap"
- [ ] The closest, most threatening prior work is cited and distinguished
- [ ] International/contextual leverage is made explicit where the contribution depends on it
- [ ] The contribution is neither over-claimed ("first ever") nor buried in a sub-clause
- [ ] The conversation is a JMS conversation, not an SMJ / Organization Studies / AMJ one

## Anti-patterns

- **The camel train**: a chronological list of who-studied-what with no argument
- **Gap-spotting**: "no one has examined X" as if absence were importance
- **Strawmanning the orthodoxy**: a challenge move that misrepresents the view it overturns
- **Citation name-dropping**: invoking a famous theory without engaging its actual claims
- **Venue mismatch**: positioning in a strategy-economics or pure-process conversation that belongs elsewhere
- **Hedged contribution**: the "so what" hidden in the discussion section instead of the intro

## Output format

```text
【Conversation】named theoretical conversation
【Move】extend / challenge / reconcile / build / bridge
【Tension】the puzzle or contradiction (not a gap)
【Closest prior work】[cite] — how we differ
【Contribution sentence】"the conversation assumes X; we show Z, changing understanding of …"
【Venue check】why JMS not SMJ/OrgStudies/AMJ
【Next step】jms-methods (or jms-contribution-framing to finalise the claim)
```