---
name: jms-theory-development
description: Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — building a mechanism and deriving hypotheses a priori, OR abstracting grounded constructs and propositions from qualitative data. Constructs the theory both deductively and inductively; it does not run the analysis (jms-data-analysis) or write the final contribution paragraph (jms-contribution-framing).
---

# Theory Development (jms-theory-development)

## When to trigger

- Hypotheses read as bald predictions ("A is positively related to B") with no mechanism
- An inductive study produces rich description but no abstracted theoretical model
- The argument leans on one borrowed citation rather than a developed logic
- A reviewer says "the theory is thin," "this is description, not theory," or "what is the contribution to theory?"
- You are unsure whether to write a priori hypotheses or emergent propositions

## The JMS theory bar

JMS exists to advance management and organization **theory**, and — unlike a US empirical journal — it treats the **deductive** and **inductive** paths as equally legitimate. The bar is the same for both: a reader must finish understanding *why* the relationship or pattern holds and *under what conditions* it changes. Pick the path the design demands; do not force a qualitative study into a hypothetico-deductive template or write post-hoc hypotheses around quantitative results.

## Path A — Deductive: build a hypothesis as a mechanism chain

For each hypothesis, write the explicit chain and skip no step:

1. **Antecedent** — the predictor and why it matters in this organizational context.
2. **Mechanism** — the theoretical process linking antecedent to outcome (e.g., institutional logics, attention allocation, identity work, resource dependence, signalling). Name the theory and the process verb (legitimates, depletes, redirects attention, signals).
3. **Outcome** — the dependent construct, defined at a stated level of analysis (individual / team / firm / field).
4. **Direction & form** — sign, and whether linear, curvilinear, or threshold (justify a turning point with two opposing forces, not a significant squared term).
5. **Boundary** — the moderator(s) and the *theoretical reason* the mechanism strengthens or reverses. "It depends" is not a theory until you say why.

Keep hypotheses to a defensible set (a focal effect plus a mechanism and one or two boundaries); a "kitchen sink" of ten thin predictions signals weak theory. A boxes-and-arrows model figure must map one-to-one to the hypotheses.

## Path B — Inductive: abstract data into a grounded theoretical model

For qualitative theory-building, JMS does **not** want a priori hypotheses — it wants a credible journey from data to a model. The Gioia-style discipline is the field reference:

1. **First-order codes** — informant-centric terms, staying close to the data.
2. **Second-order themes** — researcher-centric theoretical concepts that aggregate the codes.
3. **Aggregate dimensions** — the small set of constructs that organise the themes.
4. **Process / theoretical model** — a figure showing how the dimensions relate dynamically, with **propositions** (not hypotheses) abstracting the relationships.

Make the **data-to-theory chain visible** (a data-structure figure plus representative quotes table is the convention) so a reviewer can audit how a quote became a construct. For process/longitudinal work, use temporal bracketing or a visual-mapping strategy and theorise the *mechanism of change over time*, not just a stage sequence.

## Engage rival explanations

Whichever path you take, name at least one alternative theoretical account and show why yours explains the phenomenon better or differently. JMS reviewers reward a paper that takes the strongest counter-theory seriously, not one that ignores it.

## Checklist

- [ ] Path chosen (deductive mechanism / inductive grounded model) and consistent with the design
- [ ] Deductive: every hypothesis has an explicit mechanism, not just a predicted sign; level of analysis stated
- [ ] Inductive: first-order → second-order → aggregate-dimensions chain is explicit and auditable; propositions (not hypotheses)
- [ ] A theoretical/process model figure maps one-to-one to hypotheses or propositions
- [ ] Boundaries/moderators (or scope conditions) are theorised with substantive reasons
- [ ] At least one rival theoretical explanation is named and engaged
- [ ] No HARKing: deductive hypotheses fixed before analysis; inductive constructs traceable to data

## Anti-patterns

- **Description masquerading as theory**: a vivid case with no abstracted constructs or model
- **Bald predictions**: "we hypothesise A relates to B" with no *why*
- **Borrowed theory by name only**: invoking dynamic capabilities or institutional logics without using its logic
- **HARKing**: hypothesising after results are known; every hypothesis supported, none surprising
- **Stage models without mechanism**: a phase sequence that never explains what drives the transitions
- **Boundary without reason**: a moderator with no theoretical account of why the effect differs

## Output format

```text
【Path】deductive (hypotheses) / inductive (grounded model)
【Focal theory / conversation】... (process verb: ...)
【Deductive】H1 antecedent→mechanism→outcome (level); H2 mechanism; H3+ boundary+reason
【Inductive】first-order → second-order → aggregate dimensions → propositions
【Model figure】matches hypotheses/propositions one-to-one? yes/no
【Rival explanation engaged】...
【Next step】jms-literature-positioning, then jms-methods
```