---
name: aos-literature-positioning
description: Use when situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development).
---

# Literature Positioning (aos-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The front end reviews literatures without joining any specific conversation
- Reviewers could ask "why does this belong in AOS rather than a management or sociology journal?"
- Citations cluster in a sibling journal's canon (JAR/TAR earnings-quality chains, AMJ theory-building chains)
- You cannot name the two or three prior papers your findings push against

## Position inside AOS's own 50-year canon

AOS is unusual: half a century of its own archive defines the conversations it cares about, and its editors read submissions against that archive. Locate the specific AOS thread your paper extends:

| Thread (examples from the canon)                                            | You must engage it if your paper is about… |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| Roles of accounting beyond the textbook — Burchell et al. (1980); Hopwood (1983) | any claim that accounting does unexpected work |
| Accounting, power and the calculable person — Miller & O'Leary (1987)        | costing, performance measurement, discipline |
| Accountability in everyday organizational life — Roberts & Scapens (1985)    | how systems shape conduct and self-accounts |
| Budgets as political instruments — Covaleski & Dirsmith (1986)               | budgeting, resource struggles, institutional pressure |
| Numbers as inscriptions and constructed reality — Hines (1988); Robson (1992); Chua (1995) | measurement, representation, expertise |
| Culture change through accounting — Dent (1991)                              | field studies of transformation |
| Control systems and strategy — Simons (1990)                                 | management control design in use |
| Behavioral/JDM synthesis — Libby, Bloomfield & Nelson (2002)                 | experimental financial-accounting work |
| Risk and audit society — Power (2009)                                        | risk management, auditability, regulation |

(Full verified references: `resources/exemplars/library.md`.)

## Engage the interdisciplinary sources honestly

AOS conversations run on imported theory. Cite the *primary* social-science sources your tradition uses (e.g., the sociology behind institutional theory; Foucault for governmentality; Latour for inscriptions; the cognitive/social psychology behind a JDM design) **as they are used in accounting** — showing you know both the origin and the accounting appropriation. A paper that cites only accounting journals signals thin theorizing; one that cites only sociology signals the wrong venue.

## Mark the delta

- Name the **two or three nearest prior papers** and state, in one sentence each, what they established and what your paper changes.
- Write the delta as a *conceptual* advance ("shows the mechanism is X, where prior work assumed Y"), never as inventory ("extends the literature on…").
- Anticipate the misclassification risk: say explicitly why the paper is an accounting paper and not general organization theory — the accounting practice must be analytically central, not incidental scenery.
- Disclose and differentiate your own related work in anonymized form ("prior research (Author, 20xx)").

## Structure of a positioned front end

1. The phenomenon and its stake (one or two paragraphs, concrete).
2. The AOS conversation and its current settled view.
3. The crack in that view — anomaly, silence, or contradiction.
4. Your question, lens, and setting as the way through the crack.
5. Preview of the conceptual answer and its consequence for the conversation.

## Checklist

- [ ] One specific AOS thread identified; its key papers engaged substantively
- [ ] Primary interdisciplinary sources cited alongside their accounting uses
- [ ] Nearest two or three papers named, with a one-sentence delta against each
- [ ] The accounting practice is analytically central in the framing
- [ ] Own related work disclosed neutrally, without breaking anonymity
- [ ] No citation blocks that a reviewer could delete without loss

## Anti-patterns

- **Gap-spotting**: "little is known about…" with no live disagreement at stake.
- **Canon tourism**: citing Burchell et al. and Miller & O'Leary ritually while arguing with neither.
- **Wrong-canon drift**: building the front end on JAR/TAR measurement debates AOS readers do not share.
- **Sociology without accounting**: the imported theory is centered while the accounting practice is a backdrop.

## Output format

```
【Thread】the AOS conversation entered; key papers ...
【Settled view】what that conversation currently believes ...
【Crack】the anomaly / silence / contradiction ...
【Delta】vs nearest papers 1 / 2 / 3 — one sentence each ...
【Interdisciplinary base】primary sources + their accounting appropriation ...
【Next step】aos-methods
```