Writing the paper

Before any section is written: what makes a question worth asking, and what makes readers care.

1. Davis, M. S. (1971). That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211

   The classic account of why some theories are interesting: they deny something the audience assumes.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 2 of 30 sources
2. Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 1: Topic Choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432–435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61965960

   How editors judge whether a topic is novel, relevant and fit for a top journal.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 2 of 30 sources
3. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What Makes Management Research Interesting, And Why Does It Matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785494

   Asks board members what made papers interesting to them: counterintuitive findings, good writing and real problems.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
4. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions Through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330882

   A method for research questions that challenge the assumptions behind existing theory rather than filling gaps in it.

5. Ashford, S. J. (2013). Having Scholarly Impact: The Art of Hitting Academic Home Runs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(4), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0090

   What distinguishes the papers that end up mattering, from someone who has written several.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources

The first two pages decide whether the paper is read. They have to set up a gap, make it matter and promise what the paper delivers.

1. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ —Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873–879. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4000

   The best short guide to the opening pages: hooks, gaps and the promise the paper makes.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 2 of 30 sources
2. Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/256926

   Shows, from published papers, the rhetorical moves that turn a literature into a space for a contribution.

3. Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s Comments: Positioning a Theory Paper for Publication. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0112

   How to position a theory paper so that a reader sees what it adds, with the common ways this goes wrong.

4. Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2017). Editors’ Comments: Sense and Structure—The Core Building Blocks of an AMR Article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0225

   The anatomy of a theory paper, section by section, from the editors who read them.

5. Kilduff, M. (2006). Editor's Comments: Publishing Theory. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208678

   On framing, voice and the courage a theory paper needs, in a few pages.

What counts as theory, what counts as a contribution, and how to build and position the theory section of an empirical paper or a theory paper. The full list from the syllabi is W1 Theory and theorizing (58 readings).

1. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788

   References, data, lists of variables, diagrams and hypotheses are not theory; the most assigned paper on the subject.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 8 of 30 sources
2. Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789

   The reply to Sutton and Staw: theorizing is a process, and partial attempts at it have value.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 4 of 30 sources
3. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on "What Theory is Not". Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393790

   Theory as covering laws, as enlightenment and as narrative; a reminder that there is more than one kind.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 2 of 30 sources
4. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554

   What, how, why, who, where, when: the checklist most reviewers still carry in their heads.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 3 of 30 sources
5. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building Theory about Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

   Updates Whetten with two dimensions, originality and utility, and argues for prescience.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 3 of 30 sources
6. Makadok, R., Burton, R., & Barney, J. (2018). A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1530–1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2789

   Eight ways to make a theory contribution, with examples from strategy; useful for finding which one a paper is making.

7. Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.51141319

   Definitions, scope conditions, relationships and coherence: how to make a construct clear enough to build on.

8. Rindova, V. (2008). Editor's Comments: Publishing Theory When You are New to the Game. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 300–303. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193160

   Practical advice for first theory papers: scope, novelty and the reviewers you will meet.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
9. Bergh, D. D. (2003). Thinking Strategically about Contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 135–136. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2003.17481820

   Two pages on asking, before writing, what the contribution is and to whom.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
10. Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory Building: A Review and Integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647102

    A review of how management scholars actually build theory, organised into a few recognisable approaches.

11. Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116689707

    For papers that refine an existing theory rather than test or generate one; names the moves and when to use them.

12. Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors' Comments: Styles of Theorizing and the Social Organization of Knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0085

    There is more than one legitimate style of theorizing; knowing which one you are using helps you write and defend it.

13. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The Field of Management's Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166119

    The case that the field demands theory even where careful facts would serve better; worth reading before over-theorizing.

    In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
14. Shaw, J. D. (2017). Advantages of Starting with Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 819–822. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.4003

    Why papers that begin from theory, rather than from a dataset, fare better in review.

15. Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. (2021). What Theory Is and Can Be: Forms of Theorizing in Organizational Scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020328

    A map of the forms theorizing can take, beyond the propositional model most journals assume.

Hypotheses should follow from the argument, be precise, and be stated before the data are seen.

1. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4001

   How to build the argument that makes each hypothesis follow, instead of citing a finding and asserting one.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
2. Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The Presence of Something or the Absence of Nothing: Increasing Theoretical Precision in Management Research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 668–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110380467

   Why "X is positively related to Y" is a weak hypothesis, and how to state stronger ones.

3. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

   The original statement of the problem of writing hypotheses after seeing the results, and why it damages the literature.

4. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data. Journal of Management, 43(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679487

   Distinguishes the questionable from the legitimate ways of theorizing after the data, and how to report the latter honestly.

5. Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory Pruning: Strategies to Reduce Our Dense Theoretical Landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109345156

   Designs and hypotheses that test theories against each other, rather than adding one more.

Enough detail to be believed and repeated, and results reported so that they answer the hypotheses rather than decorate them. The full list from the syllabi is W2 Research methods (162 readings).

1. Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research Design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64869103

   The design problems editors see most often, and what a convincing design needs.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
2. Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4001

   What to report, in what order, so that reviewers can follow and trust the analysis.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
3. Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2014). Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 949–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2278

   The SMJ editors on endogeneity, significance, effect sizes and robustness: what they expect to see.

4. Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management: A call for a broad and deep conversation among authors, referees, and editors. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2477

   On replication and cumulative evidence; why reporting enough to be repeated is part of the contribution.

5. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What You See Is What You Get? Enhancing Methodological Transparency in Management Research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011

   A checklist of the choices made between data and results that a paper should disclose.

The discussion returns to the contribution promised at the start, and says honestly what the study does and does not show.

1. Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ–Part 6: Discussing the Implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4002

   How to write a discussion that returns to the contribution and says what the findings mean, without overreach.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
2. Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455245

   What limitations sections actually say, and how to write one that is honest rather than ritual.

3. Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069460

   Background for the "implications for practice" paragraph: what practitioners actually take from research.

Qualitative papers have no boilerplate; these pieces are about how to show rigour and tell the story without a template.

1. Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ —Part 7: What's Different about Qualitative Research? Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509–513. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4003

   How qualitative papers are read and judged differently, and what they need to show.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 2 of 30 sources
2. Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the Editors: For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557

   The most practical guide to presenting qualitative data: what to show, how much, and how to link it to theory.

3. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

   The data structure that has become the common template for inductive papers, by its authors.

4. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

   How to present multiple-case research so that the theory is seen to emerge from the cases.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
5. Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (1993). Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographic Texts Convince. Organization Science, 4(4), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.595

   What makes an ethnographic account persuasive: authenticity, plausibility and criticality.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
6. Bansal, P., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). New Ways of Seeing through Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004

   On the range of qualitative approaches beyond the dominant template, and how to write them for a top journal.

7. Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S., & Feldman, M. S. (2022). Moving Beyond Templates: A Bricolage Approach to Conducting Trustworthy Qualitative Research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120927466

   Why following a template is not the same as being trustworthy, and what to do instead.

8. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press.

   The three voices an ethnography can be written in, and what each conceals.

Sentence-level craft and the narrative arc of a paper, from people who edit and write for a living.

1. Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. (2013). Being Scheherazade: The Importance of Storytelling in Academic Writing. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4003

   A paper is a story with a beginning, a complication and a resolution; how to find and tell yours.

2. Ragins, B. R. (2012). Editor's Comments: Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165

   Short, concrete advice on clear sentences, from an AMR editor who read thousands of unclear ones.

   In the reading lists · assigned in 1 of 30 sources
3. Barley, S. R. (2006). When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts On What Makes A Paper Interesting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785495

   An editor on voice, surprise and the difference between competent and memorable papers.

4. Bem, D. J. (2004). Writing the Empirical Journal Article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), The Compleat Academic: A Career Guide. American Psychological Association.

   The classic chapter on the shape of an empirical article, down to the hourglass structure of the introduction.

5. Zuckerman, E. W. (2008). Tips to Article-Writers. Unpublished notes, MIT Sloan School of Management.

   A sociologist's short list of the mistakes he sees most in drafts; blunt and widely assigned.

6. Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for Scholarly Publication. Sage.

   Writing as joining a conversation: who you are talking to, and what you are saying that they have not.

7. Becker, H. S. (1986). Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. University of Chicago Press.

   On drafting, fear and getting the thing done; the book most often recommended to stuck writers.

8. Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press.

   Evidence, from a thousand articles, on what readable academic prose does differently.

9. Pollock, T. G. (2021). How to Use Storytelling in Your Academic Writing: Engaging Readers and Hooking Reviewers. Edward Elgar.

   The Scheherazade argument at book length, with exercises.

How reviewers read, why papers are rejected, and how to turn a revise-and-resubmit into an acceptance. The full list from the syllabi is W3 The academic profession (72 readings).

1. Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript Be Rejected and What You Can Do About It. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. Sage.

   The reasons papers are rejected, ranked by how often they occur; still accurate.

2. Lepak, D. (2009). Editor's Comments: What is Good Reviewing? Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40631320

   What editors want from a review, which is also what authors should expect and prepare for.

3. Tsui, A. S., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2009). Successful Authors and Effective Reviewers: Balancing Supply and Demand in the Organizational Sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108318429

   The review process from both sides, with advice on surviving it as an author.

4. Ragins, B. R. (2015). Editor's Comments: Developing our Authors. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0477

   How developmental reviewing works, and how to read a review for what it is really asking.

5. Seibert, S. E. (2006). Anatomy of an R&R (or, Reviewers Are an Author's Best Friends…). In Y. Baruch, S. E. Sullivan, & H. N. Schepmyer (Eds.), Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing. Palgrave Macmillan.

   A step-by-step account of turning a revise-and-resubmit into an acceptance, including the response letter.

6. Cummings, L. L., & Frost, P. J. (Eds.). (1995). Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. Sage.

   The edited volume on the whole process, from the first draft to the editor's decision.