---

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

【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)