| name | asq-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods. |
Literature Positioning (asq-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- Your literature section reads as an annotated list rather than an argument
- You cite many works but are in dialogue with none of them
- You cannot name the specific scholarly conversation you are joining
- Reviewers say you "missed the relevant literature" or "misframed the contribution"
Join a conversation, don't survey a field
ASQ readers are organization theorists. They expect you to enter a specific, identifiable conversation and advance it. The literature section is an argument that creates the space for your contribution — not a comprehensive survey.
Steps:
- Name the conversation. Identify the 2–4 streams your paper speaks to (e.g., categories and audiences; status and Matthew effects; institutional logics; organizational identity; routines and capabilities; network brokerage; sensemaking; ecology and selection).
- Characterize what that conversation currently assumes. State the prevailing view fairly and precisely — strong steelman, not strawman.
- Locate the tension. Show where the conversation is incomplete, internally contradictory, or contradicted by your puzzle.
- Stake the opening. Make explicit the theoretical space your paper will occupy.
Engage the traditions
ASQ has a long lineage in organization theory and the sociology of organizations, running back to its 1956 founding by James D. Thompson. Failing to engage the relevant tradition is a common rejection trigger. Many of these traditions were defined or sharpened in ASQ's own pages — so the relevant prior is often an ASQ paper, not an AMJ/SMJ one. Map your puzzle to the canonical lineages where appropriate (verify exact citations yourself):
- Carnegie-school decision-making and bounded rationality (e.g., the garbage-can model, Cohen, March & Olsen 1972, ASQ)
- Institutional theory and institutional logics (a core ASQ conversation; note DiMaggio & Powell's 1983 "Iron Cage Revisited" appeared in American Sociological Review, not ASQ — cite it as lineage, not as an ASQ paper)
- Organizational ecology and selection
- Resource dependence and power
- Network and status/structural-position theories
- Categories, valuation, and audiences
- Identity, image, and sensemaking (e.g., Weick 1993, Mann Gulch, ASQ)
- Routines, capabilities, and practice
You need not cite all of these — but you must show command of the relevant lineage and recent ASQ-adjacent work in it.
Recency and venue
- Engage recent work (the conversation as it stands now), not only foundational citations
- Anchor in recent ASQ articles first, then closely related Organization Science / AMJ / SMJ pieces — ASQ reviewers expect to see you in dialogue with the journal's own ongoing conversations, not only adjacent venues
- If a recent paper appears to scoop you, address it head-on and sharpen your distinct contribution
Avoid the "everything" review
Cut anything that does not (a) establish the conversation, (b) build the tension, or (c) differentiate your contribution. A tight, argumentative review signals command; a sprawling one signals uncertainty.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "List-and-cite" reviews with no argument or tension
- Strawmanning prior work to manufacture a gap
- Citing only 1990s–2000s classics while ignoring the current debate
- Ignoring the obvious adjacent ASQ paper a reviewer will know
- Claiming "no one has studied X" instead of building a theoretical tension
Output format
【Conversation(s)】the 2–4 streams you join
【Prevailing view】steelmanned summary
【Tension/opening】where it breaks and where your paper enters
【Tradition engaged】which org-theory lineage(s)
【Near-scoops handled】yes/no + how differentiated
【Next step】asq-methods
