jms-theory-development

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

【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