Use when choosing and applying a theory-construction method for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — building constructs, defining their domain, specifying relationships, articulating the underlying logic/mechanisms, and setting boundary conditions. This is the THEORY-CONSTRUCTION craft, NOT empirical method; AMR publishes no datasets, no measures, and no statistical tests.
Use when choosing and applying a theory-construction method for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — building constructs, defining their domain, specifying relationships, articulating the underlying logic/mechanisms, and setting boundary conditions. This is the THEORY-CONSTRUCTION craft, NOT empirical method; AMR publishes no datasets, no measures, and no statistical tests.
Theory-Construction Method (amr-methods)
AMR publishes NO empirical data. There are no samples, no measures, no estimation,
and no results. "Method" here means the craft of building theory: how you construct
constructs, derive relationships, ground mechanisms, and bound the theory. If your
project needs data to make its point, it belongs at AMJ / ASQ / SMJ.
When to trigger
Constructs and propositions exist but the way they were built feels ad hoc
A reviewer would ask "where did this construct's domain come from?"
The theory needs a more disciplined construction approach than intuition
You need to choose among theory-building styles for your puzzle
Choosing a theory-construction approach
Approach
When it fits
Core moves
Conceptual elaboration
Extending a known theory to a new domain
Carry over the core logic; re-specify constructs for the new setting; add boundary conditions
Analogical / metaphorical transfer
A construct from another field illuminates a management phenomenon
Map source → target carefully; theorize where the analogy holds and breaks
Typology construction
The phenomenon has distinct, theoretically meaningful types
Derive dimensions from theory (not data); ensure types are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; theorize transitions (e.g., Oliver's strategic-responses typology, AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002)
Process theorizing
The phenomenon is a sequence/becoming, not a variance relationship
Specify stages, triggers, feedback loops, and timing; theorize the engine that drives movement
Construct re-specification
An existing construct conflates distinct phenomena
Split or merge; re-define the domain; re-derive downstream relationships
Cross-level theorizing
The action spans individual ↔ collective
Specify emergence (bottom-up) and top-down effects; avoid level confusion
Building each component well
Constructs: a good construct is necessary (the theory cannot be stated without it), distinct (not a synonym), and has a clear domain and scope conditions (Suddaby's construct-clarity criteria, AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419). Define what it excludes, not only what it includes. Construct domain is the conceptual analog of avoiding a contaminated sample — but done in argument, not data cleaning.
Relationships: derive, don't assert. Each link should follow from the constructs and an explicit mechanism. Specify form (causal / recursive / moderating / mediating / constitutive).
Mechanisms: name the engine — the why that makes theory explanatory rather than descriptive (Whetten, AMR 1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371). Prefer mechanisms with micro-foundations — actors doing things for stated reasons — over black-box "is associated with."
Boundary conditions: state the contextual, temporal, and level limits. Strong theory specifies its own scope; this is contribution, not hedging.
Falsifiability: design propositions to be refutable in principle (AMR's scope demands "testable knowledge-based claims"). This is the AMR analog of identification rigor at AMJ — credibility rests on tight, falsifiable logic, not on a clean estimate.
Checklist
A named construction approach (or explicit hybrid) is used, not intuition alone
Each construct is necessary, distinct, and domain-bounded
Each relationship is derived from constructs + mechanism, not asserted
Mechanisms are specified with micro-foundations where possible
Typologies (if used) are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, derived from theory
Process theories specify stages, triggers, feedback, and timing
Boundary conditions are stated as part of the theory
No empirical apparatus has crept in (no samples, measures, tests)
Anti-patterns
Treating "method" as data collection — there is none at AMR
A typology whose dimensions came from convenience, not theory
A process "model" that is really a static box-and-arrow diagram with no engine
Borrowing a construct from another field without theorizing where the analogy fails
Cross-level claims that confuse the level of theory with the level of the mechanism
Asserting relationships and back-filling a mechanism afterward
Output format
【Construction approach】elaboration / analogy / typology / process / re-specification / cross-level
【Constructs built】[name + how its domain was derived]
【Mechanism basis】micro-foundations / structural / cognitive / ...
【Boundary conditions】contextual / temporal / level
【Empirical apparatus present?】must be: none
【Next step】amr-data-analysis (stress-test the logic)
