amr-methods

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)