Are you preparing a manuscript for The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ)? Do you want your hypotheses to stand out, clearly grounded in robust theory and compelling logic? Look no further!
“FROM THE EDITORS: PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 4: GROUNDING HYPOTHESES” is a critical installment in a seven-part series designed to enhance the quality of submissions to the journal. Written by Raymond T. Sparrowe and Kyle J. Mayer, this editorial provides invaluable suggestions and advice specifically focused on crafting an effective theory section and, most importantly, grounding your hypotheses.
This insightful piece emphasizes that the theory section is a cornerstone of any paper, particularly for an AMJ submission, serving to:
- Position hypotheses in relation to existing research.
- Develop a clear, logical argument explaining the proposed relationships between core variables or processes.
- Create a sense of coherence among all elements of your proposed model.
The authors guide you through the delicate balance of engaging prior research without falling into the trap of mere “argument by citation” or neglecting highly relevant work. They advocate for focusing on the underlying theoretical narrative rather than just empirical results, and even suggest a unique exercise: writing your theory section without any citations first, then integrating prior work to refine your explanatory logic.
Furthermore, the article provides actionable strategies for building your argument and substantiating hypotheses, including:
- Linking to established theory, but always providing sufficient verbal explication, not just a reference.
- Offering empirical evidence alongside a strong logical rationale.
- Crafting a compelling narrative that explains the role of intervening states and processes (mediators), with an emphasis on their operationalization for empirical testing.
For those considering utilizing multiple theories, the piece offers crucial advice on how to integrate them effectively, explaining why they are necessary and how they create a unique contribution, rather than simply combining them ad hoc. It explores approaches like pitting theories against each other with careful consideration, combining theories additively with a strong conceptual framework, or seeking true integration where theories are complementary.
Finally, the editorial highlights common pitfalls to avoid, such as:
- Lack of specificity, where the chosen theory is too broad for the hypothesis.
- Fragmented theorizing, which arises when each hypothesis link is supported by a different, unconnected theory.
- Stating the obvious, which leads to trivial hypotheses. The authors encourage “flirting with the null hypothesis” to ensure your claims are genuinely interesting.
This article is essential reading for anyone aiming to produce a strong, coherent, and impactful theory section in their management research. It underscores that hypotheses are the heart of a paper, and mastering their grounding is key to adding significant value to your research topic.
Reference: Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). From the editors: Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098–1102. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41413610
