This editorial, “FROM THE EDITORS: PUBLISHING IN ‘AMJ’-PART 6: DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS,” authored by Marta Geletkanycz and Bennett J. Tepper, is a crucial installment in The Academy of Management Journal‘s seven-part series, “Publishing in AMJ”. Published in April 2012, this piece specifically addresses the challenges and opportunities associated with crafting effective Discussion sections in academic manuscripts, with a particular focus on theoretical implications.
The authors observe that many scholars often treat the Discussion section as a mere “perfunctory exercise” or an “afterthought,” neglecting its potential as a forum to deeply explore the significance of their work. This oversight can lead to missed opportunities to strengthen a study’s message, demonstrate its underlying value, and embed it within existing literature for richer theoretical conversation.
To counter this common tendency, Geletkanycz and Tepper propose a refined approach to discussing theoretical contributions, viewing the passage as a “twofold, somewhat paradoxical entity—as both an ending and a new beginning, realized concurrently”.
- As an Ending, the Discussion helps bring closure to a study by illuminating its major inroads, revisiting the original theoretical motivation, and synthesizing empirical findings to present a unified, theoretically grounded narrative that answers the “so what?” question.
- As a New Beginning, it recasts contemporary theoretical understanding, delves into underlying mechanisms and processes to explore “why” relationships exist, connects findings to the broader literature for “value added,” and leverages both consistent and divergent evidence to refine understanding. It also encourages reflection on the discovery path, including the insights gained from unsupported hypotheses.
The editorial also highlights three common pitfalls that compromise the effective articulation of theoretical implications:
- Rehashing Results: Merely summarizing findings without explaining their importance or how they advance the existing theoretical conversation.
- Meandering: Presenting numerous, disconnected theoretical implications that lack focus and depth, rather than cohering around a few significant issues.
- Overreaching: Drawing sweeping conclusions that are not adequately supported by the data or that drift into domains disconnected from the study’s core.
Ultimately, this editorial aims to guide authors in making a clear and compelling theoretical advance—a primary emphasis for The Academy of Management Journal—by providing a robust answer to the original research question and illuminating new, important insights within the broader theoretical literature.
Reference for this article:
Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). From the editors: Publishing in “AMJ”—Part 6: Discussing the implications. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4002
