---
name: asq-literature-positioning
description: Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.
---

# Literature Positioning (asq-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- Your literature section reads as an annotated list rather than an argument
- You cite many works but are in *dialogue* with none of them
- You cannot name the specific scholarly conversation you are joining
- Reviewers say you "missed the relevant literature" or "misframed the contribution"

## Join a conversation, don't survey a field

ASQ readers are organization theorists. They expect you to enter a **specific, identifiable conversation** and advance it. The literature section is an *argument that creates the space* for your contribution — not a comprehensive survey.

Steps:

1. **Name the conversation.** Identify the 2–4 streams your paper speaks to (e.g., categories and audiences; status and Matthew effects; institutional logics; organizational identity; routines and capabilities; network brokerage; sensemaking; ecology and selection).
2. **Characterize what that conversation currently assumes.** State the prevailing view fairly and precisely — strong steelman, not strawman.
3. **Locate the tension.** Show where the conversation is incomplete, internally contradictory, or contradicted by your puzzle.
4. **Stake the opening.** Make explicit the theoretical space your paper will occupy.

## Engage the traditions

ASQ has a long lineage in organization theory and the sociology of organizations, running back to its 1956 founding by James D. Thompson. Failing to engage the relevant tradition is a common rejection trigger. Many of these traditions were *defined or sharpened in ASQ's own pages* — so the relevant prior is often an ASQ paper, not an AMJ/SMJ one. Map your puzzle to the canonical lineages where appropriate (verify exact citations yourself):

- Carnegie-school decision-making and bounded rationality (e.g., the garbage-can model, Cohen, March & Olsen 1972, ASQ)
- Institutional theory and institutional logics (a core ASQ conversation; note DiMaggio & Powell's 1983 "Iron Cage Revisited" appeared in *American Sociological Review*, not ASQ — cite it as lineage, not as an ASQ paper)
- Organizational ecology and selection
- Resource dependence and power
- Network and status/structural-position theories
- Categories, valuation, and audiences
- Identity, image, and sensemaking (e.g., Weick 1993, Mann Gulch, ASQ)
- Routines, capabilities, and practice

You need not cite all of these — but you must show command of the *relevant* lineage and recent ASQ-adjacent work in it.

## Recency and venue

- Engage **recent** work (the conversation as it stands now), not only foundational citations
- Anchor in recent **ASQ** articles first, then closely related Organization Science / AMJ / SMJ pieces — ASQ reviewers expect to see you in dialogue with the journal's own ongoing conversations, not only adjacent venues
- If a recent paper appears to scoop you, address it head-on and sharpen your distinct contribution

## Avoid the "everything" review

Cut anything that does not (a) establish the conversation, (b) build the tension, or (c) differentiate your contribution. A tight, argumentative review signals command; a sprawling one signals uncertainty.

## Checklist

- [ ] The specific conversation(s) you join are named, not implied
- [ ] The prevailing view is steelmanned, then shown to be incomplete/contradicted
- [ ] The theoretical opening for your paper is explicit
- [ ] The relevant organization-theory tradition is engaged, not bypassed
- [ ] Recent work (incl. recent ASQ) is engaged, not just classics
- [ ] Any near-scoop paper is addressed and differentiated
- [ ] Every cited stream earns its place (no filler citations)

## Anti-patterns

- "List-and-cite" reviews with no argument or tension
- Strawmanning prior work to manufacture a gap
- Citing only 1990s–2000s classics while ignoring the current debate
- Ignoring the obvious adjacent ASQ paper a reviewer will know
- Claiming "no one has studied X" instead of building a theoretical tension

## Output format

```
【Conversation(s)】the 2–4 streams you join
【Prevailing view】steelmanned summary
【Tension/opening】where it breaks and where your paper enters
【Tradition engaged】which org-theory lineage(s)
【Near-scoops handled】yes/no + how differentiated
【Next step】asq-methods
```