---
name: jim-literature-positioning
description: Use when locating a Journal of International Marketing (JIM) manuscript inside the international marketing literature — mapping the conversation, building the positioning table, and pre-empting the "incremental extension" verdict. It positions the claim; jim-contribution-framing writes the payoff.
---

# Literature Positioning (jim-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The front end lists citations but does not name the conversation being advanced
- A reviewer could plausibly write "this is Cavusgil and Zou with newer data"
- The related-work section reads as an undergraduate survey of international marketing
- Coauthors disagree about which literature the paper primarily speaks to

## Name the conversation, then the vacancy

A JIM front end must do two things in order: identify the **specific stream** within international marketing the paper joins, and show the **vacancy** in that stream the paper fills. Streams have recognizable anchors — use them:

- **Export marketing & performance:** the strategy–performance tradition since Cavusgil and Zou (1994, *JM*) and the performance-measurement discipline of Katsikeas, Leonidou, and Morgan (2000, *JAMS*); capability extensions in Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies (2012, *JAMS*).
- **Global marketing strategy:** the standardization–adaptation debate consolidated by Zou and Cavusgil's (2002, *JM*) GMS framework.
- **Global branding & country image:** perceived brand globalness (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003, *JIBS*), global–local brand tension (Özsomer 2012, *JIM*), local vs. nonlocal origin (Batra et al. 2000, *JCP*).
- **Cross-cultural consumer behavior:** values-based segmentation, ethnocentrism/animosity, and the methodological spine of Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998, *JCR*) on measurement invariance.
- **International entrepreneurship:** born globals (Knight and Cavusgil 2004, *JIBS*).
- **Emerging markets:** the rethink agenda opened by Sheth (2011, *JM*).

The vacancy must be a *live* gap: something the stream's recent papers explicitly flag, disagree about, or systematically fail to test — not merely "no one has studied Z in country Y."

## Build the positioning table early

Draft the comparison table before writing the front end; it disciplines every claim.

| Column | Content | JIM-specific note |
|--------|---------|-------------------|
| Study | 5–8 closest papers | at least 2–3 from JIM itself — show you know the house conversation |
| Theory lens | cultural / institutional / distance / GCC | reveals whether your lens is genuinely new |
| Countries & design | N countries, matched?, invariance tested? | the column where many rivals quietly fail |
| Level of analysis | consumer / firm / dyad / country | exposes cross-level gaps |
| Key finding | one line each | sets up the disagreement or silence you resolve |
| This paper | the differentiated row | must differ on ≥2 columns, one of them theoretical |

If your row differs only in the "Countries" column, the paper is a context extension — stop and return to `jim-theory-development`.

## Three positioning moves that work at JIM

1. **Resolve a cross-national inconsistency.** Show that published effects disagree across studies run in different countries, and offer the theorized moderator that reconciles them.
2. **Upgrade an assumed-universal mechanism.** Take a mechanism the domestic literature treats as universal, show theoretically why it should be culture- or institution-bound, and test the boundary.
3. **Theorize a new cross-border phenomenon.** Digital-era phenomena (cross-border platforms, global influencer endorsement, AI-mediated localization) that the canon predates — anchor them to the closest classic stream rather than claiming a literature-free novelty.

## Placement discipline in the manuscript

JIM papers carry positioning in the **introduction** (the conversation, the vacancy, the answer — within the first two pages) and a compact **theoretical background** section; there is no separate "literature review" chapter. Every cited work must earn its place by shaping a hypothesis or a design choice. With a 50-page all-inclusive cap, a bloated front end is paid for with amputated robustness sections later.

## Checklist

- [ ] One primary stream named, with its anchor citations verified against the actual sources
- [ ] The vacancy is live: flagged, contested, or untested in recent work — not just unstudied
- [ ] Positioning table drafted; "this paper" row differs on ≥2 columns including theory
- [ ] At least 2–3 recent JIM papers engaged substantively, not ceremonially
- [ ] Country-coverage and invariance columns expose what prior work lacked
- [ ] Front-end positioning fits inside two pages of the introduction
- [ ] Every exemplar citation checked against the real paper (venue, year, claim)

## Anti-patterns

- "To the best of our knowledge, no study has examined X in country Y" — the vacancy JIM does not accept
- Positioning against the domestic marketing literature only, as if international work did not exist
- A wall of citations with no stated disagreement, silence, or inconsistency to resolve
- Misattributing canon papers (wrong venue or wrong claim) — reviewers in this field know these papers cold
- Claiming novelty over a stream while omitting the JIM papers already inside it
- Differentiating purely on sample geography

## Output format

```text
【Stream】named conversation + 2–3 anchor citations (venue-checked)
【Vacancy】the live gap: inconsistency / untested boundary / new phenomenon
【Positioning move】reconcile / upgrade universal mechanism / theorize new phenomenon
【Table status】this-paper row differs on: [columns]
【JIM engagement】recent JIM papers substantively engaged: [list]
【Next skill】jim-methods
```