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