The Core Building Blocks of a Theoretical Article
In Sense and Structure—The Core Building Blocks of an AMR Article, Lange and Pfarrer (2017) outline five essential steps for crafting effective Academy of Management Review articles. I believe that these five steps are useful for anyone who writes theoretical articles – not just for AMR. As an author you must (1) establish common ground by “[laying] out the basic assumptions, boundary conditions, and prescriptions of the literature, forming an agreeable starting point with your readers.” (2) You then introduce a complication (a problem, puzzle, or twist) by “pointing out to your readers some kind of complication to the common ground that you’ve already established.” (3) You demonstrate concern by providing “a compelling explanation of the complication’s importance.” (4) You present a course of action, describing “how you will be addressing and resolving your paper’s central complication.” (5) Finally, you highlight your contribution by explaining “how your work will shape or change the conversation—how it makes a distinct contribution.”
Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2017). Editors’ Comments: Sense and Structure—The Core Building blocks of an AMR Article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0225
Should I Choose a Systematic, Narrative, or Critical Review for My PhD?
Many PhD students in our discipline begin their research with a systematic literature review, but I believe this may not always be the most effective approach. As a PhD typically consists of three papers, the focus of the first paper should be on exploration and reflection, rather than being confined to the rigid framework of a systematic review. A systematic review can limit creative and critical thinking, making it more difficult for PhD students to step outside of predefined boundaries. Instead, a more flexible approach – such as a narrative or critical literature review – can encourage deeper engagement with existing academic discourses. This allows students to question established assumptions, challenge theoretical consensus, or resolve intellectual controversies. This openness to critique and exploration is more likely to spark new ideas that can guide the development of meaningful research questions for the second and third papers. Ultimately, this approach may lay a stronger foundation for making original contributions to the discipline.
