Topic Selection: Is There a Theoretical Puzzle? (amr-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have an interesting phenomenon, trend, or anomaly but no theory yet
• You are unsure whether the idea is "big enough" for AMR
• The idea feels like a study you'd run rather than a theory you'd build
• You can describe what happens but not why existing theory fails to explain it

The AMR fit test

AMR wants a theoretical puzzle, not a topic. A topic is "leadership and remote work." A puzzle is "existing leadership theory predicts X, yet under condition C we should see not-X — and no current theory resolves the contradiction." Run every idea through:

1. Is it conceptual? AMR publishes no data. If the natural next step is "collect a sample," stop — that is AMJ/ASQ/SMJ. AMR builds the theory those journals later test.
2. Is there a genuine puzzle / tension / contradiction? A gap ("no one has studied Z") is NOT a puzzle. A puzzle is a place where current theory is internally inconsistent, incomplete in a specific way, or makes a prediction that fails.
3. Whose theory is at stake? Name the existing theory you will challenge and extend. If you cannot, route to amr-literature-positioning.
4. Will it change how scholars think? AMR asks for theory that reorients a conversation, not an incremental relabeling.
5. Does it yield testable knowledge-based claims? AMR's scope requires submissions to "extend theory in ways that develop testable knowledge-based claims." You do no testing — but your propositions must, in principle, be refutable by someone, later.
6. Is the scope a journal article, not a book? One focused theoretical move, fully developed.

AMR's own scope names four legitimate paths for a topic: (a) develop new theory; (b) significantly challenge or clarify existing theory; (c) synthesize recent advances into fresh theory; (d) identify and delineate a novel theoretical problem. If your idea fits none of these, it is likely not AMR. Exemplars to emulate: Oliver's "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes" (AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002) challenged institutional theory's conformity assumption by theorizing agency; Dyer & Singh's "The Relational View" (AMR 1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632) synthesized a new locus of advantage. Neither used data.

Sources of a strong AMR puzzle

Puzzle type	Looks like
Theoretical contradiction	Two established theories make opposite predictions in the same setting
Boundary failure	An accepted theory breaks down at a condition no one has theorized
Construct ambiguity	A widely used construct conflates two distinct phenomena that should be separated
Missing mechanism	An empirical regularity is robust but the why has never been theorized
Phenomenon outrunning theory	A new organizational form / practice that current categories cannot capture
Reconceptualization	An old construct, re-specified, dissolves a long-standing debate

From phenomenon to puzzle (worksheet)

• State the phenomenon in one sentence (no jargon).
• State what existing theory predicts here.
• State why that prediction is incomplete, wrong, or self-contradictory.
• State the one-sentence theoretical question that the paper will answer.
• State what scholars will be able to think/explain after your paper that they cannot now.

If any line is blank, the idea is not yet AMR-ready.

Checklist

• The deliverable is theory, not an empirical test (no data implied as the payoff)
• A specific tension / contradiction / breakdown is named, not merely a "gap"
• The existing theory to be challenged and extended is identified
• The theoretical question fits in one sentence
• The "so what for theory" is articulable before any propositions exist
• Scope is one focused theoretical move, not a survey of a field

Anti-patterns

• "No one has studied X" framed as the contribution (a gap is not a puzzle)
• An empirical project wearing a theory costume — the real payoff is data
• A literature-review topic ("the state of research on X") with no new theoretical move
• Relabeling an existing construct and calling it new
• A puzzle so broad it would take a book; or so narrow it is a footnote to one paper

The most common AMR desk reject is "this is an empirical paper"; the next is "incremental theory." Screen for both here, before investing in amr-theory-development.

Output format

【Phenomenon】one sentence
【Theoretical tension】what existing theory predicts vs. what should hold
【Theory at stake】the conversation to challenge & extend
【Theoretical question】one sentence
【So-what for theory】what scholars can newly explain
【AMR fit】yes / borderline (route empirical work elsewhere) / no
【Next step】amr-literature-positioning