CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273Management and Organizational StudiesContemporary Sociological Theory and PracticeBusiness Strategies and Management Research

Editors' Comments: Styles of Theorizing and the Social Organization of Knowledge

Rick Delbridge, Peer C. Fiss·2013·Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.5465/amr.2013.0085
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2013.0085

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The synthesis paper represents a form of theorizing that emphasizes narrative reasoning that seeks to unveil big picture patterns and connections rather than specific causal mechanisms.

    “The synthesis paper represents a form of theorizing that emphasizes narrative reasoning that seeks to unveil “big picture” patterns and connections rather than specific causal mechanisms (Delbridge and Fiss 2013).”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Delbridge and Fiss 2013

  • Model building typically involves a form of theorizing that seeks to create a nomological network around the focal concept, employing a formal analytical approach to examine and detail the causal linkages and mechanisms at play.

    “This typically involves a form of theorizing that seeks to create a nomological network around the focal concept, employing a formal analytical approach to examine and detail the causal linkages and mechanisms at play (Delbridge and Fiss 2013).”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Delbridge and Fiss 2013

  • Figures and propositions help the reader by condensing the paper's main message, but they are also a double-edged sword.

    “While figures and propositions of this kind help the reader by condensing the paper's main message, Delbridge and Fiss (2013) noted that they are also a double-edged sword.”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Delbridge and Fiss (2013)

  • At their best, propositions distill the essence of an argument into a parsimonious and precise form, but by virtue of this very ability, they also put a spotlight on the weaknesses in the argument chain.

    “At their best, propositions distill the essence of an argument into a parsimonious and precise form, but by virtue of this very ability, they also put a spotlight on the weaknesses in the argument chain.”

    From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Delbridge and Fiss (2013)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C.
ORCID
Rick Delbridge
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2013-07
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
325-331
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
DOI
10.5465/amr.2013.0085
OpenAlex
W1996853113
Cited by
271
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4
FWCI
35.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
theorizing, social organization of knowledge, management theory, knowledge production

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review