Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 1 How to frame theore ti cal contribu ti ons in a way that posi ti ons them within exis ti ng literature ‐spe ‐ cific conversa ti ons in a meaningful way is a chal ‐ lenge that has bedeviled researchers for decades. Theory is at the very heart of scholarship, and is a key criterion for evalua ti ng the quality and contri ‐ bu ti on of research (Cornelissen, Höllerer & Seidl, 2021). Theory is an “umbrella concept” (Suddaby, 2014) or a “container term” (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021). It refers to the scholarly work that re ‐ searchers do in pursuit of making informed claims about a generalizable account of events in the social world. As Cornelissen et al. (2021, p. 3) put it, The informed nature of these claims refers here to the fact that researchers make a qualified asser ‐ ti on regarding how something can generally be un ‐ derstood or explained, or indeed how they argue it should be compared to familiar or more limited un ‐ derstandings. The strength of researchers’ claims rests directly on the scholarly work that they have done, and how this has been ar ti culated in a paper; for example, in sharply defining concepts or con ‐ structs, in developing a coherent set of explana ‐ ti ons, or by o ffering a compelling point of cri ti que that counters past thinking on a topic. To no surprise, review and editorial comments regarding “overaching theory,” “theore ti cal contribu ‐ ti ons,” or “the so ‐what ques ti on” are almost ever ‐ present in contemporary review processes in academic journals, o ft en ac ti ng as gates between submi tt ed research reports and their actual publica ‐ ti on. Implica ti ons for theory and relevance of a par ‐ ti cular piece for the extant literature are extremely important issues underlying the fact that new re ‐ search actually provides something unique beyond the current body of knowledge. Many prominent re ‐ searchers and their contribu ti ons thus have ad ‐ dressed challenges related to theorizing and making theore ti cal contribu ti ons in recent decades (e.g., Whe tt en, 1989; DiMaggio, 1995; Su tt on & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995; Feldman, 2004; Cornelissen & Durand, 2014). At the same ti me, review comments listed above as examples o ft en ti mes come across as generic and vague, without clear and construc ti ve guidance about how the submi tt ed manuscripts could be improved upon regarding those ma tt ers. Providing an accurate account of (1) what the extant literature already knows (“standing on the shoulders of giants”), (2) what currently is missing (what are the gaps/lacunas in the exis ti ng research), (3) what new research will do and in what way, and (4) how it contributes to the exis ti ng conversa ti ons are key elements that scholars usually include in the front (introduc ti on) part of their papers. The com ‐ ponents described above also can act as a template (“the four ‐paragraph model” 1 ) for cra ft ing an intro ‐ duc ti on, for example, by devo ti ng a paragraph to each of the points above. Such an approach can help scholars navigate the most important elements of their posi ti oning. The “cra ft ” side of scholarly wri ti ng also embodies a well ‐documented area of academic endeavor, producing many important and readily applicable guidelines published in the form of ar ti cles, books and book chapters, or editorials (e.g., Bem, 1987; Bergh, 2003; Fernandez, 2020; Grant & Pollock, 2011; Gregor & Hevner, 2013). In recent years, many of those resources have moved online, producing outlets such as ins ti tu ti onal (uni ‐ versity) or other research wri ti ng guides, and online coaches and materials. 1 The author thanks the anonymous reviewer of one of the earlier submissions of author’s work to one of the top journals in the field of management. That manuscript was rejected at the ti me, but this construc ti ve comment resulted in many subsequent papers hopefully being fra ‐ med much be tt er. FRAMING THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS: THE AC/DC POSITIONING GRID Matej Černe University of Ljubljana Vol. 10, No. 2, 1 ‐5 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a00 2 Matej Černe: Framing Theore ti cal Contribu ti ons: The AC/DC Posi ti oning Grid Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Despite these founda ti ons and resources, how to actually approach posi ti oning research within exis ti ng conversa ti ons, and how to evaluate, de ‐ scribe, narrate, and ar ti culate par ti cular contribu ‐ ti ons to the “exis ti ng table occupied by already published research(ers) on the topic,” remains an open, crea ti ve, imagina ti ve task. At the same ti me, it epitomizes an intangible, di fficult, elusive under ‐ taking, o ft en leaving scholars without ideas about how to tackle it successfully. This editorial comple ‐ ments exis ti ng pieces referred to above by o ffering and describing a tool that can help scholars do this, framing their thought process and assis ti ng in pro ‐ viding an accurate account of specific contribu ti ons. The framework described and depicted in Table 1 encompasses two sets of elements. The rows in ‐ clude four ways a par ti cular contribu ti on can be framed; it can Advance (progress), Complement (in ‐ tegrate), Debunk (contrast), or Confirm (corrobo ‐ rate) exis ti ng conversa ti ons in the literature, cons ti tu ti ng the AC/DC posi ti oning grid/matrix. This editorial describes and provides examples of each of those types of posi ti oning, addi ti onally de ‐ scribing them through elements provided in the col ‐ umn headers of the grid. I argue that each contribu ti on should be posi ‐ ti oned specifically in a way that defines the schol ‐ arly field (broad research area – narrower field – specific topic) in which it a tt empts to make a contri ‐ bu ti on, to which discussion in the extant literature it intends to contribute, the key authors and their contribu ti ons to the conversa ti on, the scope of this poten ti al contribu ti on, and why it is relevant theo ‐ re ti cally (not just logically or prac ti cally). These all represent evalua ti on criteria for specific contribu ‐ ti ons, which can take one of four key types of fram ‐ ing a theore ti cal contribu ti on. (1) Advancing or progressing a particular scholarly discussion implies that the new contri ‐ bution would alter, fundamentally or marginally, an existing theoretical point of view of a specific topic. Such a contribution would imply that the scholarly conversation would be steered in a dif ‐ ferent (not opposing, just modified) direction on the basis of presented findings. The conversation would be advanced by the presented evidence that will need to be accounted for in ongoing dis ‐ cussion (i.e., contributions succeeding it). For ex ‐ ample, We intend to advance the literature of con ‐ sumer nega ti vity towards brands by highligh ti ng the mechanism of the occurrence of obsessive be ‐ haviours. We propose that obsess is more likely to occur when consumers hate the brand. (Japutra, Roy, & Pham, 2021, p. 2) Such a theore ti cal contribu ti on progresses the literature in such a way that subsequent studies in the marke ti ng field on the topic of consumer nega ‐ ti vity will have to consider consumer hate as a mechanism of obsessive behavior. 2) Complemen ti ng an exis ti ng conversa ti on im ‐ plies that the research adds something to the cur ‐ rent body of knowledge, simply complemen ti ng what we already know with addi ti onal insight. This insight could stem from a di fferent (empirical) con ‐ text that has theore ti cal implica ti ons, it could stem from a di fferent theore ti cal background (for exam ‐ ple, with a di fferent theore ti cal perspec ti ve provid ‐ ing addi ti onal insight into the studied ma tt er dominated by another theore ti cal framework), or it could be achieved through integra ti on of conceptu ‐ aliza ti ons and findings from di fferent areas of re ‐ search. For instance, How does the contribu ti on … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribu ti on (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? (theore ti cally, not just prac ti cally) Advance/progress Complement/integrate Debunk/contrast Confirm/corroborate Table 1. The AC/DC posi ti oning grid for framing theore ti cal contribu ti ons Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 3 We intend to complement the literature on bud ‐ ge ti ng in ins ti tu ti onal complexity, and the funding situa ti on ma tt ers in a study that deals with budget ‐ ing. (Amans, Mazars ‐Chapelon, & Villesèque ‐Dubus, 2015, p. 52) Such a contribu ti on would imply that the study of the topic of budge ti ng in ins ti tu ti onal complexity thus far has not considered the funding situa ti on, and that this paper complements the current stream of research with this perspec ti ve. (3) Debunking or contras ti ng exis ti ng research implies that the current perspec ti ve or viewpoint prevalent in the exis ti ng conversa ti on does not hold, either universally, or in a specific se tti ng. In claiming such a type of theore ti cal contribu ti on, authors fre ‐ quently provide contras ti ng evidence that enables addi ti onal theore ti cal development for contras ti ng the current stream of research. Insights used to de ‐ velop such counter views could stem from a di ffer ‐ ent theore ti cal perspec ti ve that the current body of knowledge has not yet considered, or a recombina ‐ ti on of theore ti cal viewpoints that have been used to date. For example, The big myth the authors aim to debunk is that crea ti vity cannot really be managed ‐that it’s a largely solitary process involving a few somewhat eccentric individuals with very high IQs. (Holt, 1999, p. 15) Here, the author provides strong evidence that counters the exis ti ng “myth” in the crea ti vity litera ‐ ture. With such a contribu ti on, one is bound to con ‐ trast exis ti ng streams and individuals, which perhaps raises fears of such a contribu ti on not being accepted well. However, science is upda ti ng and re ‐ newing constantly, and most academic should be glad to see their ideas or findings that might have worked in a par ti cular context, or were appropriate in light of par ti cular zeitgeist, challenged with novel evidence or di fferent streams of thought. (4) Finally, and just the opposite of #3, confirm ‐ ing or corrobora ti ng exis ti ng research also is a noble feat, especially in light of the reproducibility and replicability crisis in social sciences. Although fre ‐ quently interpreted as perhaps less “grand” and rad ‐ ical of a contribu ti on, it nonetheless is crucially needed, either as a form of generaliza ti on (i.e., con ‐ firming a finding in a di fferent context or replica ti ng in similar contexts) or as a stepping stone for an ‐ other contribu ti on that can advance or complement what has been confirmed addi ti onally. For example, In a dynamic perspec ti ve, we have argued that SMEs are therefore more responsive to intensifying disincen ti ves for innova ti on than large firms are. We intend to corroborate this view by controlling for confounding factors such as those resul ti ng from changes in sector composi ti ons or growth dynamics of par ti cularly innova ti ve firms. (Rammer & Schu ‐ bert, 2018, p. 384) The authors a tt empt to confirm and verify the asser ti on previously posited in the literature by adding addi ti onal controls. These shed addi ti onal light onto findings, and make conclusions more rig ‐ orous in light of including controls of sector compo ‐ si ti ons or firms’ growth dynamics. In this way, such a contribu ti on does not shi ft or change the view ‐ point present in a par ti cular area of research, but makes it more robust and generalizable. Taken together, the AC/DC framework is a grid or a matrix, meaning that not all cells need to be (and almost surely will not be) filled by posi ti oning one academic paper. As a rule of thumb, there usu ‐ ally are one to three, or likely a maximum of as many as five key contribu ti ons each paper makes. Each of them could very well be placed in the same posi ti oning type (e.g., they all could complement ex ‐ is ti ng streams, but perhaps di fferent streams), and definitely not all posi ti oning types need to be cov ‐ ered. The tool and its underlying table is intended to be adapted to a specific paper that a tt empts to make specific contribu ti ons, depending on the con ‐ tent. Next I demonstrate the applica ti on of the AC/DC posi ti oning matrix on our published piece in Human Resource Development Quarterly (Hernaus, Černe, & Škerlavaj, 2021). In this paper, we drew on a rela ti onal perspec ti ve to human resource devel ‐ opment and management (HRD/M), and conducted a mul ti level and mul ti source field study that exam ‐ ined how HRM prac ti ces of job interac ti on require ‐ ments/task interdependence and HRD prac ti ce of cross ‐training interact to enhance employees’ job/task ci ti zenship performance. We presented three contribu ti ons to the literature at the intersec ‐ ti on of HRD/M. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 Matej Černe: Framing Theore ti cal Contribu ti ons: The AC/DC Posi ti oning Grid 4 First, we complemented exis ti ng HRD/M re‐ search that has tradi ti onally focused on narrowly defined employees’ job/task performance by vali ‐ da ti ng the importance of social job characteris ti cs (i.e., communica ti on and coordina ti on) for a specific type of extra ‐role performance. Second, we ad ‐ vanced the conversa ti on linking training interven ‐ ti ons with job design decisions to achieve workplace performance targets, something that was men ‐ ti oned in the late 1980s and early 1990s (we used the expression “we reopen the discussion”) by ac ‐ coun ti ng for both organiza ti onal ‐ and individual ‐ level constructs, providing evidence that organiza ti ons need to put an addi ti onal team train ‐ ing e ffort to develop lateral capabili ti es of their workforce in addi ti on to socially enriched job de ‐ sign. Third, we contrasted the tradi ti onal view of HRD that has considered it to be a subspecializa ti on of HRM, o ffering a showcasing example of how a mul ti level perspec ti ve on HRD can create transdis ‐ ciplinary value. Table 2 summarizes how these con ‐ tribu ti ons were framed. To conclude, the tool described in this editorial perhaps could be applied universally. However, it was developed on the basis of prior research stem ‐ ming from the business, management, organiza ti on studies, and organiza ti onal behavior/psychology fields, likely making it more suitable in those areas. The examples men ti oned herein reflect the author’s background, knowledge of the fields, and search history. The list is not exhaus ti ve, and even be tt er examples likely exist. It needs to be emphasized that the use of this tool is precondi ti oned by deep analysis of the exis ti ng literature, careful thought related to conceptualizing research, and execu ti ng it in an honest way in the best form possible. The AC/DC matrix with its ele ‐ ments is inten ti onally simplis ti c, and is intended to assist prospec ti ve academic writers and make their job easier, enabling them to focus on the actual con ‐ tent of their contribu ti ons. However, the cra ft of clever wri ti ng and posi ti oning a paper in a more ar ‐ ti culate manner cannot replace the much ‐needed ex ‐ cellence in all the other parts of the research journey. How does the contribu ti on … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribu ti on (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? (theore ti cally, not just prac ti cally) Advance HRD/M Linking training interven ti ons with job design decisions to achieve performance targets. Campbell et al., 1993; Felstead et al., 2009; Marsick & Watkins, 2015; McLagan, 1989 Moderate Accoun ti ng for constructs at di fferent levels; the importance of developing lateral capabili ti es of their workforce in addi ti on to socially enriched job design. Complement HRD/M Narrowly defined job/task performance; importance of social job characteris ti cs and extra ‐role performance. Alagaraja, 2013; Mohan & Sophia, 2019; Wong et al., 2017 Moderate New cross ‐disciplinary HRM– HRD nexus knowledge about socially structured and cogni ti ve aspects of human behavior. Debunk/ contrast HRD/M Depart from a tradi ti onal subspecialized role of HRD and acknowledge that HRD has become a well ‐established and mature field of its own. Jeung et al., 2011; McLagan, 1989; Ruona, 2016; SHRM, 2014; Torraco, 2005a; Yoo et al., 2019 Moderate Demonstra ti ng how a mul ti level perspec ti ve on HRD can create transdisciplinary value. Table 2. The applica ti on of the posi ti oning grid in Hernaus et al. (2021) Note: References listed in the table are presented in Hernaus et al. (2021) Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 5 The basic idea of making academic wri ti ng even more of a “cra ft ” does not come without challenges. Undoubtedly, it makes academic papers, especially those reporti ng similar types of research designs, more and more similar to one another. This no ti on acts counter the concept of intellectual pluralism upon which academia is (or should be) founded. To some extent, this does diminish crea ti vity that is le ft to researchers in cra ft ing their manuscripts. At the same ti me, excellent research always should come through, regardless of its format, and many journals have become open to accep ti ng manuscripts that employ innova ti ve techniques of wri ti ng, research design, or indeed structuring specific elements of final research reports. The current academic system of publishing might not be op ti mal, but it is the best we have. Members of the academic community should strive to uphold it in an ethical way, doing our best to approach it with utmost care, responsi ‐ bility, and diligence. We all take part in, compose, and contribute to the academic world. Let us act in making it a place that celebrates excellent research that is ar ti culated in the best manner possible. REFERENCES Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Genera ti ng research ques ti ons through problema ti za ti on. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. Amans, P., Mazars ‐Chapelon, A., & Villesèque ‐Dubus, F. (2015). Budge ti ng in ins ti tu ti onal complexity: The case of performing arts organiza ti ons. Management Accoun ti ng Research, 27, 47 ‐66. Bem, D. (1987). Wri ti ng the empirical journal ar ti cle. The complete academic: A prac ti cal guide for the begin ‐ ning social scien ti st, 2, 185 ‐219. Bergh, D. D. (2003). From the Editors: Thinking Strategi ‐ cally about Contribu ti on. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 135 ‐136. Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing theore ti cal contribu ti ons in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 995 ‐ 1022. Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. (2021). What Theory Is and Can Be: Forms of Theorizing in Organi ‐ za ti onal Scholarship. Organiza ti on Theory, 2(3), 1 ‐19. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administra ti ve science quarterly, 40(3), 391 ‐397. Feldman, D. C. (2004). What are We Talking About When We Talk About Theory? Journal of Manage ‐ ment, 5(30), 565 ‐567. Fernandez, K. V. (2020). PROVE it! A prac ti cal primer to posi ti oning theore ti cally. Australasian Marke ti ng Journal, 28(1), 57 ‐64. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ— Part 3: Se tti ng the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873 ‐879. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Posi ti oning and pre ‐ sen ti ng design science research for maximum im ‐ pact. MIS Quarterly, 337 ‐355. Hernaus, T., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2021). The inter ‐ play between rela ti onal job design and cross ‐training in predic ti ng employee job/task ci ti zenship perfor ‐ mance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21427. Japutra, A., Roy, S. K., & Pham, T. A. N. (2021). Rela ti ng brand anxiety, brand hatred and obsess: Modera ti ng role of age and brand a ffec ti on. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102465. Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typifica ti on. Journal of Man ‐ agement Studies, 58, 487–516 Suddaby, R. (2014). Why theory? Academy of Manage ‐ ment Review, 39, 407–411 Su tt on, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Ad ‐ ministra ti ve Science Quarterly, 371 ‐384. Whe tt en, D. A. (1989). What Cons ti tutes a Theore ti cal Contribu ti on? Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490 ‐495. Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is. Ad ‐ ministra ti ve Science Quarterly, 40(3): 385 ‐390.