PUBLISHING IN AMJ

PART 6: DISCUSSING THE

IMPLICATIONS

Author(s) : Marta Geletkanycz and Bennet J. Tepper

Presenter : Yoliswa Dlamimi
 Rehashing Results

Common Pitfalls Meandering

Overreaching
Theoretical Implications: A New
Beginning

Conclusion
Theoretical Implications: An
Ending OUTLINE

An Ending and A Beginning References

Afterthought (noun):

• A reflection after an
#1 act

• Something secondary
#2 or expedient

• An action/thought not
#3 originally intended
 AN ENDING AND A BEGINNING

What is a theoretical contribution?

Whetten(1989) and Corley and Gioia (2011)

An Ending A New Beginning

It constitutes an ending in the sense
that discussion of theoretical It remakes contemporary
implications helps to bring closure theoretical understanding ,
to a study, illuminating its major bringing to light new and
inroads in a broad and reflective valuable ideas
way.
 Theoretical Implications: An Ending
Intricacies of conceptual development

study design analysis

Often lead to losing sight of the broader theoretical challenge that

started researchers on their path.

An impactful Discussion section retains that focus, it makes a point of revisiting the
study's original theoretical motivation.
 Steps in to uncover some
Effective orderly
unanticipated issues or
completion.
problematic assumptions

Ensures that authors deliver

Avails basis on which to on their study's early promise
assess progress on the by answering underlying
mission of resolving a theoretical question(s) and
theoretical puzzle. fulfill their compact with
readers.
 Significance of Discussion Section
• Avails a room in which to answer the So what? question.
• To articulate how the study changes, challenges or otherwise
fundamentally refines understanding of extant theory.
• Doesn't only report the study's theoretical inroads, but also
contextualized them in a manner that clears their larger utility for
students of organization.
• Successful Discussion sections provides a synthesis of their studies'
empirical findings and the results of hypothesis tests to weave them
together presenting a theoretically grounded narrative of the studies'
discoveries .
Theoretical Implications: A New Beginning
• The most straightforward implications are those obtained from a
logical interpretation of a study's findings.
• Exploring from earlier findings can reveal unanticipated theoretical
insights/questionable assumptions. It can also shed light on
previously overlooked gaps in the theoretical understanding, such as
unanticipated incidents.
• Authors also effectively inform theoretical understanding by
exploring the path that led to discovery of their study's findings.
 COMMON PITFALLS

#1
Rehashing
#2
Results Meandering

• Devoting too much discussion to summarizing and • Occurs when a narrative mentions numerous theoretical
re-summarizing the results of their hypothesis test while implications which seem disconnected from each other,
devoting too little attention to explaining what the results the paper's "hook" or theoretical development
mean. • Meandering implications subsections lack focus and comes
• Authors restate the findings in the first few paragraphs of across as superficial.
the discussion section and then move on to other
subsections without addressing the study's theoretical =Authors should focus on what the findings mean collectively.
implications.
=Remind readers of the key findings, but only as the
departure point for explaining how the results bring
resolution on the puzzle that motivated the research to begin
with.
 #3
Overreaching

• Obtaining conclusions that outstrip the data.

When a narrative drifts into domains that seem disconnected from the empirics/ not mentioned in
the paper's opening/theoretical development.
• When authors treat their papers' theoretical implications as an afterthought in the mold of
definitions 2(something secondary or expedient) or 3(an action or thought not originally
intended) rather than definition 1 (a reflection after an act).

= Think about the how implications subsection will look like before writing a paper's introduction
and theory sections.
 CONCLUSION

The best Discussions (in addition to outlining their studies' limitations,

practical implications, and suggestions for future research) provides a
clear and compelling answer to the original research question, cast in a
theoretical light.
Discussion section affords a venue in which to explain how a study
changes, challenges or fundamentally advances, existing theoretical
understanding.
 REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A., & Sarkar, M. B.
2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal,
47: 501-522.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory-building and theory-testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of
Management Journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1281-1303.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. E. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical con-tribution? Academy of
Management Review, 36:
12-32.
Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., & Van Looy, B.
2008. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dy-namics, and contract
application. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1053-1078.
Hollenbeck, J. R. 2008. The role of editing in knowledge development: Consensus shifting and consensus cre-ation. In Y. Baruch,
A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinus & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Journal editing: Opening the black box: 16-26. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2003. A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44:
219-237.
Sherer, P., & Lee, K. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 45:
102-119.
Weick, K. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imag-ination. Academy of Management Review, 14:
516-531.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical con-tribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: