Individual skill
orgstud-literature-positioning
Use when staking the contribution of an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript against the specific theoretical conversation it joins — what the field knows, what it misses, and the precise gap this paper closes. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory (see orgstud-theory-development) or run analysis.
Organization-Studies-Skills/skills/orgstud-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,405
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,629 bytes
Read excerpt
# Literature Positioning (orgstud-literature-positioning)
## When to trigger
- The theory exists (from `orgstud-theory-development`) but the paper does not say *whose conversation* it advances or *what it changes*
- The literature review is a catalogue ("X did A, Y did B, Z did C") with no argument
- A reviewer says "this is well-known," "you're not engaging the right literature," or "what's new relative to [canonical OS work]?"
- The framing claims to advance institutional/process/practice theory but cites it only in passing
## Positioning is an argument, not a survey
At OS, the literature section is where you **earn the right to make a theoretical claim**. It is not a neutral map of prior work; it is a constructed account of a *specific conversation* that sets up exactly the gap your theory fills. OS reviewers — often the very scholars who built these conversations — judge whether you have (1) identified the *right* interlocutors, (2) read them accurately and generously, and (3) located a gap that is real, non-trivial, and closable with your evidence.
The standard OS move: **synthesize the conversation into a tension or unresolved problem**, then show that existing accounts cannot resolve it, then position your mechanism as the resolution. This is the inverse of a "gap-spotting" list. A gap stated as "no one has studied X in setting Y" is weak at OS; a gap stated as "the field assumes A, but phenomenon B shows A cannot hold, so we need a new account of C" is strong.