Crafting Credible and Compelling Conceptual Contributions

Academy of Management PerspectivesIn-Press From the EditorsFree AccessCrafting Credible and Compelling Conceptual ContributionsMichael L. Barnett, Sandro Cabral, Bonnie Hayden Cheng, Pursey Heugens and Tazeeb RajwaniMichael L. BarnettRutgers University, Sandro CabralInsper, Bonnie Hayden ChengCity University of Hong Kong, Pursey HeugensErasmus University and Tazeeb RajwaniUniversity of SurreyPublished Online:24 Sep 2025https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2025.0185AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookXLinkedInRedditEmail "Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man."1 The Dude, His Dudeness, El Duderino, as quoted above, highlights a common problem with conceptual submissions to Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP). We receive many manuscripts that are well-written and on topics that are of interest to managers but are not publishable at AMP because they are just like, uh, opinions, man. They may provoke engaging conversations in seminar rooms, classrooms, and even boardrooms, but they do not meet AMP's standards. In this editorial, we clarify what constitutes a conceptual contribution at AMP and provide guidance on how to achieve this standard. Arguments based on opinion, no matter how eloquent or applied, do not suffice. Analytical rigor is necessary—but not sufficient. An AMP article must use rigorous analysis to support recommendations for specific actions that managers can feasibly take to address problems in practice or policy. Describing or reframing a managerial issue, while part of a conceptual contribution, does not alone suffice. Rigorous analysis that evinces tangible and actionable guidance is what enables AMP articles to provide practitioners and policymakers with credible concepts that compel them to act. That is our standard.FORMING FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORKS Though our mission recently became more explicit in this regard, AMP has always sought to publish scholarly papers that are relevant to practitioners and policymakers. AMP articles should drive real-world actions and be referenced in "gray literature," the type of reports produced by think tanks, industry associations, and government committees. Encouragingly, AMP articles have been cited in 735 policy reports over the last two decades,2 by organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Enterprise Resource Center, and the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. AMP articles have proven to be practically impactful in advancing the concepts of platform-dependent entrepreneurs,3 partnerships for peace,4 pro-societal innovation,5 hybrid state-owned enterprises,6 and entrepreneurial mental health,7 to name a few. Yet, applied references to AMP's content pales in comparison to that of Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) and Academy of Management Review (AMR), which are cited in practitioner publications and policy reports 4,768 and 5,438 times, respectively.8 Kudos are due to our sister journals! But this is rather awkward for AMP, given our explicit mission of publishing papers that matter to practice and policy, rather than those that primarily seek to advance theoretical arguments.9 Clearly, AMP must do more if it is to fulfill its designated role as the Academy of Management's vehicle for application within its system of knowledge production.10 AMJ's relatively high level of reference in the gray literature suggests that managers are able and willing to be informed by rigorous empirical findings, so one step AMP has taken recently is to welcome empirical papers.11 AMR's even higher level of practical citation suggests that managers, like scholars, are especially open to rigorous conceptual arguments. AMP has always published conceptual papers, though, so it seems we need to reexamine our approach to this format. Although managers do not (yet) rely heavily on the content of scholarly journals, academic concepts have influenced a variety of practical issues. Drawing insights from the academic literature, contemporary managers strategically manage stakeholders,12 selectively engage in acts of corporate social responsibility,13 and carefully oversee the psychological safety14 of their workers. They understand the importance of open innovation,15 business model innovation,16 and ambidexterity17 to the success and survival of their businesses. Digital twins,18 algorithmic management,19 and hybrid intelligence20 are emerging examples of academic concepts in which managers have taken a keen interest. Concepts advanced in the management literature have reshaped how managers view their roles and responsibilities. But to effect change in managerial behavior, concepts must be more than intriguing. Without a rigorous framework underpinning them, concepts lack the standing to convince practitioners and policymakers to bear risk, overcome inertia, and change resource flows. If convinced of the need to act, clear prescription, rather than abstract conceptualization, then facilitates implementation. The combination forms functional frameworks: conceptual frameworks capable of credibly guiding managerial thinking and compelling change in practice or policy. Figure 1 illustrates the distinction between functional frameworks and other types of conceptual papers commonly submitted to AMP.FIGURE 1 From Opinion to Functional Framework In sum, to meet AMP's standards, conceptual frameworks must be both credible and compelling. But what makes a conceptual framework credible? And compelling? And what even is a conceptual framework? We next address each of these questions, starting with the latter.What is a Conceptual Framework? AMP welcomes conceptual contributions, while explicitly excluding papers that focus on theory. Yet, theoretical and conceptual papers are often treated as synonymous in the management literature. What distinguishes them? Without delving into the philosophical nuances, the practical difference between the two is that conceptual papers "make a contribution to practice or policy," while theory papers contribute to theory.21 A bit less tautological, the practical differences are the starting and ending points; in between, the mechanics are similar. At AMP, a conceptual paper starts with an important managerial issue and ends by prescribing actionable behaviors for practitioners or policymakers. By contrast, a theory paper starts with a gap in theory and ends with discussion of how the paper filled this gap. Conceptual papers create "useful knowledge"22 by focusing on practical issues and advancing understanding of how to address them. Though it has been argued that "nothing is quite so practical as a good theory,"23 theory papers are not constrained to be relevant, and often are not.24 Though they differ in purpose, the mechanics of a conceptual paper are similar to those of a theory paper. Each systematically draws from extant literature to build robust new frameworks. By frameworks, as we discuss in the next section, we mean systematically interconnected ideas that form a logical and integrated perspective, with clear and appropriate mechanisms linking the parts together to support that perspective. Think of it as the opposite of "magic happens": the workings are well-specified rather than shrouded in mystery. However, a theory paper links together concepts to develop theory and stops there, while a conceptual paper integrates insights from extant studies in ways that show how to resolve managerial problems. In constructing their arguments, conceptual contributions can draw from, and even advance, theory—but that is not their focus. Likewise, theory papers may offer managerial implications but that is not their focus.What Makes it Credible? Why believe the hype if there are no hypotheses to test? Empirical studies, both quantitative and qualitative, have commonly accepted methods for structuring their analyses. Conceptual studies must use other means to instill confidence in their arguments. Credible analysis in conceptual studies takes the form of logical organization and reasoned interpretation and synthesis of extant literature. This is how the framework in a conceptual contribution is built: by connecting and integrating established findings to create a new perspective that fits together coherently.25 Systematic reasoning substitutes for statistics. Studies must be explicit and transparent about how evidence underpinning their arguments was gathered and analyzed. How was the literature—both scholarly and applied—collated, coded, and interpreted? In lieu of quantitative or qualitative analysis, high-quality synthesis is critical. The process of interpreting and integrating the literature must be explained and executed in such a way that it is understandable and defensible. If the analysis is not conducted as clearly and objectively as possible, then it will lack credibility. Robustness testing in conceptual papers takes the form of interrogating alternative perspectives. Authors are not expected to blunt every statement with counterevidence, but the core tenets of the article must hold up to scrutiny. AMP articles cannot be straw houses; no one-sided arguments, no cherry picking, no opinion pieces. If there are reasonable alternatives, they must be countenanced and countered. The paper must also be transparent about potential biases and limitations in the available evidence. Recognizing biases and limitations in one's own work is never easy. Sunlight can serve as the best disinfectant. Have others read your article as devil's advocate so that alternative viewpoints can be addressed.What Makes it Compelling? Managers are often caught up in the day-to-day activities of their organizations, crowding out time for reflection and research.26 As a result, they may lack objective evidence about how to address many complex problems they face. Scholars have space and skills that managers lack. Though the ivory tower is an increasingly porous shelter from multiplying minutia, scholars are afforded significant time and training to systematically investigate and objectively analyze complex issues. Managers will turn to academic journals more frequently if scholars use their comparative advantages to elicit evidence-based solutions to pressing managerial problems, presented in ways that managers can understand and implement. AMP articles provide actionable solutions to the complex and unresolved problems that managers face. This stands in contrast to complex theoretical argumentation that can confuse practitioners, policymakers, and most mortals. Aware of this disconnect, many management journals now require authors to include managerial implications. This commonly takes the form of a brief section at the end of a paper. These managerial implications sections usually, well, imply. They may make broad suggestions that extend beyond what the analysis has demonstrated. However, "managers need credible evidence, not circumspect implications underpinning them. Implications that stretch beyond the direct evidence are not adequate to warrant change in practice or policy."27 For a conceptual paper to meet AMP's standards, it must begin with an important managerial problem and use logical inference from systematic evidence to directly support, not imply, specific and actionable solutions to this managerial problem. As with empirical papers, these solutions must be within the bounds of the analysis conducted in the study. When prescriptions are drawn directly from the evidence, whether conceptual or empirical, language such as "this analysis has shown" or "validated" is appropriate, whereas language such as "this study suggests" or "implies" is inadequate. Of course, the analysis must be rigorous and specific enough to warrant such definitive terminology; do not make false claims or force certainty where evidence or context is lacking. Overall, the standard at AMP is high, because if managers perceive an article to be just like, uh, your opinion, man, then they rightfully will be unwilling to reconceptualize and revise their practices and policies based upon it.ASSURING ARTICLES ABIDE If management scholarship is to matter more to managers, then management scholars must provide credible and compelling contributions, not opinion or abstraction. We realize that papers will not enter the review process having fully met our high standard. The editorial team at AMP is here to help authors develop their work accordingly. Nevertheless, the onus remains on authors to provide a manuscript capable of meeting this standard while in the review process. In this section, we outline ways to strengthen conceptual articles prior to submission to AMP so that they are more likely to advance toward publication. Table 1 summarizes these tips.TABLE 1 The ABCs of Functional FrameworksCodifying Credibility Though rigor has often been positioned as at odds with relevance, AMP takes the perspective that rigor underpins relevance. AMR's relative success at practical impact suggests that when practitioners and policymakers have confidence in the rigor of a scholarly article, they will make use of even recondite argumentation. However, if rigorous work is also accessible, then we can matter even more to managers. Thus, although AMP requires its content to be more readily accessible to managers, our analytical standards are the same as those at AMR and other top scholarly journals. Below are three ways to improve a paper's rigor to meet this standard.Avoid anecdote Though the academic field of management began with retired executives telling war stories, we have moved well beyond that. A credible conceptual contribution must systematically meld together evidence from extant studies to form a new perspective on an important managerial issue. Anecdotes can be used to accent and exemplify key points, but they cannot constitute the core argumentation of a paper.Beyond basics To inform and guide managers, an article must do more than summarize what is already known. Conceptual articles build on extant literature, but they must create useful new knowledge by bridging theories and incorporating scholarly and practical findings to provide a novel perspective on the focal issue. It is this new integrative perspective, not revelation and repetition of what others have already established, that adds value.Code content Conceptual articles integrate a range of studies to form novel perspectives. But which studies? How were they integrated? There must be a clear and defensible method in use. AMP articles cannot draw on a haphazard assortment of ideas. Articles lose credibility when they cherry-pick supportive parts of a disconnected range of theories, perspectives, and anecdotes, while ignoring aspects of the literature that cast doubt on the focal argument. Credibility requires disclosure. Clearly explain how the underlying literature was selected and interpreted and why other pertinent content was excluded. For the sake of readability, avoid jargon and excessive detail within the body of the paper. Details of the conceptual methodology, if complex and lengthy, can be placed in a supplement.Concretizing Concepts To be more useful for practice and policy decision-making, managers need articles that do more than broadly conceptualize the issues they face. A functional framework provides a novel perspective that not only enhances understanding of a managerial problem but also elicits concrete mechanisms capable of resolving it. Below are three ways to improve conceptual frameworks in furtherance of this aim.Abate abstraction Conceptual argumentation is inherently abstract. "Conceptualization is a process of abstract thinking … Conceptual thinking, then, is the process of understanding a situation or problem abstractly by identifying patterns or connections and key underlying properties."28 Yet, managers seek actionable solutions, not abstract ideas. There is a balance to be found in an AMP article. Rigorous conceptual analysis necessarily entails abstract reasoning, bringing disparate ideas together to form a new perspective. However, the article must extend beyond a philosophical treatise, to provide concrete insights. Though the article cannot be based on anecdote, sprinkling in real-world examples helps make abstract ideas more concrete. More broadly, put yourself in the loafers of a manager and consider the information they would need to put these concepts into action. Better yet, consult or coauthor with current or former managers.Bridge backgrounds When managers see real-world examples in our papers that represent the kinds of issues with which they are grappling, they are more likely to commit the time and energy to bridge the divide between research and practice. But bridging backgrounds goes farther. Artificial intelligence (AI) can do amazing things nowadays. For at least the near term, until the cyborgs rule, let's show that we human scholars can do better by going beyond high-level association from extant studies. A credible conceptual contribution delves (AI loves this word; throwing a bone to our future AI overlords) into the weeds to forge creative connections across studies and between literatures. An AMP article must evidence understanding of the core assumptions of, and latest advances in, the literatures being synthesized and integrated to form useful knowledge about the focal topic. These insights do more than associate past ideas; they interweave them in novel ways. The article should be clear about the details and limitations of prior studies that allow for new interpretations and combinations of logic.Connect cogs An AMP article begins with a managerial problem and the conceptual analysis leads to ways to address it, not merely describe it. But how do the mechanisms of the conceptual framework work? What are the cogs in this machine? What spins them? How do they combine to create the result? The internal workings should not be a closely guarded secret. Instead, reveal how the perspectives and prescriptions arise from the conceptual logic and explain how the managerial problem is ameliorated when managers follow the prescriptions. That is, the argumentation must move beyond association and implication to reveal how one thing connects to another to produce certain results. If we cannot see under the hood, if we cannot shine a strong light into the black box, then we cannot be confident that the framework works. Frameworks should thus be as parsimonious as possible; the more complicated the mechanisms, the harder they are to explain and the greater the risk of failure.Clarifying Contributions After completing rigorous conceptual analysis, researchers should have an understanding of how managers ought to behave. So share these insights. Shaped by their doctoral training, scholars instead tend to eschew normativity or append brief and loosely supported managerial implications to the end of a paper. But doctors should write prescriptions. If scholarly work is to matter more to managers, it must generate nontrivial and well-supported practitioner recommendations. Below are three ways to clarify the contributions of a conceptual paper to practice and policy.Articulate actionability A conceptual paper at AMP should elicit explicit guidance for engaging in better decision-making, more effective interventions, and more productive problem-solving. Managers, though, will face many obstacles to acting on this guidance, ranging from resistance to change and resource constraints, to organizational inertia. Yet, they should be able to implement these prescriptions under realistic working conditions. An example of an actionable concept is the lean startup.29 Its build–measure–learn cycle has a strong academic base in effectuation theory, but its prescriptions take account of how entrepreneurs operating under resource constraints really work. Models that are too vague frustrate managerial action, as do overly complex models, which are intimidating and can erode managerial confidence. Again, there is a balance to be found. Broad, sweeping prescriptions may not be credible across contexts, while over-contextualized prescriptions constrain relevance. Articles should foresee potential barriers to implementation and discuss strategies for overcoming them. We urge authors to engage with practitioners to assess and enhance the actionability of their ideas prior to submission.Beware boundaries While AMP requires articles to provide solutions to pressing real-world problems, we know that not every conceptual model, and probably no single model, will provide a complete solution to any substantive issue. It is acceptable and reasonable for a paper to fall short of completely ending world hunger or securing lasting peace in the Middle East. Articles must be clear, though, about their practical scope, identifying boundary conditions and not stretching prescription beyond what the analysis credibly validates.Craft charts Useful knowledge is aided by useful figures. Good charts and graphs improve the accessibility of key information. One can babble on in prose, but charts force clarity, conciseness, and conclusion. Consider tables, figures, and supplements that highlight key distinctions across perspectives on the focal issue and elucidate how your conceptual framework better addresses it. In these charts, explicate and illustrate how practice or policy would differ if the prescriptions derived from your analysis were implemented.CONCLUSION We must recognize that our responsibility is not to ourselves, but rather to the institutions around the world that are in dire need of improved management, as well as to those individuals who seek to be the most effective managers they possibly can be. It is time for us to break out of our closed loop. It is time for us to matter.30 Inspired by the above exhortation, AMP does not seek to publish yet more management canon fodder. We seek to break out of our closed loop and to matter more to managers. That is our mission! A key part of achieving our mission is to develop and publish credible and compelling conceptual contributions: rigorous studies that form functional frameworks that provide novel perspectives on important managerial problems and concrete, actionable prescriptions for implementation. Nothing is quite so practical as a good conceptual paper at AMP. This editorial outlines the ABCs of how to make your conceptual article matter more to managers. We strongly encourage authors who wish to publish their conceptual work at AMP to carefully review this editorial prior to submission, because The Dudes at AMP do not abide opinion pieces. Such aggression will not stand, man.ENDNOTES1. The Dude, as quoted in Joel Coen, and Ethan Coen, dirs. The Big Lebowski. 1998; Universal City, CA: Gramercy Pictures.2. According to the policy citation aggregator service policycommons.net. "Policycommons," Coherent Digital, accessed February 27, 2025, policycommons.net.3. Donato Cutolo, and Martin Kenney, "Platform-Dependent Entrepreneurs: Power Asymmetries, Risks, and Strategies in the Platform Economy," Academy of Management Perspectives 35, no. 4 (2021): 584–605.4. Ans Kolk, and Francois Lenfant, "Partnerships for Peace and Development in Fragile States: Identifying Missing Links," Academy of Management Perspectives 29, no. 4 (2015): 422–37.5. David Ahlstrom, "Innovation and Growth: How Business Contributes to Society," Academy of Management Perspectives 24, no. 3 (2010): 11–24.6. Garry D. Bruton et al., "State-Owned Enterprises around the World as Hybrid Organizations," Academy of Management Perspectives 29, no. 1 (2015): 92–114.7. Ute Stephan, "Entrepreneurs' Mental Health and Well-Being: A Review and Research Agenda," Academy of Management Perspectives 32, no. 3 (2018): 290–322.8. Stephan, "Entrepreneurs' mental health and well-being."9. Roy Suddaby et al., "Management Practice and Policy: A Guide to Writing for AMP," Academy of Management Perspectives 37, no. 4 (2023): 287–96.10. Matthew A. Cronin et al. "From a Portfolio of Journals to a System of Knowledge Production," Academy of Management Annals 19, no. 1 (2025): 1–8.11. Suddaby et al., "Management Practice and Policy."12. R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).13. Donna J. Wood, "Corporate Social Performance Revisited," Academy of Management Review 16, no. 4 (1991): 691–718.14. Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018).15. Henry W. Chesbrough, and Melissa M. Appleyard, "Open Innovation and Strategy," California Management Review 50, no. 1 (2007): 57–76.16. Constantinos C. Markides, "Business Model Innovation: What can the Ambidexterity Literature Teach Us?" Academy of Management Perspectives 27, no. 4 (2013): 313–23.17. Charles A. O'Reilly, III, and Michael L. Tushman, "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future," Academy of Management Perspectives 27, no. 4 (2013): 324–38.18. Fei Tao, He Zhang, and Chenyuan Zhang, "Advancements and Challenges of Digital Twins in Industry," Nature Computational Science 4, no. 3 (2024): 169–77.19. Min Kyung Lee, "Understanding Perception of Algorithmic Decisions: Fairness, Trust, and Emotion in Response to Algorithmic Management," Big Data & Society 5, no. 1 (2018): 1–16.20. Dominik Dillermann et al., "Hybrid Intelligence," Business & Information Systems Engineering 61, no. 5 (2019): 637–43.21. Suddaby et al., "Management Practice and Policy," p. 292.22. Suddaby et al., "Management Practice and Policy."23. Andrew H. Van de Ven, "Nothing is Quite so Practical as a Good Theory," Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4 (1989): 486–9.24. Donald C., Hambrick, "The Field of Management's Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?" Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 6 (2007): 1346–52.25. You know, like how a rug can really tie a room together, man.26. Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper & Row, 1993).27. Michael L. Barnett et al, "Mattering Matters: Explaining What Fits at Academy of Management Perspectives," Academy of Management Perspectives 39, no. 2 (2025): 183–7.28. Deborah J. MacInnis, "A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing," Journal of Marketing 75, no. 4 (2011): 136–54.29. Thomas R. Eisenmann, Eric Ries, and Sarah Dillard, "Hypothesis-Driven Entrepreneurship: The Lean Startup," Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Case no. 812-095 (2012).30. Donald C. Hambrick, "What if the academy actually mattered?" Academy of Management Review 19, no. 1 (1994): 11–16.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails In-Press Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 24 September 2025 Information© Academy of Management PerspectivesDownload PDF