hypothesis-grounding

name: hypothesis-grounding description: Help academics write theoretically grounded hypothesis sections for empirical management research papers. Triggers include "ground my hypotheses", "theory section", "hypothesis development", "write hypotheses", "strengthen my argument", "theoretical grounding", "theory and hypotheses section", or when users need help developing persuasive explanatory logic linking independent and dependent variables in academic manuscripts. Based on AMJ editorial guidance by Sparrowe & Mayer (2011).

Hypothesis Grounding Skill

Help academics craft theoretically rigorous "Theory and Hypotheses" sections for empirical research papers in management and related fields. This skill operationalizes the editorial guidance from Sparrowe and Mayer (2011, AMJ) on grounding hypotheses effectively.

Core Principles

The three pillars of a well-grounded hypothesis section are:

1. Engaging prior research — Constructive dialogue with the theoretical conversation, not a literature review
2. Building the argument — Clear, persuasive explanatory logic connecting X to Y
3. Creating coherence — A unified narrative explaining why these variables (and only these) belong together

Workflow

Phase 1: Understand the User's Model

Before writing anything, gather the essential information:

Required inputs:

• What is the dependent variable (Y)?
• What is/are the independent variable(s) (X)?
• Are there mediators, moderators, or boundary conditions?
• What theoretical perspective(s) does the user draw on?
• What is the core research question?
• What is the empirical context (industry, sample, level of analysis)?

Ask clarifying questions when:

• The causal mechanism linking X → Y is unclear
• The user lists theories without explaining how they connect
• Variables seem disconnected (potential coherence problem)
• The user hasn't articulated why the null hypothesis is plausible
• Boundary conditions are unspecified

Phase 2: Diagnose and Advise

Assess the user's current draft or idea against the three pillars. Check for the common pitfalls identified in Sparrowe & Mayer (2011):

Pitfall 1: Argument by citation

• Symptom: Multiple sentences begin with "Smith (2002) found..." or "According to Jones (2015)..."
• The theory section reads as a literature review rather than a logical argument
• Fix: Strip citations, check if the argument stands on its own logic, then re-add citations to support (not replace) the reasoning

Pitfall 2: Ignoring the conversation

• Symptom: Highly relevant prior work is not cited or engaged
• Readers will question the contribution if closely related papers are neglected
• Fix: Identify the theoretical conversation the paper enters and articulate how the current work builds upon, extends, or challenges prior work

Pitfall 3: Lack of specificity

• Symptom: The explanatory logic relies on a general theory (e.g., social exchange theory, trait activation theory) without explaining the specific mechanism for the specific variables
• A general principle like "favors beget reciprocation" does not automatically ground a specific claim like "civility predicts job performance"
• Fix: Bridge from the general theoretical principle to the specific operationalization through step-by-step explanatory logic

Pitfall 4: Fragmented theorizing

• Symptom: Each hypothesis in the model draws on a different, unrelated theory
• Creates the impression of post hoc theorizing or data-driven model specification
• Fix: Integrate the multiple theoretical perspectives into a coherent overarching narrative. Explain why multiple theories are needed and how they fit together (see Phase 4)

Pitfall 5: Stating the obvious

• Symptom: The hypothesis seems trivially true; a reviewer cannot imagine when the null could hold
• Fix: "Flirt with the null" — explicitly consider why the relationship might not exist or might reverse. Frame the hypothesis as an alternative to a plausible null

Phase 3: Build the Argument (The Logic of Explanatory Logic)

For each hypothesis, construct the argument using a combination of three substantiation techniques:

Technique 1: Theoretical Anchoring

• Link the hypothesis to an established theory or conceptual framework
• Do NOT merely reference the theory — provide enough verbal explication that the reader understands the mechanism without having to read the original source
• Check: Is the claim in the paper consistent with the established theory's assumptions?

Technique 2: Empirical Support

• Cite empirical evidence supporting similar relationships in analogous contexts
• The implicit argument: "If it occurs in similar circumstances, it should apply here"
• CRITICAL: Empirical evidence is persuasive ONLY when accompanied by a logical rationale explaining why the same mechanism applies in the current context

Technique 3: Process Narrative

• Explain how the hypothesized relationship occurs by describing intervening states and processes
• Identify the mediating mechanisms: What happens between X changing and Y changing?
• If mediators are proposed, they should be operationalized and tested — otherwise reviewers will see them as speculative

The recommended writing process:

1. Write the argument FIRST without any citations — pure explanatory logic
2. Check: Is the logic clear, consistent, and persuasive on its own?
3. Check: Does the argument clearly lead the reader to the hypothesis (no surprise)?
4. Check: Does the reader understand why X and Y are related?
5. Only THEN add citations to give credit, anchor in theory, and show how the work builds on prior research

Phase 4: Handle Multiple Theories

When the user draws on multiple theoretical perspectives, help them choose and execute one of these integration strategies:

Strategy A: Competing Hypotheses

• Two theories make opposing predictions; let data adjudicate
• CAUTION: Must explain when and why one theory should take precedence — merely pitting theories against each other leaves readers puzzled
• Best practice: Explain the conditions under which each theory's predictions are most applicable (cf. Vanneste & Puranam, 2010)

Strategy B: Additive Combination

• Different theories explain different independent variables' effects on the same outcome
• RISK: Avoid combining variables simply because each has been shown to affect Y in prior research — that's not a conceptual framework
• Requirement: Articulate a conceptual framework that brings the perspectives together and explains their relevant differences (cf. Agarwal et al., 2004)

Strategy C: Complementary Integration

• The assumptions of one theory implicitly require those of the other to be fully realized
• Highest bar: Requires thorough understanding of the logic underpinning each theory
• Highest potential contribution: Can generate new questions and insights for each theory's literature (cf. Silverman, 1999)

Strategy D: Division of Labor

• Different theories are most applicable for different (but related) sub-questions that combine to address the phenomenon
• Example: One theory explains when a practice gains traction; another explains which firms adopt it (cf. Sherer & Lee, 2002)

For all strategies: Clearly explain why addressing the research question requires these specific theories and how exactly the theories will be joined to create a unique contribution.

Phase 5: Ensure Coherence

The final quality check ensures the hypothesis set works as a unified whole:

Coherence checklist:

• Is there a clear, overarching research question that drives all hypotheses?
• Can you explain why these variables (and only these) were selected?
• Do the hypotheses link together to create an overall contribution to the topic?
• Would a reader wonder "why wasn't variable Z included?" — if so, address this
• Does the theoretical narrative hold together, or does each hypothesis seem to come from a different paper?
• For each hypothesis: Does the preceding text lead the reader to this specific prediction (no surprise)?
• For each hypothesis: Does the reader clearly understand why X and Y are related (even if they might disagree)?

Phase 6: Output

When generating text for the user, follow these formatting principles:

Structure each hypothesis block as:

1. Opening move (1-2 paragraphs): Position the argument in the theoretical conversation. What is the relevant prior work? What gap or extension does this hypothesis address?
2. The argument (2-4 paragraphs): The core explanatory logic. Why should X predict Y? Walk through the causal mechanism step by step. This is the heart of the section.
3. The hypothesis statement: A formal, precise prediction that follows naturally from the argument. The reader should feel "of course — that's exactly what the argument predicts."

Writing style guidelines:

• Lead with the argument, not with citations
• Use citations to support reasoning, not as the reasoning itself
• Avoid starting sentences with author names unless the specific finding/argument is the point
• Make the causal chain explicit: X → mechanism → Y
• Use transition language that signals logical progression ("Because...", "This suggests that...", "To the extent that...")
• Be specific about boundary conditions and context

Quality Rubric

Use this rubric to evaluate a theory section (yours or the user's):

Reference

This skill is based on: Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098–1102.

See also the references directory for the full checklist and examples.