联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

Academic Term Paper (ATP)
Assignment
Write an academic term paper (ATP).
Based on acquired knowledge in the course, you independently work out an unanswered question in a subject area of your choice that we discuss in the strategic management course, systematically develop an answer, discuss new insights, and conclude with practical implications.
Subject areas are:
?Strategy as practice
?The environment
?Resources & capabilities
?Business & corporate strategy
?International strategy
?Entrepreneurship & Innovation
?Leading strategic change

Lengths: approximately 2500 words
Description
The ATP is a short version of a conceptual research paper, i.e., a study that is not based on a systematically collected database. Integrating insights from previous research and your own reasoning, you will develop your own theory that answers a research question. As a theory, we understand a systematically developed explanation of a specific aspect of management and organisation that includes some general learnings. For example, if an ATP addresses a specific aspect of competitive advantage and sustainability, we should learn something new that might apply to different firms. Depending on the question, we can learn something, for example, about how certain practices of addressing economic and ecological goals can help firms be competitive in environments where stakeholder pressures to become more sustainable are high.
Purpose
In writing an academic term paper, you need to use acquired knowledge of the course to specify a problem (by developing a specific, unanswered research question that addresses a knowledge gap) and systematically solve it (providing an answer). You will benefit from this not only when working on your dissertation, but also when you start or continue your professional career.
Illustrative explanation with one of my conceptual papers
As indicated above, an ATP is a short version of a conceptual research paper. Your paper is shorter and less differentiated. In the following, I illustratively explain what you shall do in the different sections of your paper with the help of one of my conceptual papers

(Krautzberger et al., 2021). You do not need to understand the details of the content but how my co-authors and I proceed.
Introduction
In the first paragraph of an introduction, you introduce the specific theme in which you are interested and what previous research says about it. Barney (2018, p. 345) labels this as the “scholarly conversation.” In my paper, I do this in the following way:
Neo-institutional theory has recently advanced our understanding of the early phases of institutional change (Canales, 2016; Harmon et al., 2015), that is, change in sedimented taken-for-granted behaviour and its cognitive and normative underpinnings (Greenwood et al., 2008; Tolbert and Zucker, 1996)… A handful of studies offer the important insight that change agents may initially conceal, mask, or dissimulate their work on institutions at early stages until a “proto-institution” emerges that can be further diffused to become a full- fledged institution (Canales, 2016; Claus and Tracey, 2020; Lawrence et al., 2002; Reay and Hinings, 2009; Smets et al., 2012; Van Dijk et al., 2011).
In the first sentence, we introduce a specific theme in the broader area of change. This theme is not institutional change. It is a more specific theme: “early phases of institutional change.” In simple words, it is about the early phase change in and across organisations that we take for granted.
Specify your theme. This helps you select relevant literature. Although the literature on institutional change helped us define the research question and answer it, the literature on the early phase of institutional change was essential.
In the second paragraph, you need to describe the knowledge gap and explain why it is important to address this gap. We do this in the following way:
However, for the most part, the institutional literature examines or presupposes contexts in which verbally and nonverbally expressing the proposed institutional change, at least within a
small group, is already possible. But, what about contexts in which actors do not have the legitimacy to express their intentions or feelings concerning the need for institutional change and do not
know who may be open to considering it… Understanding this early phase is key to better understanding how individual and collective actors can influence the constitution of macro-pathways of institutional change through locally situated, micro-level interactions (Cornelissen et al., 2015; Micelotta et al., 2017).

In other words, we say that we need to understand the very early phase of change to understand how change is possible.

Then, you need to formulate the question and explain how you answer it. We do it in this way:
This motivates us to ask the question: How do individual and collective change agents work on institutional change over time in contexts where revealing the direction of their activities would initially be illegitimate? In response to this question, we establish a process model that explains how institutionally embedded actors conceal and then gradually reveal their intentional work on institutional change over time. To develop the model, we build on insights from institutional change
literature (Battilana et al., 2009; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Tolbert and Zucker, 1996), integrating Goffman’s (1969) metaphor of expression games into the communicative institutionalism perspective (Cornelissen et al., 2015; Ocasio et al., 2018; Schoeneborn et al., 2019).

The words “initially be illegitimate” in the question indicates that we focus on the early phase and that we contribute to a better understanding of this phase.

In our paper, we introduce our contributions in the introduction. You do not have space for this. You just reflect on your contribution to the discussion.

Theoretical background
In this section, you introduce the literature that provides insights into the specific theme of your choice and helps you answer this question. In our paper (my co-authors and me), this section is called “Institutional change, the communicative constitution of institutions, and expression games.” In this paper, we have subsections that distinguish literature that engages with the theme of this study (labelled “institutional change” in the paper) from the literature that is particularly helpful to answer our question (labelled “The communicative constitution of institutional change” and “expression games”). You can do this, but you do not have to do it. Often the literature that provides insights into the specific theme of your choice and helps you answer the question is the same body of literature. As indicated in the criteria, approximately ten research articles are for your work enough. As mentioned in the online workbook, I recommend choosing one or two papers that I recommended as a starting point
and searching for papers that address the same theme or similar themes. You can look at what papers are cited in the article you selected, search in the journals I have listed below, and use google scholar to search for articles.
Note: When you use a concept in the introduction, define it when you use it the first time. As you can see, I also did it in the introduction with “institutional change.” Most concepts are introduced in the theoretical background.
If concepts or technical terms, such as “institutional change,” are defined, they help develop generalisable insights. However, take care that you do not use too many concepts because it makes it difficult to understand your paper. I recommend taking care of how it is done in the journal articles that you will read. Fewer concepts are usually better than too many.

New theory
In this section, you develop your theory by integrating insights of previous research and your argumentation. You can do this in very different ways as you can see in the articles you read. One example of how we did it is:
The ambiguity of this move [feigning a contradictory perspective on change] enables change agents to feign a misunderstanding when interaction partners might impose a sanction. As Sillince and Barker (2012) argue, ambiguity enables actors to reformulate expressions and reposition themselves in an institutional change process. It enables them to withdraw and relativize words and actions. Accordingly, we argue that at this
Stage [stage of disruption], agents do not explicitly articulate their intention to promote change but express their intention through speech and actions as illustrated in the example above. The lawyer may not say, “We need a rigorous service orientation to stay competitive” but rather “I’m beginning to think that we should take the demands of our clients more seriously; I feel we keep losing clients because of our rigidity in these matters.”
The reason for not explicitly articulating their intention is that the articulation reduces ambiguity and increases the likelihood of receiving sanctions and losing legitimacy.”

Again, you do not need to understand the content of the quotation. However, you see that
insights from a previous study (“As Sillince and Barker 2012 argue…”) are used to develop an argument on how change agents will act in a certain phase of the process, which we describe in our study. We use insights from previous research to make a claim (“Accordingly, we argue…”) and link it with a premise (“The reason for not…). – Note: we learned in week 2 that developing arguments by linking claims with premises is important when you make a recommendation for a strategic option.

Cornelissen (2017) introduces different styles of developing a theory: develop a process model, a typology, or propositions on cause-effect relationships (maximum 2). You can use one of these styles if it helps you answer the question in a focused manner, but you do not have to. As I indicate in the online workbook in week 3, if you decide to develop propositions in your term paper, develop only one proposition or two propositions maximum. With 2500 words, you do not have the space for carefully developing arguments for a few propositions.
I think that applying one of these styles is helpful because it is like a tool that guides you through the process of developing a theory. However, I recognise that some students feel comfortable applying such a style, and others do not. Just do it how you prefer. The important point is that you carefully develop your argumentation with the help of previous research to answer the question of your paper. Furthermore, try to develop some insights or learnings that might be generalisable.
In our paper, this section is labelled “A process model of institutional change in expression games.” We developed a process model (see Figure in our paper).

Discussion
In the discussion, you use selected literature to make clear how your paper contributes to the creation of knowledge/advances our understanding in the research field you have chosen.
You reflect your insights by distinguishing your insights from insights of previous research and explaining what of your insights are new and why they are important. So, guiding questions are: What are new insights provided in my paper? Why are they important? It is good if insights are both novel and have practical relevance.
In our paper, my co-authors and I have four contributions. In your academic term paper, you should focus on one or two contributions because of limited space. The quality, not the number of contributions is important. The first and most important contribution should be closely related to your research question.

Conclusion
Keep your conclusion short. Relate it to your introduction.

Assessment criteria and requirements
The criteria for the evaluation of an academic term paper do not differ from those of conceptual research papers that are published in a top journal of management and organisation studies or conceptual dissertations. The main difference is that expectations of what is achievable significantly differ. Thus, you do not need to be afraid that the quality of a top journal publication or a dissertation is expected. However, the same criteria give you the chance to learn from excellent research papers how to write an excellent academic term. The criteria used for the evaluation of the academic term papers are the following:

Well-defined objectives and clear focus (5%)
Is the research question clearly articulated and focused on a specific knowledge/research gap in a field of research that is relevant and can be addressed in the context of the academic term paper?

Thorough review and evaluation of relevant previous literature/work (approx. 10 research articles are sufficient) (10%)
Are the references academic references that are highly relevant (related to the topic, including recently published articles, exclusively academic articles) to answering the research question? (5%)
Are references throughout the paper discussed critically as well as analysed and utilized concerning the research question? (5%)

Development of an insightful theory derived from a rigorous in-depth analysis of relevant previous research and integration with own arguments (60%)
Does the ATP provide an insightful theory (including new, surprising, relevant learnings)? (25%)
Is the theory derived from an integration of a rigorous in-depth analysis of relevant previous research and own arguments? (35%)

Clear indication of the contribution to knowledge/insights/understanding (5%)
Is the contribution of knowledge (or new and relevant insights or new and relevant understanding) in comparison to previous research clearly indicated (What have we known, and what do we know due to the ATP?)?

Clear structure of the ATP that follows conventions of management and organisational studies (for the ATP this includes: abstract not required, introduction approx. 450 words, theoretical background approx. 500 words, new theory approx. 1300 words, discussion approx. 200 words, conclusion approx. 50 words) (5%)
Has the ATP a clear structure following conventions of management and organisational studies?

Clear and professional standard of presentation (writing style) (5%)
Is the ATP systematically and reader-friendly written?

Adequate referencing of non-original work (5%)
Do bibliography and referencing meet academic publishing standards?

Clear distinction between your own work and the work of others via referencing writing style (including e.g. “I argue…”, “Mayer has shown…”) (5%)

Is the work of the student and others clearly distinguished?

Grade band applied for evaluation for each criterion

Grade band 0% –
9% (H) 10% –
19% (G) 20% –
29% (F) 30% –
39% (E) 40% –
49% (D) 50% –
59% (C) 60% –
69% (B) 70% –
79% (A1) 80% –
89% (A2) 90% –
100% (A3)
Attribute Very bad fail Bad fail Clear fail Mar- ginal fail Satis- factory Good perfor- mance Very good perfor- mance Exce- lent perfor- mance Highly exce- lent
perfor- mance Out- standing perfor- mance

Weighting
60% academic term paper
(40% group presentation corporate challenge project)

List of academic journals
I recommend to search in these journals for academic articles that help you to develop your academic term paper:
?Academy of Management Journal (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation, only empirical papers)
?Academy of Management Review (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation, only conceptual papers)
?Academy of Management Annals (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation, only literature reviews)
?Administrative Science Quarterly (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation, mainly empirical papers)
?Global Strategy Journal (focus on global strategy)
?Long Range Planning (focus on strategy)
?Journal of Business Venturing (focus on entrepreneurship)
?Journal of Management Studies (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation)
?Organization Science (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisiation, mainly empirical papers)
?Organization Studies (broad range of topics in the area of management and organisation, mainly empirical papers)

?Strategic Management Journal (focus on strategy)
?Strategic Organization (brings strategy and organization theory together)
?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (focus on entrepreneurship)

Support for completing this assignment
Academic articles that you can find under “further readings” in the online workbooks offer starting points to deeply engage with a topic (e.g. resources and capabilities, international strategy) and develop your research question.
In week 3, I will provide information on how to write an ATP in a lecture based on this document.
In week 9, in the tutorials, tutors discuss with you your challenges in your ATP projects and give tips on how you can manage them. In preparation: Submit a short introduction of your paper and send it to your tutor in time. The tutor defines the deadline. The short introduction has to include 1) three sentences on the discussion in selected literature (the specific topic) with an indication of sources, 2) three sentences on a research/knowledge gap (about what we know little) and why it is important to address this gap, and 3) three sentences on the research question and how it will be answered.
In week 10, in workshops, teachers give you feedback on your short introduction of your ATP and further tips for improvement. For this purpose, refine your introduction and send it to your teacher. The teacher defines the deadline.

Helpful materials
?As indicated above, in the online workbook, you find articles on the topics of each week, which you can use as a starting point for engaging with relevant scholarly literature.
?Furthermore, Barney (2018) helps you in the process of developing a research question and writing the introduction of your academic term paper.
?Cornelissen (2017) introduces different styles of developing a theory: developing a process model, a typology, or propositions on cause-effect relationships (maximum 2). You can use one of these styles if it helps you answer the question in a focused manner, but you do not have to. As I indicate in the online workbook in week 3, if you decide to develop propositions in your term paper, develop only one proposition or two propositions maximum. With 2500 words, you do not have the space for carefully developing arguments for a few propositions.
?Krautzberger et al. (2021) is an example of what a process model can look like.
?Besharov and Smith (2014) is an example of a conceptual paper that presents a typology.
?Wernerfelt and Karnani (1987) is an example of a conceptual paper that presents propositions.

Submission
Deadline for submission is 19th of December 2022. For guidance on late submissions and late penalties, please see Late Submission/Late Penalties
Extensions and special circumstances
For information on Extensions and Special Circumstances and how to apply, please see Student Support information section of “Help and Support”
Students are responsible for the timely delivery of their term paper. Students must submit their papers electronically in pdf format to Turnitin in the appropriate folder in LEARN. They will be informed in week 3 (in the lecture and online) where they can find the correct folder.
The file is to be named with the students exam number (this can be located on the students Student Card). Students will need to fill out a coursework coversheet with their Examination Number, Name of Course, Name of Course Organiser, Submission Date, Word Count and Title of Essay (or Question Topic) and include this at the top of their coursework.

Literature
Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s comments: Positioning a theory paper for publication. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 345-348.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9.
Krautzberger, M., Fohim, E., Cooren, F., & Schumacher, T. (2021). The communicative constitution of institutional change in expression games. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 667-692.
Wernerfelt, B., & Karnani, A. (1987). Competitive strategy under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 8(2), 187-194.