jpart-theory-building

Theory Building (jpart-theory-building)

At JPART a result is not a contribution until it is attached to public-management theory the field can use elsewhere. The journal's own abstract template asks authors to state the theoretical approach first and to end with implications for theory — that ordering is the whole brief. This skill turns findings into theory: explicit constructs, mechanisms, scope conditions, and observable implications.

When to trigger

• The empirics are strong but the "so what for theory" is thin
• A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "a finding in search of a theory"
• You need to state the mechanism and scope conditions of a PA relationship explicitly
• You are deciding whether you extend, test, bound, or overturn an existing PA theory

Build the argument

1. Concept. Define the key constructs precisely and distinguish them from neighbors — e.g., red tape vs. administrative burden, PSM vs. job satisfaction, passive vs. active representation. Measurement follows the concept (see jpart-research-design).
2. Mechanism. The causal story in public-management terms: which actors (street-level bureaucrats, managers, citizens, principals) do what, under which incentives, identities, motivations, or institutional constraints. A named mechanism is what makes the result portable.
3. Observable implications. What we should see if the mechanism operates — and what we should not. These become the tests in jpart-research-design and the conditions in the analysis.
4. Scope conditions. Where the theory holds and where it does not (sector, level of government, task type, regime). Public-management theory rarely travels unconditionally; say where it breaks.

Theory moves JPART rewards

Move	What it looks like	Example shape
Extend	add a condition or actor to an existing theory	PSM matters, but only under low red tape
Test	bring a credible design to a claim long asserted	does passive representation become active under threat?
Bound	show where a theory fails	performance information shifts citizens — except for co-partisans
Overturn	replace a mechanism with a better one	the "effect" is selection, not motivation

The portability test (JPART-specific)

Ask: Could a public-management scholar studying a different function, level, or country import this mechanism? If yes, you have a theory contribution. If it only works for your exact agency, tighten it into a general public-management logic or reframe (back to jpart-topic-selection).

Anti-patterns

• "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where possible
• Constructs named but never distinguished from their neighbors (red tape ≈ burden, PSM ≈ satisfaction)
• A mechanism asserted but never made observable
• Universal claims with no scope conditions across sectors/levels of government
• Burying the theoretical payoff under the empirics — the abstract must lead with the theory approach

Output format

【Core claim】one sentence (public-management theory)
【Construct(s)】defined + distinguished from neighbors
【Mechanism】the causal story (actors + incentives/identity/institutions)
【Observable implications】testable consequences → research-design
【Scope conditions】sector / level / task where it holds or fails
【Theory move】extend / test / bound / overturn
【Next】jpart-research-design

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — JPART theory papers (PSM, red tape, representation)
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — JPART abstract template (theory-first)