/amann-tables-figures

name: amann-tables-figures
description: Use when building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an Annals review reports no new data of its own).

Tables & Figures for a Review (amann-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• The synthesis is done and the reader needs to *see* the field at a glance
• The organizing framework would land far better as a diagram than as prose
• A fragmented literature would be clearer as a synthesis table than as paragraphs
• You are tempted to paste a regression table — but this is a review, not a primary paper

The exhibit types an Annals review actually uses

Annals exhibits **summarize and reorganize across the literature**; they never present the author's own estimation. The workhorses:

| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes | |---------|---------|--------------| | **Framework figure** | render the organizing spine — typology grid, process model, multi-level architecture | this is usually the review's *signature* exhibit; it should be restate-able from memory and carry the "new way of seeing the field" | | **Who-studied-what synthesis table** | one row per study (or per stream): construct, theory base, method/context, finding, your appraisal | rows ordered by the framework's cells, not chronology; columns let the reader compare *comparable* work | | **Search / coverage exhibit** | a PRISMA-style flow, a search-terms table, or a publications-over-time chart | documents the systematic process from `amann-literature-synthesis` and pre-empts "why did you omit X?" | | **Agenda / gap matrix** | the framework's empty cells laid out as the future-research agenda | turns the generativity of the framework into a concrete, visible roadmap |

Building credible synthesis exhibits

• **The framework figure must do conceptual work.** It should *be* the contribution rendered visually — readers should be able to reconstruct the review's argument from it. A decorative diagram that merely lists topics fails.
• **Compare like with like.** In a synthesis table, group studies that theorize the *same* construct; never put incommensurable constructs in one column (the exhibit version of the pooling error from `amann-literature-synthesis`).
• **Carry an appraisal column.** A finding column without a credibility/method note invites "but how good is that study?" — answer it in the table (links to `amann-evidence-standards`).
• **Self-contained captions.** An Annals exhibit is read on its own; the caption states what it shows, the unit, how to read a row, and the source studies.
• **Source every cell.** Each entry traces to a paper in the coding matrix; an unsourced number in a review is indefensible.

Meta-analysis and bibliometric caution

If you assemble effect sizes into a quantitative synthesis (forest plot, meta-regression) or a co-citation map, you are doing meta-analysis or bibliometrics, with all their assumptions — comparable constructs, independence, publication-bias diagnostics, weighting. Do this only where the literature genuinely supports it; a spurious pooled magnitude or an over-interpreted co-citation cluster is less honest than a qualitative synthesis table. Annals readers include the methodologists who would catch invalid pooling.

Checklist

• [ ] Each exhibit synthesizes across studies (no original-estimate regression output of the author's own)
• [ ] A framework figure renders the spine and carries the "new way of seeing the field"; restate-able from memory
• [ ] Synthesis-table rows ordered by the framework's cells; only comparable constructs share a column
• [ ] Finding columns carry an appraisal/method note, not bare claims
• [ ] A search/coverage exhibit documents the systematic process (PRISMA-style or terms table)
• [ ] Any meta-analytic or bibliometric exhibit pools only commensurable work; diagnostics noted
• [ ] Captions are self-contained (what / unit / how to read a row / sources)
• [ ] Every cell sources to a paper in the coding matrix
• [ ] An agenda/gap exhibit makes the future-research roadmap visible

Anti-patterns

• Pasting a regression table of the author's *own* new estimates — a review reports no new results
• A framework figure that merely lists topics instead of encoding the integrative argument
• A synthesis table that pools incommensurable constructs into one column
• A forest plot or co-citation map implying structure the literature does not support
• Finding columns with no appraisal note (every reader then asks "is that study any good?")
• Exhibits whose captions require the body text to be intelligible

Output format

【Exhibit set】<framework figure / synthesis tables / coverage exhibit / agenda matrix>
【Framework figure】encodes the spine + "new way of seeing"; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Synthesis table】rows by framework cell; comparable constructs only? Y/N
【Appraisal column】present for every finding? Y/N
【Coverage exhibit】documents the systematic search (PRISMA-style)? Y/N
【Meta/bibliometric】pools only commensurable work (or omitted)? Y/N
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the coding matrix? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)