/theory-engine

name: theory-engine
description: >
  Activate when the user needs to select a theoretical lens, formulate a research gap,
  derive hypotheses or design principles, or write a contribution statement.
  Provides concrete theory-to-paper templates, not abstract advice.

> **Orchestration Log**: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to `outputs/orchestration_log.md`: > ``` > ### Skill Activation: Theory Engine > **Timestamp:** [current date/time] > **Actor:** AI Agent (theory-engine) > **Input:** [brief description of the theory selection/gap formulation request] > **Output:** [brief description of what was produced — e.g., "Selected sociotechnical systems theory, drafted theoretical framing (800 words)"] > ```

Theory Engine

Purpose

Turn "I don't know which theory to use" into a concrete theoretical framing with drafted paragraphs ready for the paper.

Step 1: Match Topic to Theory

Theory Selection by Research Topic

**AI Adoption & Implementation:** | Theory | Use When | Key Constructs | Seminal Reference | |--------|----------|---------------|-------------------| | TOE Framework | Studying organizational adoption factors | Technology, Organization, Environment | Tornatzky & Fleischer (1990) | | UTAUT/UTAUT2 | Studying individual user acceptance | Performance/Effort Expectancy, Social Influence | Venkatesh et al. (2003/2012) | | Absorptive Capacity | Studying how orgs learn/integrate new AI knowledge | Acquisition, Assimilation, Transformation, Exploitation | Cohen & Levinthal (1990) | | Dynamic Capabilities | Studying how orgs adapt to AI disruption | Sensing, Seizing, Reconfiguring | Teece (2007) | | Socio-Technical Systems | Studying joint optimization of social + technical | Social subsystem, Technical subsystem, Joint optimization | Bostrom & Heinen (1977) | | Institutional Theory | Studying mimetic/coercive/normative adoption pressures | Isomorphic pressures, Legitimacy | DiMaggio & Powell (1983) |

**AI Agents & Automation:** | Theory | Use When | Key Constructs | Seminal Reference | |--------|----------|---------------|-------------------| | Agency Theory | Studying delegation to autonomous agents | Principal, Agent, Information asymmetry | Eisenhardt (1989) | | Affordance Theory | Studying what AI enables in practice | Affordances, Constraints, Actualization | Markus & Silver (2008) | | Human-AI Collaboration | Studying augmentation vs. replacement | Complementarity, Task allocation | Raisch & Krakowski (2021) | | Paradox Theory | Studying tensions from AI adoption | Control-autonomy, Transparency-efficiency | Smith & Lewis (2011) |

**Digital Transformation (broadly):** | Theory | Use When | Key Constructs | Seminal Reference | |--------|----------|---------------|-------------------| | Ambidexterity | Studying exploration/exploitation balance | Exploitation, Exploration, Structural/Contextual | O'Reilly & Tushman (2013) | | Resource-Based View | Studying AI as strategic resource | VRIN resources, Competitive advantage | Barney (1991) | | Organizational Learning | Studying how orgs learn from AI experiments | Single/double-loop learning | Argyris & Schön (1978) | | Structuration Theory | Studying technology-in-use patterns | Structure, Agency, Duality | Giddens (1984) / Orlikowski (2000) |

For the GenAI/Agents Paper Specifically

Most promising theoretical lenses: 1. **Socio-Technical Systems Theory** — GenAI/Agents change both the technical AND social system; implementation success depends on joint optimization 2. **Dynamic Capabilities** — Organizations need to sense AI opportunities, seize them through implementation strategies, and reconfigure processes 3. **Affordance Theory** — GenAI/Agents offer specific affordances (text generation, autonomous decision-making) that are actualized differently depending on organizational context 4. **Paradox Theory** — AI agents create inherent tensions (autonomy vs. control, efficiency vs. transparency, innovation vs. risk)

Step 2: Formulate the Gap

Gap Formula Templates

**Template A — Fragmented Knowledge:**

While prior research has examined [aspect 1] (Author, Year; Author, Year) and 
[aspect 2] (Author, Year; Author, Year) in isolation, an integrative understanding 
of [how these aspects interact / the full picture] is lacking. This is problematic 
because [specific consequence of the fragmentation for theory or practice].

**Template B — New Phenomenon, Existing Theory Untested:**

[Theory] has proven valuable for understanding [prior phenomenon] (Author, Year). 
However, the emergence of [new phenomenon, e.g., autonomous AI agents] introduces 
dynamics that [Theory] has not yet been applied to — specifically, [what's new: 
e.g., agent autonomy, non-deterministic outputs, emergent behavior]. Whether and 
how [Theory]'s core mechanisms operate in this new context remains an open question.

**Template C — Practice Outpacing Theory:**

Organizations are rapidly adopting [technology/practice], as evidenced by 
[practitioner evidence: industry reports, adoption statistics]. Yet academic 
research lags behind: existing studies [are mostly conceptual / focus on 
narrow aspects / rely on early-stage data]. There is an urgent need for 
[systematic empirical investigation / theoretically grounded guidance / 
comprehensive frameworks] to inform both scholarship and practice.

**Template D — Methodological Gap:**

The existing body of research on [topic] is dominated by [dominant method: 
surveys / case studies / conceptual papers]. This methodological concentration 
limits our understanding because [what it can't capture: longitudinal dynamics / 
cross-contextual comparison / causal mechanisms / implementation details]. 
A [different method] approach can complement existing knowledge by [what it adds].

For the GenAI/Agents Paper:

Likely combination of B + C:

While research on AI adoption in organizations has a rich tradition grounded in 
theories such as [TOE/U