One of the biggest pitfalls in academic publishing is not necessarily the quality of our data, the robustness of our methods, or even the style of our writing. Rather, it is our ability to articulate how our research convincingly contributes to existing literature. Too often, papers fail to make it through peer review not because the ideas lack value, but because the contribution remains unclear. At the IFERA 2025 Doctoral Consortium, Professors James Combs, Peter Jaskiewicz, and Sabine Rau delivered an insightful session on one of the most acknowledged challenges for early-stage researchers: how to frame introductions and articulate contributions in academic work. The discussion in the session delivered hands-on advice and eye-opening explanations, offering participants concrete examples to strengthen their research narratives.
Why Introductions Are More Than A Preface
We tend to think of introductions as warm-ups: a gentle prelude before we get into the “real” work of literature reviews, methods, and findings. But in truth, the introduction carries disproportionate weight. For many reviewers, the decision is made just after reading the introduction. Put simply: you only get one chance to make a first impression.
That is why introductions are also the hardest to write. They need to be concise but comprehensive, specific but broad enough to join the ongoing conversation. Thus, the best advice here is to be iterative and not fail in the attempt: write, rewrite, and let your introduction guide the rest of the manuscript.
Prof. Combs shared a helpful template, guiding us to:
- Position the topic in an ongoing conversation, showing why it matters.
- Frame the problem—what we know, what we don’t know, and why it is important to fill that gap.
- Preview the study—what you do. How do your predictions give us the knowledge that is missing? How do you test them?
- Signal contributions—not in a laundry list, but in a clear, compelling statement.
And this brings us to the next crucial point: contributions. After all, an introduction is convincing if it leads the reader toward a clear understanding of what is genuinely new and important about the study.
What a Contribution Is—and What It Is Not
Simple but profound: a contribution is what you add that is both new and important.
This may sound obvious, but it’s worth unpacking. Many of the things we instinctively treat as contributions—studying a new sample, applying an old theory to a new context, or responding to a call for papers—are not contributions in and of themselves. They might provide novelty, but novelty alone does not equate to contribution.
Equally, restating implications (“our study offers new insights for managers”) or simply saying who should care (“we contribute to the literature on family business”) does not amount to a contribution. These are echoes of a contribution, not the song or lyrics of the contribution itself.
At its core, contribution lies in what the research adds to scholarly understanding: a new theoretical explanation, a surprising empirical finding, or a methodological innovation that changes how questions can be studied.
Four Ways of Contributing
Contributions in academic research are often grouped into three broad categories: theoretical, empirical, and methodological. Theoretical contributions extend or challenge existing frameworks, offering new explanations or highlighting blind spots. Empirical contributions clarify, refine, or disrupt what we think we know by revealing unexpected patterns, testing assumptions, or demonstrating limits to generalizability. Methodological contributions, meanwhile, open new avenues for inquiry through innovative designs, novel measures, or creative data sources.
While these three categories provide a useful starting point, they can still feel abstract. What does it actually mean, in practice, to make one of these contributions? Scholars have identified four different ways of contributing, which are developed below:
- Presenting something new. This group centres on introducing new ideas or tools that enrich how we understand phenomena, such as proposing fresh theorising, introducing new constructs, developing typologies, mapping processes, or advancing methodological innovations.
- Wrestling with multiple theories. Many contributions emerge from putting theories into conversation with one another, such as integrating perspectives, testing competing explanations, or resolving paradoxes.
- Modifying existing theory: Sometimes, the contribution lies not in creating new constructs but in sharpening existing ones, by adding new antecedents, moderators, or mediators, or by redefining constructs in sharper terms.
- Using theory to explain phenomena more effectively. Contributions can come from applying theory in creative ways to improve explanation, whether through testing established ideas, applying theory in new contexts, modelling known outcomes in innovative ways, or extending explanations across levels of analysis.
This taxonomy is powerful because it shifts contributions from vague claims (“our study adds to the literature…”) to concrete statements of value. It also provides a self-check for researchers: Which type of contribution am I actually making? Am I adding a construct, integrating theories, explaining a paradox, or perhaps modelling a process across levels? Naming the contribution not only structures our own thinking but also makes it easier for reviewers to recognise what we are trying to accomplish.
In short, contributions come in many shapes and sizes, but they all require two things: rigour to ensure credibility, and courage to claim what is new and important.
Moving Forward: Practical Lessons
So where do we go from here? The big ideas about contributions are valuable, but they matter the most when translated into practice. Here are five guiding principles to carry into your own writing and research:
- Start with clarity: If you cannot explain your contribution in a single sentence, you may not have nailed it yet.
- Think in categories: Ask yourself whether your work makes a theoretical, empirical, or methodological contribution—and which of the concrete examples it most closely reflects.
- Avoid false contributions: Novelty, context, or managerial implications are not enough on their own. Make sure what you claim is truly adding to scholarly understanding.
- Tell a coherent story: Frame the tension, reveal the puzzle you address, and guide the reader step by step toward the resolution your study provides.
- Keep it simple: Strip away the fluff. What remains should be both new and important.
Academic research advances through contributions both big and small. Each paper is a brick in the wall of collective knowledge. Our task as researchers is not just to make bricks, but to show why they matter, how they fit, and what new structure they make possible.
For further reflection
If you wish to delve deeper into theory building and academic contributions, the following readings offer valuable perspectives:
Jaskiewicz, P., Neubaum, D. O., De Massis, A., & Holt, D. T. (2020). The adulthood of family business research through inbound and outbound theorizing. Family Business Review, 33(1), 10-17.
Neubaum, D. O., & Micelotta, E. (2021). WANTED—Theoretical Contributions: An Editorial on the Pitfalls and Pathways in Family Business Research. Family Business Review, 34(3), 242-250.
Reay, T. & Whetten, D. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical contribution in family business? Family Business Review, 24(2): 105-110.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 371- 384.
