AI-Augmented Research Toolkit

Complete Prompt Library & Context Guide for Management Scholars
Authour: Aditya V Jain | adityavj.com

The "Sandwich" Strategy

Academic rigor requires using the right tool for the right stage. Do not confuse them.

1. Discover (Gemini) Use Deep Research to map the landscape, find citations, and identify keywords using the live web.
2. Analyze (NotebookLM) Upload specific PDFs (Source-Grounded) to deconstruct theory and verify claims without hallucinations.
3. Synthesize (You) Use the AI outputs to construct your own theoretical contribution. AI makes the bricks; you build the wall.

Phase 1: Discovery (Gemini Advanced)

Use these prompts to scour the live web and build your reading list.

01. The Landscape Mapper Gemini
🎯 When to use: Week 1 of a new seminar paper or exploring a potential dissertation topic.
🧠 Why it works: Prevents "rabbit holes" by giving you a high-level aerial view before you dive into specific papers. Helps you distinguish "Settled Science" from "Active Debates." 
Map the academic literature on [topic]. I want to understand:
- Foundational theoretical frameworks
- Key empirical findings and "settled science"
- Major debates and contradictions
- Research gaps identified by scholars in the last 5 years
- Most influential papers to read (provide citations)

Focus specifically on peer-reviewed journals in [discipline, e.g., Strategic Management, OB, IS].
02. The Macro Gap Hunter Gemini
🎯 When to use: Brainstorming Dissertation ideas or Proposal writing.
🧠 Why it works: Moves you from passive reading to active problem seeking. It categorizes gaps so you can choose a path (e.g., "I want to apply a new method" vs "I want to study a new context"). 
What research gaps have scholars recently identified in the [topic] literature? Cite specific papers that call for future research. Organize by:
1. **Theoretical Gaps:** Mechanisms or boundary conditions that remain unexplained.
2. **Methodological Gaps:** Designs that haven't been applied (e.g., need for longitudinal, experimental).
3. **Contextual Gaps:** Settings, populations, or industries that are understudied.
03. Methodological Landscape Gemini
🎯 When to use: Designing your own study (Methodology Chapter).
🧠 Why it works: You need to know the "standard" methods to either follow them (for legitimacy) or break them (for novelty). 
What research methods have been dominant in studying [topic]? 
- Split between Quantitative vs. Qualitative.
- Common experimental designs or survey instruments.
- Archival data sources frequently used.
- Note the strengths and limitations scholars have noted about these standard approaches.

Phase 2a: Textbooks & Theory (NotebookLM)

Use these for deep analysis of Textbooks or Seminal Articles. Tip: Upload 1 chapter + 1 seminal paper.

04. The "Whetten's Criteria" Audit Theory
🎯 When to use: Core Theory Seminars and understanding "what makes a theory."
🧠 Why it works: Based on David Whetten’s (1989) classic AMR article. It forces the AI to strip away the narrative "fluff" and reveal the logical skeleton (What/How/Why). 
Analyze the theoretical framework in this source using David Whetten’s (1989) criteria. Specifically extract:
1. **WHAT** are the key constructs and variables?
2. **HOW** are they related (proposed causality/patterns)?
3. **WHY** are they related (the underlying psychological, economic, or social mechanisms)?
4. **WHO/WHERE/WHEN** (Boundary Conditions): Under what specific contexts does the author claim this theory applies?
05. The Paradigm Excavator Philosophy
🎯 When to use: Philosophy of Science courses or when critiquing a paper's assumptions.
🧠 Why it works: Many authors hide their epistemological stance. This prompt reveals whether they view reality as objective (Positivism) or socially constructed (Interpretivism). 
Critique the philosophical assumptions in this chapter. Does the author approach [Topic] from a **positivist** (objective reality, measurable laws) or **interpretivist** (socially constructed meaning) perspective? Quote specific sentences that reveal their stance on how knowledge is created.
06. Construct & Operationalization Map Measurement
🎯 When to use: Finding scales for a Survey or defining codes for Qualitative work.
💡 Pro-Tip: Use this to write your "Measures" section. Prevents "Construct Proliferation" by linking to established definitions. 
For the construct "[X]" across these sources:
1. **DEFINITIONS:** List the formal conceptual definitions provided. Note semantic differences.
2. **DIMENSIONALITY:** Is it unidimensional or multidimensional? What sub-dimensions appear?
3. **MEASUREMENT:** How has it been operationalized? List specific survey items, proxies, or qualitative indicators.
4. **ADJACENT CONSTRUCTS:** What is it confused with? How do authors distinguish it?
07. The "Reviewer 2" Simulator Critique
🎯 When to use: Before submitting a paper or preparing for a Defense.
🧠 Why it works: Simulates a hostile peer reviewer. It forces you to anticipate alternative explanations (Rival Hypotheses) before a human critic points them out. 
The text argues that [Variable A] leads to [Outcome B]. Act as a critical peer reviewer ("Reviewer 2"). 
1. Use a contrasting theoretical lens (e.g., if the text uses Agency Theory, use Stewardship Theory) to propose a **Rival Hypothesis** that argues the opposite.
2. What specific empirical evidence would differentiate between these two explanations?

Phase 2b: Paper Collections (NotebookLM)

Use these for Literature Reviews. Tip: Rename files to `Year - Author - Title.pdf` before uploading.

08. The TCCM Framework (SLR) Synthesis
🎯 When to use: Writing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) paper.
🧠 Why it works: Paul & Rosado-Serrano's TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methods) is the standard framework for organizing review papers in top business journals. 
Analyze the uploaded papers using the TCCM Framework. Summarize the collection into:
1. **Theories:** What are the dominant theoretical lenses used?
2. **Contexts:** Which industries, countries, or cultural contexts are over-studied vs. under-studied?
3. **Characteristics:** What are the independent, dependent, and moderating variables most frequently studied?
4. **Methods:** What is the split between Qual/Quant? Which specific analytical techniques are dominant?
09. The Nomological Network Builder Modeling
🎯 When to use: Building the conceptual framework (Figure 1) for your dissertation.
🧠 Why it works: Moves you from reading to "drawing boxes and arrows." It helps you visualize how your variable of interest fits into the broader web of established relationships. 
I am trying to build the Nomological Network for [Construct X]. Based on the consensus in these papers:
1. **Antecedents:** What variables consistently predict or cause X?
2. **Consequences:** What outcomes does X lead to?
3. **Mechanisms:** What mediators explain *why* X leads to these outcomes?
4. **Boundary Conditions:** What moderators strengthen or weaken these relationships?
10. The Level of Analysis Auditor Rigor Check
🎯 When to use: Checking for Ecological Fallacies in your lit review.
💡 Pro-Tip: Management research is often multi-level (Individual, Team, Firm). Mixing them up (e.g., using CEO personality to predict Firm Stock Price without aggregation) is a fatal flaw. 
Classify each paper by its **Level of Analysis** (Individual, Team, Firm, or Industry).
* Are there theoretical inconsistencies? (e.g., using individual-level theory to explain firm-level outcomes).
* Identify if any 'Multi-level' (HLM) studies exist in this collection. If not, mark this as a potential methodological gap.
11. The Endogeneity Police Quant Rigor
🎯 When to use: Critiquing quantitative empirical papers.
🧠 Why it works: Correlation is not causation. This prompt identifies which papers actually addressed causality (IVs, Experiments) vs those that just claim it. 
Scan the methodology sections of the empirical papers.
1. Which papers explicitly address **endogeneity** or **reverse causality**?
2. What techniques did they use (e.g., Instrumental Variables, Lagged Models, Experiments)?
3. Which papers make strong causal claims based only on cross-sectional data? Flag these as 'weak evidence'.
12. The Inconsistency Spotter Gap Finding
🎯 When to use: Finding a "Moderator" hypothesis (the easiest path to publication).
🧠 Why it works: When Paper A says "Good" and Paper B says "Bad," that isn't a mistake—it's a thesis. The reason *why* they differ (context, time, measure) is your contribution. 
Identify contradictions in this literature:
1. Where do studies reach opposite conclusions about the same relationship (e.g., Paper A says positive, Paper B says negative)?
2. Hypothesize *why* based on the text (Different measures? Different industry context? Time periods?).
3. This 'reason' is my potential **Moderator**. Create a table of these conflicting papers.

Phase 3: Output & Audio (Writing & Learning)

Turn synthesis into writing and listening.

13. The Contribution Articulator Writing
🎯 When to use: Writing the "Introduction" or "Discussion" of your paper.
🧠 Why it works: Helps you answer the "So What?" question by clearly positioning your work against the "Settled Science." 
Based on these sources representing current knowledge on [topic]:
1. **WHAT'S ESTABLISHED:** What do researchers agree on? (The 'settled science')
2. **WHAT'S CONTESTED:** Where is there active disagreement?
3. **WHAT'S MISSING:** What questions remain unanswered?
4. **MY ENTRY POINT:** Suggest 3 specific contribution opportunities that would be valuable to add to this conversation.
14. Audio: The "Debate Club" Audio
🎯 When to use: Commuting or Gym listening. Understanding the tensions in a field.
💡 Pro-Tip: Standard summaries are boring. Click "Audio Overview" -> "Customize" and paste this to make the hosts argue. It reveals the nuance. 
Don't just summarize. Act as two scholars debating the findings. Host 1 should support the dominant theory, while Host 2 should be skeptical and point out methodological flaws or alternative explanations. Focus heavily on where these papers disagree.