The grabber: making a first impression the Wilsonian way

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of what a good grabber is and how to construct one. This is done by drawing on the insights provided by Professor Timothy L. Wilson, for whom this paper is written as an “honorary piece.”Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a small sample of papers from the 48 journals that have received contributions from Professor Wilson throughout the years. A total of 12 papers have been selected, using a mix of convenience and haphazard sampling. The grabber of each paper has then been analyzed based on its nature and style.Findings – Based on the review and analysis, five different types of grabbers were identified; the quote, the anecdote, the provocative question, the surprise, and the metaphor, each type representing a unique way (and strategy) of creating initial interest.Research limitations/implications – As this paper was intentionally based on a convenience sample, further investigation is needed to establish whether the presented categories have clear validity and/or whether there are additional categories/strategies for how to create good grabbers.Originality/value – Creation of interest is an increasingly important part of everyday academic practice. As the grabber is a rarely addressed phenomenon in academic literature, the presented categories should be of both interest and practical use to academics in most fields.

[1]  Jörgen Sandberg,et al.  Generating Research Questions Through Problematization , 2011 .

[2]  John O. Summers Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process , 2001, How to Get Published in the Best Marketing Journals.

[3]  Alexander Styhre,et al.  Phronesis and Creativity: Knowledge Work in Video Game Development , 2006 .

[4]  Mattias Jacobsson,et al.  Breaking out of the straitjacket of project research: in search of contribution , 2011 .

[5]  J. Miner Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors” , 2003 .

[6]  Allen Clark,et al.  Journal editing: Managing the peer review process for timely publication of articles , 2000 .

[7]  M. Alvesson,et al.  Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? , 2011 .

[8]  Murray S. Davis,et al.  That's Interesting! , 1971 .

[9]  Mattias Jacobsson,et al.  Partnering hierarchy of needs , 2014 .

[10]  Adam M. Grant,et al.  Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook , 2011 .

[11]  D. Stewart Academic publishing in marketing: best and worst practices , 2008, How to Get Published in the Best Marketing Journals.

[12]  Timothy L. Wilson,et al.  Mini‐muddling: learning from project plan deviations , 2007 .

[13]  Tomas Blomquist,et al.  Project marketing in multi-project organizations: A comparison of IS/IT and engineering firms , 2007 .

[14]  A. Huff Writing for scholarly publication , 1998 .

[15]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success , 2003 .

[16]  T. Wilson,et al.  Real-timestrategy:Evolutionarygamedevelopment , 2006 .

[17]  Stephen F. King On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft , 2000 .

[18]  Karen Locke,et al.  Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies , 1997 .

[19]  Eric W. K. Tsang,et al.  The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas , 2006 .

[20]  T. Wilson,et al.  The Construction Company Through the Lens of Service Management: Inferences From Sweden , 2012 .

[21]  Mattias Jacobsson,et al.  Integrating service practice into project management: a matter of “do or die”? , 2013 .

[22]  Joyce E. Bono,et al.  Being Scheherazade: The Importance of Storytelling in Academic Writing , 2013 .

[23]  Anders Söderholm,et al.  A theory of the temporary organization , 1995 .

[24]  T. Wilson,et al.  Opportunities for learning from crises in projects , 2011 .

[25]  J. Pinto,et al.  Lessons for an accidental profession , 1995 .

[26]  Barbro I. Anell,et al.  The flexible firm and the flexible coworker , 2000 .

[27]  Gary E. Gorman Can we be assured of quality scholarship in a peer review-less environment? , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[28]  Huseyin Leblebici The Act of Reviewing and Being a Reviewer , 1996 .

[29]  M. Eisenhart The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting too Much or Allowing too Little? , 2002 .

[30]  Tomas Blomquist,et al.  On productivity in project organizations , 2009 .

[31]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline , 2004 .

[32]  Mattias Jacobsson,et al.  The role of transition in temporary organizations: linking the temporary to the permanent , 2013 .

[33]  Belle Rose Ragins,et al.  Editor's Comments: Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing , 2012 .