From new-media-and-society-skills
Positions a New Media & Society manuscript by mapping interdisciplinary conversations, naming gaps as disagreements, and claiming the seam between literatures.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/new-media-and-society-skills:newms-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
NM&S is interdisciplinary, so positioning is harder than at a single-field journal: a paper on
NM&S is interdisciplinary, so positioning is harder than at a single-field journal: a paper on algorithmic management must speak to both the platform-labor literature and the surveillance/datafication literature, and show how they connect. The goal is to place the contribution in a live debate that crosses fields, then state precisely what it changes.
| Pattern | Move | Risk it avoids |
|---|---|---|
| Bridge two literatures | name both, show the seam | "siloed in one subfield" |
| Re-specify a travelling concept | give "affordance"/"datafication" a sharper definition | concept used loosely |
| Challenge a dominant framing | name the orthodoxy, then complicate it | "merely confirms what we know" |
| Extend a Global-North claim to a new context | test scope conditions, not just replicate | "Western-centric" |
Two literatures: (a) platform-labor (control via ratings/algorithms); (b) surveillance studies
(dataveillance, sorting).
Gap as disagreement: platform-labor work treats the algorithm as a managerial tool; surveillance work
treats data as sorting — neither explains how workers *internalize* opaque ranking as self-discipline.
Rival displaced: the "resistance" reading (workers game the system) — we show pre-emptive compliance.
Seam claimed: "datafied control" links managerial design to surveillant subjectivity — the contribution.
【Conversations】the 2-4 literatures this paper sits between
【Gap as disagreement】the live tension, stated as a claim
【Rival account】who would predict otherwise, and why
【Seam / contribution】what the braid reveals that neither field saw alone
【Next】newms-theory-building
../../resources/exemplars/library.md — how exemplars braid literatures../../resources/official-source-map.md — NM&S interdisciplinary scopenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin new-media-and-society-skillsGuides building conceptual arguments for New Media & Society manuscripts, turning platform findings into portable concepts or mechanisms drawing on media and social theory. Does not collect data.
Positions Organization Science manuscripts by joining conversations, problematizing assumptions, and integrating across disciplines (org theory, strategy, sociology, economics, psychology).
Positions a Journal of Communication manuscript against the literature to read as a field-wide contribution. Engages cross-subfield debates and avoids narrow platform focus.