From orgsci-skills
Guides selection and defense of research designs for Organization Science manuscripts, matching qualitative, quantitative, experimental, or simulation methods to the research question and level of analysis. Addresses reviewer demands for causal inference.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/orgsci-skills:orgsci-methodsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You are choosing a method, or a reviewer says the method does not fit the question
Organization Science is methodologically eclectic: it publishes qualitative and inductive fieldwork, quantitative and archival studies, experiments, computational/simulation models, and formal-analytical theory, and it does not privilege one. The design must fit the theoretical contribution and the level of analysis, not signal methodological fashion.
| Theoretical goal / data structure | Design that fits |
|---|---|
| Build a new process or construct from the field | Inductive qualitative (grounded theory, ethnography, comparative cases) |
| Test a cross-level mechanism in nested data | Multilevel / HLM with explicit composition or contextual logic |
| Trace organizational founding/failure over time | Event-history / survival; panel |
| Isolate a behavioral mechanism | Lab or field experiment, vignette/conjoint |
| Explore adaptation, learning, search dynamics | Agent-based / NK simulation or formal model |
| Characterize an interfirm or intra-org structure | Network analysis (ERGM, centrality, brokerage) |
A defining stance: causal inference is valued but "not necessary and often impossible" at this venue. Do not abandon a strong organizational question because clean identification is unavailable. Instead, support inference with research design, theoretical logic, institutional/field knowledge, and mechanism evidence — triangulation, process tracing, placebo and falsification logic, and ruling out alternative explanations. This distinguishes Organization Science from identification-first, economics-leaning venues: a transparent design with a credible mechanism beats a thin paper with a clever instrument.
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock a level map, a mechanism paragraph, and the cover-letter contribution statement; then test whether the manuscript addresses interdisciplinary organization reviewers who ask whether the mechanism travels across levels of analysis.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.【Design】qualitative-inductive / multilevel / panel-EH / experiment / simulation / formal
【Level fit】matches the theoretical claim's level? cross-level logic stated?
【Inference strategy】design + logic + institutional knowledge + mechanism (not identification-only)
【Transparency/trustworthiness plan】sampling, coding, assumptions, audit trail
【Next step】orgsci-data-analysis
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin orgsci-skillsGuides users in selecting and justifying research design for Organization Studies manuscripts, covering qualitative/ethnographic/process/historical/quantitative methods with rigor standards required by OS reviewers.
Matches research design to MIS Quarterly manuscript tradition: behavioral, economics-of-IS, design science, or qualitative. Plans evaluation strategies and guards against validity threats.
Guides selection and justification of qualitative or quantitative research designs for ASQ manuscripts, emphasizing rigor, trustworthiness, and fit to theoretical questions.