Use when defending the research design of an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, case selection and process tracing for qualitative work, experimental and survey-experimental design, or formal-empirical linkage. APSR judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
Scanned 6/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill apsr-research-design --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Apsr Research Design?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-apsr-research-design)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: apsr-research-design
description: Use when defending the research design of an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, case selection and process tracing for qualitative work, experimental and survey-experimental design, or formal-empirical linkage. APSR judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
---
# Research Design (apsr-research-design)
APSR accepts many methodologies but is demanding about each. The design must credibly connect the
argument (`apsr-theory-building`) to evidence. This skill is mode-aware: pick the section that matches
your work and defend it against the strongest alternative explanation.
## When to trigger
- Specifying identification, case selection, or experimental design
- A reviewer questioned causal claims, case choice, external validity, or a confound
- Preparing a **pre-analysis plan** or a **Registered Report** Stage 1 design
- Justifying why your design adjudicates the rival account from `apsr-literature-positioning`
## Quantitative / causal inference
- **Identification first.** State the estimand and the assumptions that license a causal reading
(ignorability, parallel trends, exclusion, continuity). Defend them, don't assert them.
- **Designs**: experiments (incl. survey/conjoint), DID/event study (use modern staggered-adoption
estimators, not naive TWFE), IV (first-stage strength, exclusion, weak-IV-robust inference), RDD
(density/manipulation tests, bandwidth robustness), matching/weighting with balance + sensitivity.
- **Inference**: cluster at the level of treatment assignment; randomization inference for
experiments; multiple-comparison adjustment when testing many implications.
- **Sensitivity**: how strong must an unobserved confounder be to overturn the result?
## Qualitative / case-based
- **Case selection** justified by design logic (typical, deviant, most/least-likely, paired
comparison) — not convenience. Say what the case is a case *of*.
- **Process tracing** with explicit tests (hoop, smoking-gun, straw-in-the-wind); state what evidence
would have **disconfirmed** the argument.
- **Source transparency**: archives, interviews, fieldnotes — plan how they will be documented and
cited (see `apsr-transparency-and-data-policy`).
## Experiments (lab / survey / field)
- Preregister the design and primary analyses; report power/MDE; pre-specify subgroups.
- Address attention/manipulation checks, attrition, and ethics/IRB and consent.
- For survey experiments: sampling frame, treatment realism, and generalization claims.
## Formal-empirical linkage
- Make the **empirical test follow from the model's comparative statics**, not a loose analogy.
- Distinguish predictions that are unique to your model from those shared with rivals.
## The adjudication test (APSR-specific)
For the **single strongest rival explanation**, write one sentence: *"If the rival were true rather
than my argument, the data would look like ___; instead they look like ___."* If you cannot, the
design does not yet identify the contribution.
## Anti-patterns
- Naive TWFE on staggered treatment; clustering at the wrong level
- "Causal" language on a design that only supports association
- Convenience case selection dressed up as theory-driven
- Conjoint/survey experiments over-generalized to real-world behavior with no caveat
- A design that cannot distinguish your argument from the leading alternative
## Output format
```
【Mode】quant-causal / qualitative / experiment / formal-empirical
【Estimand or claim】what is being identified/shown
【Key assumption(s)】and how each is defended
【Rival ruled out】the adjudication sentence
【Robustness/sensitivity】planned checks
【Next】apsr-data-analysis
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — design/identification packages (R/Stata/Python) and CAQDAS for qualitative work
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — preregistration and Registered Reports notes
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!