Use when research design, identification, or measurement is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — choosing and defending a method (patent/bibliometric, causal policy evaluation, survey, case study, or mixed) appropriate to an innovation-studies claim. Sets the design; it does not execute the estimation/coding (respol-data-analysis).
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill respol-methods --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Respol Methods?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-respol-methods)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: respol-methods
description: Use when research design, identification, or measurement is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — choosing and defending a method (patent/bibliometric, causal policy evaluation, survey, case study, or mixed) appropriate to an innovation-studies claim. Sets the design; it does not execute the estimation/coding (respol-data-analysis).
---
# Methods (respol-methods)
## When to trigger
- The design is a default (OLS + controls, or a single case) and a referee questions whether it can support the claim
- A patent or bibliometric indicator is used as if it transparently measures "innovation" or "knowledge"
- A policy-evaluation paper rests on before/after comparison without an identification strategy
- A survey reports correlations vulnerable to common-method bias or selection
- A mixed-methods paper is really two studies stapled together with no integration logic
## The Research Policy methods bar: pluralism with construct discipline
RP privileges **no single technique** — econometrics, bibliometrics/patent analysis, surveys, case studies, and mixed methods are all first-class — but it demands that the method *fit the innovation-studies claim* and that **constructs be defended**. The recurring RP failure is not weak statistics; it is treating an indicator (patents, citations, R&D spend) as if it were the latent thing (invention, knowledge flow, innovation effort). State what each measure does and does not capture, and design around its known biases.
## Design paths by method
### Patent / bibliometric quantitative
- **Construct validity first.** Patents measure *patentable invention propensity*, not innovation; citations measure *traceable knowledge linkage*, not knowledge value. Justify the indicator for your claim and acknowledge truncation, sectoral propensity, and home/strategic bias.
- **Citation hygiene.** Distinguish examiner- vs. applicant-added citations; correct self-citations; handle citation truncation (fixed windows or quasi-structural correction).
- **Endogeneity.** Patent/co-patent measures of spillovers are endogenous to firm location and choices — defend with design (instruments, natural experiments) or bound the bias, don't assume exogeneity.
- **Family/coverage.** State the patent office(s), family definition (DOCDB/INPADOC), and the matching of patents to firms/regions.
### Causal policy evaluation (R&D subsidies, missions, IP reform)
- Move beyond naive before/after: DID with a credible control (and, for staggered policy rollout, Callaway-Sant'Anna / Sun-Abraham / de Chaisemartin-D'Haultfœuille rather than plain TWFE); IV with a defended exclusion restriction; RDD at an eligibility threshold with density and covariate-smoothness checks.
- Tie the estimand to the **innovation mechanism** (additionality vs. crowding-out, direction vs. rate of innovation), and argue policy-invariance for any counterfactual.
### Survey (firm innovation behavior, CIS-style)
- Report sampling frame, response rate, and non-response/selection checks; address common-method bias by design (separated sources, marker variables, Harman is necessary not sufficient).
- Establish measurement validity (construct definitions, reliability, discriminant validity) before structural claims; state the population the estimates generalize to.
### Case study / qualitative
- Justify case selection on theoretical grounds (typical, extreme, polar); specify data sources and triangulation; pursue analytic (not statistical) generalization; show how rich data became constructs.
### Mixed methods
- State the **integration logic**: does the qualitative work generate the mechanism the quantitative work tests, or do the strands triangulate a construct? RP rejects "two papers in one" with no sequencing rationale.
## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map:
[`execution-with-mcp`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). Research Policy is innovation studies — patent/firm panels with selection; foreground identification and the selection objection.
- `detect_design` → `recommend` → fit with `as_handle=true` → `audit_result`.
- **Observational causal claims:** staggered DiD (`callaway_santanna` / `sun_abraham` +
`bacon_decomposition` + `honest_did_from_result`); IV (`effective_f_test` +
`anderson_rubin_ci`); RDD (`rdrobust` + `mccrary_test`).
- **Experiments:** randomization-based inference + `romano_wolf` for many-outcome control.
- **Sensitivity:** `oster_delta` / `sensemakr` for observational claims.
Report the magnitude in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix. A
run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the [JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md).
## Checklist
- [ ] The method is chosen to fit the innovation-studies claim, not by convenience or fashion
- [ ] Each patent/bibliometric indicator's construct meaning and known biases are stated
- [ ] Citation measures handle examiner/applicant, self-citation, and truncation
- [ ] Causal designs use a credible counterfactual and modern staggered-treatment estimators where TWFE would bias
- [ ] Surveys report response/selection and address common-method bias by design
- [ ] Qualitative work defends case selection and generalization type
- [ ] Mixed methods state an explicit integration logic
## Anti-patterns
- "Patents = innovation" with no construct caveat
- Spillover claims from co-location/citations treated as exogenous
- Plain TWFE on a staggered policy rollout with no heterogeneity discussion
- Survey structural models with unaddressed common-method bias
- A single case framed as if it gave statistical generalization
- Mixed methods with no sequencing or integration rationale
## Output format
```text
【Journal】Research Policy
【Skill】respol-methods
【Method】patent-bibliometric / causal-policy-eval / survey / case / mixed
【Construct defense】what the measure captures and its biases
【Identification / validity】counterfactual / first-stage / selection / triangulation
【Innovation-mechanism link】how the design speaks to the mechanism
【What it does NOT support】...
【Verdict】pass / revise / reroute
【Next skill】respol-data-analysis
```
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!