Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jpart-theory-building
jpart-theory-building
GitHub专为JPART论文构建理论论证，将实证结果转化为公共管理理论贡献。通过明确概念、机制、可观察含义及边界条件，解决理论薄弱或无理论问题，确保研究具备理论推广价值。
Trigger Scenarios
实证结果扎实但理论意义不足
审稿人批评文章缺乏理论或仅为发现寻找理论
需要明确阐述公共行政关系的机制与边界条件
决定对现有理论进行扩展、检验、限定或推翻
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jpart-theory-building -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jpart-theory-building",
"description": "Use when building the theoretical argument of a Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART) manuscript into a public-management contribution. JPART's defining demand is theory — its abstract template asks for the theoretical approach first and the implications for theory last. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses."
}
Theory Building (jpart-theory-building)
At JPART a result is not a contribution until it is attached to public-management theory the field can use elsewhere. The journal's own abstract template asks authors to state the theoretical approach first and to end with implications for theory — that ordering is the whole brief. This skill turns findings into theory: explicit constructs, mechanisms, scope conditions, and observable implications.
When to trigger
- The empirics are strong but the "so what for theory" is thin
- A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "a finding in search of a theory"
- You need to state the mechanism and scope conditions of a PA relationship explicitly
- You are deciding whether you extend, test, bound, or overturn an existing PA theory
Build the argument
- Concept. Define the key constructs precisely and distinguish them from neighbors — e.g., red tape
vs. administrative burden, PSM vs. job satisfaction, passive vs. active representation. Measurement
follows the concept (see
jpart-research-design). - Mechanism. The causal story in public-management terms: which actors (street-level bureaucrats, managers, citizens, principals) do what, under which incentives, identities, motivations, or institutional constraints. A named mechanism is what makes the result portable.
- Observable implications. What we should see if the mechanism operates — and what we should not.
These become the tests in
jpart-research-designand the conditions in the analysis. - Scope conditions. Where the theory holds and where it does not (sector, level of government, task type, regime). Public-management theory rarely travels unconditionally; say where it breaks.
Theory contribution ledger
Before drafting, turn the theory section into a ledger. Each row must connect a public-administration construct to a mechanism, a rival account, and a testable implication. If a row cannot be filled, the paper is not ready to claim a JPART-level theory contribution.
| Ledger field | Strong entry | Weak entry |
|---|---|---|
| Construct | "Administrative burden as learning, compliance, and psychological costs" | "Bureaucracy" |
| Mechanism | "Managers reduce discretion because error costs are politically visible" | "It affects behavior" |
| Rival account | "Observed effect is agency selection, not frontline discretion" | "Other factors" |
| Observable implication | "Effects concentrate where rule ambiguity is high and audit threat is salient" | "There should be an effect" |
| Scope boundary | "Applies to rule-bound service delivery, not emergency response" | "Generalizes broadly" |
| Theory payoff | "Bounds red-tape theory by enforcement visibility" | "Has implications" |
Mechanism-to-evidence gate
Use the mechanism to decide what the empirical design must show. This prevents a theory section from
promising more than the design in jpart-research-design can support.
| Theory claim | Evidence needed before claiming it | Safer wording if evidence is weaker |
|---|---|---|
| X causes Y through mechanism M | Identification for X -> Y plus evidence that M moves in the predicted direction | "The pattern is consistent with M" |
| The effect differs across public-sector settings | Pre-specified heterogeneity, adequate power, and measurement invariance | "Exploratory heterogeneity suggests..." |
| A theory fails outside boundary B | Direct comparison across inside/outside-boundary cases | "Boundary B is a plausible limit" |
| A mechanism travels across countries or sectors | Comparable constructs and institutional translation | "The mechanism may travel where..." |
| Qualitative evidence revises theory | Case-selection logic, process observations, and rival-mechanism checks | "The case elaborates a possible revision" |
Rival-theory stress test
JPART reviewers often reject theory sections that merely attach a familiar theory label to a result. Write the strongest rival theory in the same vocabulary as your own claim.
- Name the rival: selection, common-method perception, political principal control, resource capacity, professional norms, citizen sorting, or a competing PA theory.
- State its prediction in the same units as your mechanism.
- Identify the one result, pattern, or qualitative observation that would distinguish the two.
- If the manuscript cannot distinguish them, downgrade the claim from "shows" to "is consistent with" and make the rival a future-test agenda rather than hiding it.
Theory moves JPART rewards
| Move | What it looks like | Example shape |
|---|---|---|
| Extend | add a condition or actor to an existing theory | PSM matters, but only under low red tape |
| Test | bring a credible design to a claim long asserted | does passive representation become active under threat? |
| Bound | show where a theory fails | performance information shifts citizens — except for co-partisans |
| Overturn | replace a mechanism with a better one | the "effect" is selection, not motivation |
The portability test (JPART-specific)
Ask: Could a public-management scholar studying a different function, level, or country import this
mechanism? If yes, you have a theory contribution. If it only works for your exact agency, tighten it
into a general public-management logic or reframe (back to jpart-topic-selection).
Abstract-to-conclusion alignment
Because JPART asks the abstract to lead with theoretical approach and end with implications for theory, the theory contract must be visible at both ends of the paper.
- Abstract opening: name the theory or construct, not only the setting or policy problem.
- Introduction: state the theory move and the rival account before previewing the estimate.
- Theory section: define constructs, mechanism, observable implications, and scope conditions in that order.
- Results section: label each test by the observable implication it adjudicates.
- Conclusion: return to what changes for public-administration theory, not only what managers should do.
Anti-patterns
- "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where possible
- Constructs named but never distinguished from their neighbors (red tape ≈ burden, PSM ≈ satisfaction)
- A mechanism asserted but never made observable
- Universal claims with no scope conditions across sectors/levels of government
- Burying the theoretical payoff under the empirics — the abstract must lead with the theory approach
Output format
【Core claim】one sentence (public-management theory)
【Construct(s)】defined + distinguished from neighbors
【Mechanism】the causal story (actors + incentives/identity/institutions)
【Observable implications】testable consequences → research-design
【Scope conditions】sector / level / task where it holds or fails
【Theory move】extend / test / bound / overturn
【Rival theory】strongest alternative + distinguishing evidence
【Evidence gate】claim strength supported / needs softer wording / redesign needed
【Abstract alignment】theoretical approach first + implications for theory last? [Y/N]
【Next】jpart-research-design
Supplementary resources
../../resources/exemplars/library.md— JPART theory papers (PSM, red tape, representation)../../resources/official-source-map.md— JPART abstract template (theory-first)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:55
