Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› soctheory-boundary-conditions
soctheory-boundary-conditions
GitHub用于界定社会学理论稿件的适用范围、领域及限制，明确理论主张与不主张的内容。通过实质、层级和语境三个维度划定边界，将限制转化为理论贡献而非免责声明，防止过度概括并提升理论的精确性。
Trigger Scenarios
理论已构建但缺乏明确的适用边界
需回应审稿人关于理论过度泛化的质疑
需要明确排除特定案例或情境
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill soctheory-boundary-conditions -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "soctheory-boundary-conditions",
"description": "Use when specifying the scope, domain, and limits of a Sociological Theory (ST) manuscript's theory — stating where it holds, where it does not, and what it does NOT claim. Bounds the theory as a contribution; it does NOT build the concepts (soctheory-theory-construction) or audit the reasoning (soctheory-argument-development)."
}
Boundary Conditions: Scope, Domain, What It Does NOT Claim (soctheory-boundary-conditions)
When to trigger
- The theory is built and the argument is valid, but its limits are unstated
- A reviewer would say "this claims to explain everything, so it explains nothing"
- You cannot name a case the theory deliberately excludes
- A counter-case from
soctheory-argument-developmentneeds to be converted into a boundary
Boundary conditions are a contribution at ST, not a disclaimer. A bounded theory is a sharper theory: stating the domain is itself a theoretical claim about how the social world is segmented. An unbounded theory reads as over-reach and invites rejection.
The three dimensions of scope
Specify the domain along each axis explicitly:
- Substantive scope. Which social phenomena does the theory govern (e.g., trust in markets, not trust in intimate relations)? Name the included and excluded substantive domains.
- Level scope. At which level(s) of analysis does it operate (interactional, organizational, field, societal)? If it claims a micro-macro bridge, state where the bridge load-bears and where it does not.
- Contextual / historical scope. Under what social conditions does the mechanism run — particular institutional settings, historical periods, cultural configurations? A mechanism that assumes modern bureaucratic states should say so.
Turning limits into theory
| Move | Weak form (disclaimer) | Strong form (theorized boundary) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | "This is limited to organizations" | "The mechanism requires formalized roles, so it operates in organizations but not in diffuse networks — because…" |
| Level | "We focus on the micro level" | "Aggregation to the macro fails when interaction is non-additive; the theory therefore bounds itself at the meso transition" |
| History | "Our examples are Western" | "The mechanism presupposes a differentiated cultural field, present after X but not before — so the theory is historically indexed" |
The strong form names why the boundary falls where it does — the same mechanism that powers the theory also explains its limit.
What the theory does NOT claim
State the non-claims explicitly. This pre-empts the most common reviewer move ("you're implying…") and protects the contribution:
- It does not claim to explain phenomena outside the substantive domain.
- It does not claim the mechanism is the only one operating, only that it is operative and consequential.
- It does not claim empirical confirmation (ST does not test) — only theoretical adequacy.
- It does not claim to subsume the rival theories it engages, unless argued for in
soctheory-argument-development.
Scope conditions and the propositions
Each proposition should inherit the scope: if P3 only holds under condition C, say so where P3
is stated, not in a buried caveat. Tie the boundary back to the conceptual figure
(soctheory-conceptual-exhibits) so the diagram does not silently over-claim.
Checklist
- Substantive, level, and contextual/historical scope are each stated
- Each boundary is theorized (the mechanism explains why the limit falls there), not just asserted
- Counter-cases from argument development are converted into named boundary conditions
- The explicit "does NOT claim" list is present
- Scope-bearing propositions carry their condition where stated
- The boundary is consistent with the theory's assumptions and figure
Anti-patterns
- Boundary conditions written as apologies ("limited to…", "we cannot generalize…")
- A theory that claims to hold everywhere, so its content is empty
- A "limitations" paragraph copied from an empirical template (sample size, generalizability of data)
- Burying scope conditions far from the propositions they govern
- A conceptual figure that quietly extends past the stated domain
- Conceding so much scope that the contribution evaporates
Output format
【Substantive scope】holds for [...] ; excludes [...]
【Level scope】operates at [...] ; bridge load-bears where [...]
【Contextual/historical scope】requires conditions [...]
【Why the boundary falls here】[mechanism-based reason, per axis]
【Does NOT claim】[explicit non-claims]
【Next step】soctheory-conceptual-exhibits
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:27
