Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› aos-methods
aos-methods
GitHub专为AOS期刊设计的研究方法指南，涵盖定性田野、实验、调查及历史研究。提供案例逻辑、数据三角验证、伦理匿名及理论-数据对齐等严谨规范，确保研究设计支持因果或解释性主张。
Trigger Scenarios
为既定问题选择定性、实验、调查或历史研究设计
协商田野准入、案例选择或访谈观察协议
设计行为实验的操纵与参与者池
处理伦理审批、知情同意或站点匿名承诺
审稿人质疑设计无法支持论文的解释性或因果主张
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aos-methods -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "aos-methods",
"description": "Use when designing the study for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — qualitative field studies (access, case logic, interviews, observation), behavioral experiments, surveys, historical\/archival inquiry, or theory-laden archival designs, each with the ethics and site-anonymity groundwork done early. Designs the inquiry; it does not run the coding or estimation (aos-data-analysis)."
}
Research Design & Methods (aos-methods)
When to trigger
- Choosing between field study, experiment, survey, or historical design for a settled question
- Negotiating field access, case selection, or interview/observation protocols
- Designing manipulations and participant pools for a behavioral experiment
- Ethics approval, informed consent, or site-anonymity commitments are still open
- A reviewer says the design cannot support the paper's interpretive or causal claims
Methodological pluralism, single standard
AOS accepts any method suited to studying accounting's social operation, and holds each to the rigor bar of its own tradition. The design must let the theoretical lens meet the empirical material on fair terms — enough depth for interpretation, enough control for causal process claims, enough sources for historical reconstruction.
Qualitative field study (the modal AOS design)
- Case logic. Justify the site theoretically: extreme, revelatory, or transparently typical for the phenomenon. "We had access" is a fact, not a rationale — convert access into an argument about what this site lets you see.
- Data plan. Triangulate interviews, observation, and internal documents; log counts, roles, durations, and periods as you go (reviewers will ask for a data-inventory table). Plan for prolonged or repeated engagement — one-shot interview rounds read as thin at AOS.
- Theory–data discipline. Follow the methodology the journal itself canonized: Ahrens & Chapman (2006) — the field problem, the theory, and the data must be positioned against each other continuously, not assembled at the end.
- Reflexivity and access terms. Record your own role at the site, what informants were promised (anonymity, review of quotes), and any sponsorship that could shape what you were shown.
Behavioral experiment
- Theorize the process first (see
aos-theory-development); the manipulation must move the theorized construct and nothing else that plausibly moves the outcome. - Choose the pool the inference needs — professional participants (auditors, managers, analysts) when expertise is the point; online panels only where the process is expertise-independent, with justification.
- Build in manipulation checks, attention screens, randomization, and a planned process measure (mediator) — AOS behavioral papers live or die on process evidence.
- Pre-specify exclusion rules and, where feasible, pre-register.
Survey and historical designs
- Survey: validated or carefully developed instruments; a defined frame and response-rate accounting; common-method-bias mitigation by design (separation, sources) before statistics.
- Historical/genealogical: name the archives, their custodians, and coverage gaps; treat documents as traces produced for purposes — source criticism is the identification strategy of historical work.
Ethics and anonymity (settle before collection)
- Human-participant work (interviews, experiments, surveys) needs institutional IRB/REB approval and documented informed consent; organize this before entering the field or the lab, and keep the paperwork — editors can ask.
- Field sites usually require pseudonyms and disguised identifying details; agree the terms with the organization in writing, and check that disguise does not destroy the theoretically relevant detail.
- Declare in the manuscript how consent and anonymity were handled; AOS review is double-anonymized, so scrub author-identifying access stories from the submitted files.
Checklist
- Design chosen because the question needs it; the inference each claim requires is stated
- (Field) case logic argued; data inventory planned; engagement duration adequate; reflexivity noted
- (Experiment) manipulation isolates the construct; pool justified; process measure and checks designed
- (Survey) instrument validity and method-bias mitigation designed in
- (Historical) archives named; source criticism planned
- IRB/REB approval and consent documented; site-anonymity terms agreed in writing
Anti-patterns
- Convenience ethnography: a handful of interviews at an accessible firm presented as a field study.
- Confounded manipulations that move attention or effort along with the theorized construct.
- Anonymity that erases the evidence — disguising the site so heavily the practices become uninterpretable.
- Ethics as afterthought: collecting first, seeking approval later.
- Method mimicry: dressing an interpretive study in hypothesis-testing scaffolding to look "rigorous."
Output format
【Design】qualitative-field / experiment / survey / historical / archival+theory
【Case or pool logic】why this site / these participants / these archives ...
【Data plan】sources, counts, periods, triangulation ...
【Process controls (if experimental)】manipulation, checks, mediator ...
【Ethics & anonymity】IRB/REB status, consent, site terms ...
【Next step】aos-data-analysis
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:23
