humrel-contribution-framing
GitHub针对已获结果的人类关系（HR）手稿，协助提炼实质性理论贡献。通过识别贡献类型、撰写核心段落及优化讨论部分，将发现转化为对组织社会现象的理论重构或机制揭示，避免沦为单纯的结果报告或管理建议，以符合HR期刊要求。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill humrel-contribution-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "humrel-contribution-framing",
"description": "Use when sharpening the theoretical contribution and the \"so what\" for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript once results exist. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the underlying theory or run analysis."
}
Contribution Framing (humrel-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- Results exist but you cannot state the contribution in one crisp sentence
- The intro/discussion reads as "we found X" rather than "we change how the field understands work"
- A reviewer says "interesting findings, but what is the theoretical contribution?"
- The paper risks reading as a vivid case, a method demonstration, or a managerial how-to
The HR deliverable: a substantive theoretical contribution
HR's explicit gate is "a unique and substantive theoretical contribution" to understanding work and organizations as social phenomena. A finding answers a question; a contribution reframes the question or overturns a prior in a way readers across organization studies, sociology, and psychology can use. Frame around the surprise from humrel-topic-selection and the mechanism from humrel-theory-development. What is not the HR deliverable: a firm-performance improvement (a JMS register), a well-powered confirmation of a moderated hypothesis (an AMJ profile), a pure critique with no constructive claim (closer to Organization), or a rich description that never theorizes (closer to Work, Employment and Society).
Name your contribution type
- Reframing: you reconceptualize a construct or relation (the field was looking at it wrong)
- Mechanism: you reveal how/why a relational process happens that was a black box
- Boundary/contingency: you show when an established effect reverses or breaks at work
- Integration: you reconcile two conversations that appeared to conflict
- New construct/process model: you name and theorize something the field lacked language for
- Critical reframing: you show how power/ideology constitutes a phenomenon previously taken for granted — and offer a constructive alternative understanding
Avoid the weakest "contributions" HR rejects: "we replicate prior work in a new setting," "we add a moderator," "we study an under-studied population."
The contribution paragraph
Place a sharp statement early (intro) and revisit it in the discussion:
"We contribute to [conversation] by showing [surprising insight about social relations at work]. Whereas prior work assumed [prior], we demonstrate [reframing/mechanism/boundary], driven by [social mechanism]. This implies [non-obvious consequence for working life] and reopens [new question]."
Discussion that earns HR acceptance
- Lead with the theoretical contribution, not a findings recap.
- Generativity: spell out the new questions and directions the insight opens; HR values ideas that travel across the social sciences of work.
- Scope and reflexivity: state boundary conditions and what the study cannot claim; for qualitative/critical work, acknowledge the situatedness of the account — this strengthens the contribution.
- Practical/societal relevance, if included, is brief and genuine — HR is socially relevant but theory-led; do not pad with a managerial implications list to mask a thin contribution.
- Connect back to the surprise: remind the reader why the prior was wrong.
Calibrate the claim
- Too modest → "so what?" rejection at the scoping screen. Too grand → "overclaiming" rejection.
- The claim must be exactly as large as the evidence supports — and a single case or critical reading should claim analytical generalization (to theory), not statistical generalization.
Checklist
- Contribution stated in one sentence a non-specialist work scholar would grasp
- Contribution type named (reframing / mechanism / boundary / integration / new model / critical)
- It is a change in understanding, not just a new finding or a managerial tip
- Discussion leads with theory; generativity is explicit
- Boundary conditions / situatedness stated honestly
- Claim size matches evidence; qualitative claims are analytical not statistical
- Societal relevance, if present, is brief and genuine
Anti-patterns
- "We found X" framing with no reframing of the conversation
- Listing 4–5 weak contributions instead of one strong one
- Contribution = "new setting / added moderator / new sample"
- A managerial implications section padded to substitute for thin theory
- Critique with no constructive theoretical alternative
- Claiming statistical generalization from a single case or interpretive study
Output format
【Journal】Human Relations
【Skill】humrel-contribution-framing
【Contribution (one sentence)】...
【Type】reframing / mechanism / boundary / integration / new model / critical
【Prior overturned】what the field assumed
【Generativity】new questions opened
【Claim calibration】matches evidence? analytical vs. statistical?
【Next skill】humrel-tables-figures
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:18
