Research Design & Identification (tar-methods)
When to trigger
- Your treatment (a disclosure, a standard adoption, an audit/tax regime) may be endogenous
- Adoption is staggered across firms/years and you need a defensible DiD
- You have an association and a reviewer will ask "is this causal or just correlation?"
- You are designing an experiment to isolate a channel archival data cannot separate
- You are building an analytical model and need to fix primitives and solution concept
TAR is method-agnostic but identification-obsessed
TAR's stated policy is open to all rigorous methods; the bar is the contribution. In the dominant
large-sample archival lane, "rigorous" almost always means a credible identification
strategy, because accounting treatments (disclosure choices, conservatism, auditor selection, tax
positions) are rarely randomly assigned. Pick the design that breaks the endogeneity for your
accounting setting.
Identification toolkit for archival accounting
| Identification threat / setting |
Design |
| Regulation / standard adoption with a clean date |
Difference-in-differences; event study around the date |
| Staggered adoption across firms/states/countries |
Staggered DiD with modern estimators (avoid the TWFE bias) |
| Endogenous accounting/auditor/tax choice |
Instrumental variables / 2SLS with a defensible exclusion |
| A threshold rule (covenant, index inclusion, size cutoff) |
Regression discontinuity |
| Selection on observables |
Matching (PSM/entropy) as a complement, not the main claim |
| A plausibly exogenous shock to information environment |
Natural experiment; pre-trends shown |
State the estimating equation, the unit and level, the fixed effects (firm, year,
industry-year), and the identifying variation explicitly. The design section should make a
skeptic believe the variation is as-good-as-random conditional on controls.
If the lane is experimental
- Manipulate the focal accounting construct; use realistic stimuli and an appropriate participant
pool (investors, auditors, managers) — IRB documentation is required and reviewers expect it.
- Pre-register where feasible; include manipulation and attention checks; power the design for the
interaction, not just the main effect.
If the lane is analytical
- Fix the information structure, players, and payoffs before solving; state the equilibrium concept.
- Show the model is the minimal structure that generates the accounting result.
Design hygiene
- Show parallel pre-trends for any DiD; report dynamic (event-time) effects.
- Defend the exclusion restriction for any IV — relevance is not enough.
- Pre-commit the main specification; relegate alternatives to robustness (see
tar-data-analysis).
- Plan the data-authenticity trail now: the processing code for the sample is part of submission.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
For the empirical / causal lane, estimate and audit rather than only specify. Full
map: execution-with-mcp. TAR is archival accounting — DiD around regulation / standard changes, IV, and earnings-based designs; the corporate-causal chain fits directly.
detect_design → recommend → fit with as_handle=true → audit_result to
enumerate the checks the design owes.
- Panel / 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 and
romano_wolf for the many-outcome
family-wise correction reviewers expect.
Match the toolchain to the reviewer pool, and report the effect size the venue
wants. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the
JF execution walkthrough.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Kitchen-sink controls standing in for identification ("we control for everything").
- TWFE on staggered adoption without addressing heterogeneous-treatment-effect bias.
- IV by convenience: an instrument that fails exclusion (correlated with the outcome directly).
- Matching as causal proof when selection is on unobservables.
- An experiment with no IRB or with a participant pool unfit for the construct.
Output format
【Lane】archival / experiment / analytical
【Setting & identifying variation】...
【Design】DiD / staggered-DiD / IV / RDD / event study / experiment / model
【Spec】equation; unit/level; fixed effects; clustering plan
【Identification defense】pre-trends / exclusion / discontinuity / randomization ...
【Data-authenticity plan】processing code + data description ready? yes/no
【Next step】tar-data-analysis
1---2name: tar-methods3description: Use when the research design and identification strategy are the bottleneck for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — choosing the setting, shock, and design that credibly identify an accounting effect, or structuring an analytical model or experiment. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation and robustness (tar-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (tar-contribution-framing).4---56# Research Design & Identification (tar-methods)78## When to trigger910- Your treatment (a disclosure, a standard adoption, an audit/tax regime) may be endogenous11- Adoption is staggered across firms/years and you need a defensible DiD12- You have an association and a reviewer will ask "is this causal or just correlation?"13- You are designing an experiment to isolate a channel archival data cannot separate14- You are building an analytical model and need to fix primitives and solution concept1516## TAR is method-agnostic but identification-obsessed1718TAR's stated policy is open to all rigorous methods; the bar is the contribution. In the dominant19**large-sample archival** lane, "rigorous" almost always means a **credible identification20strategy**, because accounting treatments (disclosure choices, conservatism, auditor selection, tax21positions) are rarely randomly assigned. Pick the design that breaks the endogeneity for *your*22accounting setting.2324## Identification toolkit for archival accounting2526| Identification threat / setting | Design |27|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|28| Regulation / standard adoption with a clean date | Difference-in-differences; event study around the date |29| Staggered adoption across firms/states/countries | Staggered DiD with modern estimators (avoid the TWFE bias) |30| Endogenous accounting/auditor/tax choice | Instrumental variables / 2SLS with a defensible exclusion |31| A threshold rule (covenant, index inclusion, size cutoff)| Regression discontinuity |32| Selection on observables | Matching (PSM/entropy) as a complement, not the main claim |33| A plausibly exogenous shock to information environment | Natural experiment; pre-trends shown |3435State the **estimating equation**, the **unit and level**, the **fixed effects** (firm, year,36industry-year), and the **identifying variation** explicitly. The design section should make a37skeptic believe the variation is as-good-as-random conditional on controls.3839## If the lane is experimental4041- Manipulate the focal accounting construct; use realistic stimuli and an appropriate participant42 pool (investors, auditors, managers) — IRB documentation is required and reviewers expect it.43- Pre-register where feasible; include manipulation and attention checks; power the design for the44 interaction, not just the main effect.4546## If the lane is analytical4748- Fix the information structure, players, and payoffs before solving; state the equilibrium concept.49- Show the model is the *minimal* structure that generates the accounting result.5051## Design hygiene5253- Show **parallel pre-trends** for any DiD; report dynamic (event-time) effects.54- Defend the **exclusion restriction** for any IV — relevance is not enough.55- Pre-commit the main specification; relegate alternatives to robustness (see `tar-data-analysis`).56- Plan the **data-authenticity** trail now: the processing code for the sample is part of submission.5758## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)5960For the **empirical / causal lane**, estimate and audit rather than only specify. Full61map: [`execution-with-mcp`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). TAR is archival accounting — DiD around regulation / standard changes, IV, and earnings-based designs; the corporate-causal chain fits directly.6263- `detect_design` → `recommend` → fit with `as_handle=true` → `audit_result` to64 enumerate the checks the design owes.65- **Panel / staggered DiD:** `callaway_santanna` / `sun_abraham` + `bacon_decomposition`66 + `honest_did_from_result`. **IV:** `effective_f_test` + `anderson_rubin_ci`. **RDD:**67 `rdrobust` + `mccrary_test`.68- **Experiments:** randomization-based inference and `romano_wolf` for the many-outcome69 family-wise correction reviewers expect.7071Match the toolchain to the **reviewer pool**, and report the effect size the venue72wants. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the73[JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md).74## Checklist7576- [ ] The identifying variation (shock/setting/threshold) is named and defended77- [ ] Estimating equation, unit, level, and fixed effects are stated78- [ ] DiD designs show pre-trends and dynamic effects; staggered designs use a modern estimator79- [ ] IV exclusion restriction is argued, not asserted; matching is a complement, not the claim80- [ ] Experiments have IRB, realistic stimuli, manipulation/attention checks, and adequate power81- [ ] Analytical models fix primitives and the solution concept before solving8283## Anti-patterns8485- **Kitchen-sink controls** standing in for identification ("we control for everything").86- **TWFE on staggered adoption** without addressing heterogeneous-treatment-effect bias.87- **IV by convenience**: an instrument that fails exclusion (correlated with the outcome directly).88- **Matching as causal proof** when selection is on unobservables.89- **An experiment with no IRB** or with a participant pool unfit for the construct.9091## Output format9293```94【Lane】archival / experiment / analytical95【Setting & identifying variation】...96【Design】DiD / staggered-DiD / IV / RDD / event study / experiment / model97【Spec】equation; unit/level; fixed effects; clustering plan98【Identification defense】pre-trends / exclusion / discontinuity / randomization ...99【Data-authenticity plan】processing code + data description ready? yes/no100【Next step】tar-data-analysis101```