# Humrel Methods > Use when choosing and justifying the research design for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative/ethnographic, critical, quantitative, or mixed — and setting the rigor bar. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see humrel-data-analysis). - Skill: `thedixitjain/humrel-methods` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/humrel-methods` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/humrel-methods/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/humrel-methods --- # Methods & Research Design (humrel-methods) ## When to trigger - You are choosing among a qualitative/ethnographic, critical, quantitative, or mixed-methods design - The design is chosen but its *rigor and transparency* are not yet defensible - A qualitative study lacks a sampling logic or trustworthiness safeguards - A quantitative study lacks construct validity or theorizes only the coefficient - A mixed-methods study cannot say *why* both strands and what each adds ## Principle: method follows the theoretical question — and HR privileges none HR treats qualitative, critical, quantitative, and mixed-methods work as **equally first-class**, in the Tavistock human-relations tradition. There is no house preference for an estimator or a paradigm; what is non-negotiable is that the design fits the social-theoretical question (from `humrel-theory-development`) and is executed with rigor, transparency, and reflexivity. A sophisticated method cannot rescue a thin theory, and a single immersive ethnography can carry an HR paper if the insight is deep and the craft is high. Note also the **double-anonymous review**: write methods so they establish credibility without revealing the authors' institution, field site identity, or grant. ## Branch A — Qualitative / ethnographic design For *how/why* process, meaning, identity, and contested dynamics at work. - **Theoretical (not convenience) sampling.** Sites/cases/informants chosen to illuminate the mechanism; state the logic (polar types, extreme/critical case, longitudinal, theoretical replication). - **Access and immersion.** Specify duration, depth, and your role (participant vs. non-participant); for ethnography, time in the field; for historical work, the archive. - **Triangulated data.** Interviews (count, who, when, guide), observation, documents — and how they corroborate. - **Trustworthiness.** Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability: member checks, prolonged engagement, audit trail, negative-case analysis. - **Reflexivity.** State your standpoint and how it shaped access, interpretation, and the relations you studied — HR expects this, not as confession but as method. ## Branch B — Critical design For research interrogating power, ideology, discourse, and taken-for-granted arrangements. - Make the **critical-theoretical lens** explicit (labour process, Foucauldian, feminist, postcolonial, CDA) and tie analytic choices to it. - Treat reflexivity and positionality as central, not optional. - Ensure the critique is **generative**: the design must surface a constructive theoretical claim, not only an unmasking. ## Branch C — Quantitative design For *whether/how much/under what conditions* across many cases. - **Sample and unit of analysis** justified relative to the theory (individuals nested in teams/organizations; dyads; events). - **Construct validity.** Operationalizations defended; multi-item measures with reliability; address common-method bias if same-source/cross-sectional. - **Multilevel structure.** If theory is cross-level, use HLM/mixed models and justify aggregation. - **Identification in service of theory.** Where causal claims are made, state the threat and the strategy (panel FE, longitudinal lags, quasi-experiment) — but identification is a means to a *theoretical* end at HR, not the contribution itself. ## Branch D — Mixed methods - State the **integration logic**: sequential, concurrent, or nested, and *what each strand adds* that the other cannot. Avoid bolting a few interviews onto a survey for decoration. ## Either branch - The design must let you *see the mechanism*, not just endpoints. - Pre-empt obvious alternative explanations at the design stage. - Plan the data-to-theory link now (feeds `humrel-data-analysis` and `humrel-tables-figures`). ## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP) For the **empirical / causal lane**, estimate and audit rather than only specify. Full map: [`execution-with-mcp`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). Human Relations blends critical/qualitative and quantitative work; apply the chain below to its survey / experimental quantitative papers. - `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](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md). ## Checklist - [ ] Design matches the theoretical form (process → qual/critical; variance → quant) - [ ] Qual: theoretical sampling stated; access/immersion specified; trustworthiness named - [ ] Critical: lens explicit; reflexivity central; critique is generative - [ ] Quant: construct validity and (if needed) multilevel structure addressed - [ ] Mixed: integration logic and the added value of each strand stated - [ ] Obvious alternatives are designed against, not just discussed later - [ ] Methods text is anonymized (no institution/site/grant tells) ## Anti-patterns - Convenience sampling dressed up as theoretical sampling - Qualitative work with no transparency about coding, sources, or fieldwork depth - A fancy estimator chosen to signal rigor when the question doesn't need it - Critical work that is reflexive in tone but methodologically opaque - "Mixed methods" that is a survey with ornamental quotes - Methods that reveal author/site identity in a double-anonymous submission ## Output format ```text 【Journal】Human Relations 【Skill】humrel-methods 【Design】qualitative / critical / quantitative / mixed (type) 【Why it fits】link to the social-theoretical question 【Sampling/identification】logic + key threat addressed 【Rigor safeguards】trustworthiness / construct validity / integration logic 【Anonymization】no site/institution/grant tells (yes/no) 【Next skill】humrel-data-analysis ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Human-Relations-Skills/skills/humrel-methods/SKILL.md`