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
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → The-Accounting-Review-Skills/skills/tar-methods/SKILL.md
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---5
6
7# Research Design & Identification (tar-methods)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- Your treatment (a disclosure, a standard adoption, an audit/tax regime) may be endogenous
12- Adoption is staggered across firms/years and you need a defensible DiD
13- You have an association and a reviewer will ask "is this causal or just correlation?"
14- You are designing an experiment to isolate a channel archival data cannot separate
15- You are building an analytical model and need to fix primitives and solution concept
16
17## TAR is method-agnostic but identification-obsessed
18
19TAR's stated policy is open to all rigorous methods; the bar is the contribution. In the dominant
20**large-sample archival** lane, "rigorous" almost always means a **credible identification
21strategy**, because accounting treatments (disclosure choices, conservatism, auditor selection, tax
22positions) are rarely randomly assigned. Pick the design that breaks the endogeneity for *your*
23accounting setting.
24
25## Identification toolkit for archival accounting
26
27| Identification threat / setting | Design |
28|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
29| Regulation / standard adoption with a clean date | Difference-in-differences; event study around the date |
30| Staggered adoption across firms/states/countries | Staggered DiD with modern estimators (avoid the TWFE bias) |
31| Endogenous accounting/auditor/tax choice | Instrumental variables / 2SLS with a defensible exclusion |
32| A threshold rule (covenant, index inclusion, size cutoff)| Regression discontinuity |
33| Selection on observables | Matching (PSM/entropy) as a complement, not the main claim |
34| A plausibly exogenous shock to information environment | Natural experiment; pre-trends shown |
35
36State the **estimating equation**, the **unit and level**, the **fixed effects** (firm, year,
37industry-year), and the **identifying variation** explicitly. The design section should make a
38skeptic believe the variation is as-good-as-random conditional on controls.
39
40## If the lane is experimental
41
42- Manipulate the focal accounting construct; use realistic stimuli and an appropriate participant
43 pool (investors, auditors, managers) — IRB documentation is required and reviewers expect it.
44- Pre-register where feasible; include manipulation and attention checks; power the design for the
45 interaction, not just the main effect.
46
47## If the lane is analytical
48
49- Fix the information structure, players, and payoffs before solving; state the equilibrium concept.
50- Show the model is the *minimal* structure that generates the accounting result.
51
52## Design hygiene
53
54- Show **parallel pre-trends** for any DiD; report dynamic (event-time) effects.
55- Defend the **exclusion restriction** for any IV — relevance is not enough.
56- Pre-commit the main specification; relegate alternatives to robustness (see `tar-data-analysis`).
57- Plan the **data-authenticity** trail now: the processing code for the sample is part of submission.
58
59## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
60
61For the **empirical / causal lane**, estimate and audit rather than only specify. Full
62map: [`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.
63
64- `detect_design` → `recommend` → fit with `as_handle=true` → `audit_result` to
65 enumerate the checks the design owes.
66- **Panel / staggered DiD:** `callaway_santanna` / `sun_abraham` + `bacon_decomposition`
67 + `honest_did_from_result`. **IV:** `effective_f_test` + `anderson_rubin_ci`. **RDD:**
68 `rdrobust` + `mccrary_test`.
69- **Experiments:** randomization-based inference and `romano_wolf` for the many-outcome
70 family-wise correction reviewers expect.
71
72Match the toolchain to the **reviewer pool**, and report the effect size the venue
73wants. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the
74[JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md).
75## Checklist
76
77- [ ] The identifying variation (shock/setting/threshold) is named and defended
78- [ ] Estimating equation, unit, level, and fixed effects are stated
79- [ ] DiD designs show pre-trends and dynamic effects; staggered designs use a modern estimator
80- [ ] IV exclusion restriction is argued, not asserted; matching is a complement, not the claim
81- [ ] Experiments have IRB, realistic stimuli, manipulation/attention checks, and adequate power
82- [ ] Analytical models fix primitives and the solution concept before solving
83
84## Anti-patterns
85
86- **Kitchen-sink controls** standing in for identification ("we control for everything").
87- **TWFE on staggered adoption** without addressing heterogeneous-treatment-effect bias.
88- **IV by convenience**: an instrument that fails exclusion (correlated with the outcome directly).
89- **Matching as causal proof** when selection is on unobservables.
90- **An experiment with no IRB** or with a participant pool unfit for the construct.
91
92## Output format
93
94```
95【Lane】archival / experiment / analytical
96【Setting & identifying variation】...
97【Design】DiD / staggered-DiD / IV / RDD / event study / experiment / model
98【Spec】equation; unit/level; fixed effects; clustering plan
99【Identification defense】pre-trends / exclusion / discontinuity / randomization ...
100【Data-authenticity plan】processing code + data description ready? yes/no
101【Next step】tar-data-analysis
102```
103
104---
105
106**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `The-Accounting-Review-Skills/skills/tar-methods/SKILL.md`