agentleFS
Sign inStart free
KhaledSaeed18KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude/skills/academic/research-methodology/SKILL.md

research-methodology

Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Choose and justify a research design for each research question: controlled experiment, quasi-experiment, case study, survey, interview study, design science, action research, or mixed methods, with the data collection, sampling, analysis, ethics, and validity threats each entails, and write the method chapter's design section from the choice. Use when moving from research questions to a study plan, when a supervisor asks how the question will be answered, or when reviewers say the method cannot support the claims.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Write it to the method chapter file or return it.

    line 66

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

The method exists to answer the question; it is chosen after the question and before the data. A method chosen for familiarity or convenience produces a thesis whose conclusions the examiner cannot accept. This skill matches each research question to a design and writes down why.

Match question type to design

Question asksDesignEvidence produced
Does X cause Y? / Is A better than B?controlled experiment (randomised, with baselines)effect size with confidence, under controlled conditions
Does X cause Y in a real setting where randomisation is impossible?quasi-experiment (pre/post, difference-in-differences, matched groups)effect estimate with stated confounds
How and why does X happen in context?case study (single or multiple, embedded)rich description, mechanisms, propositions
How prevalent is X? What do people think or do?survey (questionnaire)distributions, correlations, at scale
What is the lived experience or reasoning behind X?interview study, focus groups, observationthemes, categories (thematic analysis, grounded theory)
How can we build an artifact that solves X, and does it?design science (build and evaluate)artifact plus evaluation against requirements
How can we improve practice X while studying it?action researchcycles of change and reflection
What does the literature say about X?systematic review or mapping studysynthesis with explicit protocol (systematic-review)
Does the finding hold across settings?replicationconfirmation or boundary conditions

Most master's theses in computing combine two: a design-science build with an experimental evaluation, or a survey followed by interviews (explanatory sequential mixed methods). Name the combination and the order.

For each design, decide and write down

Participants, subjects, or objects: population, sampling (random, stratified, convenience with its limitation stated, purposive for interviews), sample size with the reason (power analysis for experiments via statistics-advisor; saturation for interviews; the whole population for a census of repositories).

Variables: independent (manipulated), dependent (measured), controlled, and the confounds you cannot control. Operationalise each: "usability" becomes SUS score and task completion time.

Procedure: step by step, with timing, instruments (questionnaires, tasks, scripts), and the exact conditions. A reader should be able to run it.

Instruments: validated where they exist (SUS, NASA-TLX, TAM); if you write your own, pilot it and say so.

Data: what is collected, in what format, where stored, retention, anonymisation.

Analysis plan, decided before data collection: the statistical tests (statistics-advisor) or the qualitative coding approach, the significance level, the effect size measure, how missing data is handled. Pre-register it in the proposal; deviations are reported as such.

Ethics: informed consent, approval body and reference, data protection, the right to withdraw. Studies of open-source repositories still raise questions (developer names in data).

Validity threats, using the standard four and what you did about each:

  • Construct: does the measure capture the concept? (SUS measures perceived usability, not efficiency.)
  • Internal: could something other than X explain Y? (learning effects, order effects, selection)
  • External: to whom and what do the results generalise? (students are not professionals; one language is not all)
  • Conclusion: is the statistical reasoning sound? (power, multiple comparisons, assumptions)

For qualitative work use credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and the tactics (triangulation, member checking, audit trail).

Output

A design section for the method chapter, per research question:

### RQ2: Does feedback style affect fix time?

Design: between-subjects controlled experiment, two conditions (rule-based, LLM-based), random assignment.
Participants: 40 second-year students (power analysis: d = 0.8, alpha 0.05, power 0.8 gives 26 per group; 40 allows attrition), recruited via course announcement (convenience; see External validity).
Variables: IV feedback style; DV time to correct fix (seconds, from logs), secondary DV SUS; controlled: assignment, IDE, time limit.
Procedure: consent; 5-minute tutorial; three tasks in fixed order; SUS; debrief. 45 minutes.
Analysis: Welch's t-test on log-transformed time; Cohen's d; Mann-Whitney U as robustness check; alpha 0.05.
Ethics: approved by <board>, ref <n>; data pseudonymised at collection.
Threats: internal, task order fixed (mitigated by counterbalancing tasks 2 and 3); external, students; construct, fix time measures speed not learning.

Write it to the method chapter file or return it; then update research/QUESTION.md with the design per question so thesis-proposal and thesis-reviewer see the same plan.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free