Menu

Individual skill

humrel-methods

0upvotes

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).

Human-Relations-Skills/skills/humrel-methods/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,405
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# 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.
Back to top