Individual skill
cscw-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the empirical work behind a CSCW paper — interview and ethnographic rigor, trace and log analysis, surveys, deployments, and mixed methods — matching each method's own validity standard and the ethics of studying real communities.
CSCW-Skills/skills/cscw-experiments/SKILL.md
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)
- 1,404
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,169 bytes
Read excerpt
# CSCW Empirical Work
"Experiments" is the wrong word for most CSCW evidence, and that is the point.
The venue is deliberately methods-pluralist: interview studies, ethnography,
large-scale trace analysis, surveys, field deployments, controlled experiments, and
mixed designs all publish here — **each judged by its own tradition's standard of
rigor, not by a quantitative default.** The commonest reviewing disaster is a paper
that borrows a method without its discipline.
## Rigor, by method family
| Method | What rigor means here | What reviewers flag |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Interviews | Purposeful sampling with a rationale; saturation or a defended stopping rule; a described analysis process (coding approach, memoing, disagreement handling) | "We interviewed 12 people and themes emerged" with no analytic trail |