| name | aerj-research-design |
| description | Use when defending the research design of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — quantitative (multilevel, IRT, quasi-experimental, RCT), qualitative (case study, ethnography, interview), or mixed methods. AERJ judges each tradition on its own terms against the AERA reporting standards. Strengthens the design; it does not write code. |
Research Design (aerj-research-design)
AERJ accepts many methodologies but is demanding about each. The design must credibly connect the
framework (aerj-theory-and-framework) to evidence and meet the relevant AERA reporting standards.
This skill is mode-aware: name the dominant education-research lens and defend it against the strongest
alternative explanation.
When to trigger
- Specifying sampling, measurement, identification, case selection, or an integration plan
- A reviewer questioned causal claims, generalizability, trustworthiness, or measurement validity
- Preparing a pre-analysis plan / preregistration for a prospective design
- Justifying how the design addresses the rival account from
aerj-literature-positioning
Quantitative (the field's common designs)
- Nesting is the default. Students in classrooms in schools — use multilevel/HLM models;
specify levels, random effects, and cluster-correct inference. Report the design effect / ICC.
- Measurement. Tie constructs to validated instruments; report reliability and, where relevant,
IRT/factor evidence. Validity is a design issue, not an afterthought.
- Causal claims need a credible design: RCT (with power/MDE, attrition, fidelity), or
quasi-experimental (DID/event study with modern estimators, RD, IV, matching) — defend identifying
assumptions, don't assert them. Map to What Works Clearinghouse-style expectations when claiming effects.
- Large-scale assessment data require plausible values and replicate/survey weights.
Qualitative (judged on its own terms)
- Case/site/participant selection justified by design logic (typical, extreme, theoretical
sampling), not convenience. Say what the case is a case of.
- Trustworthiness: prolonged engagement, triangulation, member checks, negative-case analysis,
audit trail, researcher positionality/reflexivity.
- Data and analysis: how data were generated, how coding/interpretation proceeded, how themes
were warranted by evidence (hand off to
aerj-data-analysis).
Mixed methods
- State the design type (convergent, explanatory-sequential, exploratory-sequential, embedded) and
the rationale for mixing — what integration buys you that one strand cannot.
- Plan the point and method of integration (e.g., joint displays); avoid two papers stapled together.
The adjudication test (AERJ-specific)
For the single strongest rival explanation, write one sentence: "If the rival were true rather than
my account, the evidence would look like ___; instead it looks like ___." If you cannot, the design
does not yet identify the contribution.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. AERJ is empirical education research — field experiments and observational school data; multilevel inference and many-outcome corrections are central.
detect_design → recommend → fit with as_handle=true → audit_result.- Observational causal claims: 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,
romano_wolf for many-outcome
family-wise control, and mediate for mediation (not naive controlling-away).
- Sensitivity:
oster_delta / sensemakr for observational claims.
Report the effect size in interpretable units; route the full battery to the
appendix/supplement. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the
JF execution walkthrough.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring nesting (OLS on clustered data); clustering at the wrong level
- "Causal"/"effect" language on a descriptive or associational design
- Convenience sampling dressed up as theoretical sampling
- Mixed methods that never actually integrate
- Treating measurement validity or trustworthiness as boilerplate
Design-credibility matrix (what each tradition must defend)
AERJ judges each methodology on its own terms, so the credibility bar differs by mode. Use this matrix
to locate the assumption a referee will press hardest.
| Mode | Core thing the design must establish | The assumption referees attack |
|---|
| RCT | Power/MDE, balance, fidelity, low differential attrition | Attrition or non-compliance undoing randomization |
| Quasi-experimental | A credible counterfactual | Parallel trends / continuity at the cutoff / exclusion |
| Multilevel descriptive | Correct nesting and measurement | Cluster level mis-specified; validity unaddressed |
| Qualitative | Trustworthiness and case logic | Convenience sampling dressed as theoretical |
| Mixed | A real point and method of integration | Two strands never actually joined |
Worked design vignette (illustrative)
An AERJ team evaluates a peer-tutoring program with a regression-discontinuity design on an
eligibility test score. The credibility case states the estimand (effect at the cutoff), shows a
density test with no manipulation, reports a bandwidth-robust estimate of an illustrative 0.21 SD
on the outcome, and writes the adjudication sentence: if selection rather than the program drove the
jump, covariates would also jump at the cutoff; instead they are smooth. That single sentence rules
out the strongest rival. A weak version would assert "the program caused gains" with no continuity
evidence — exactly the move a methodological referee rejects.
Referee pushback and the venue fix
- "Causal language on an associational design." → Either build the identification or downgrade the
claim to description with a mechanism hypothesis.
- "Your sampling is convenience, not theoretical." → Justify case/site selection by design logic and
say what the case is a case of.
- "The mixed design is two papers stapled together." → Specify the integration point and method;
confirm method-specific expectations against the journal's current submission guidelines.
Output format
【Mode】quant / qualitative / mixed
【Estimand or claim】what is being identified/shown/understood
【Key assumption(s) / trustworthiness】and how each is defended
【Rival ruled out】the adjudication sentence
【Standards】which AERA reporting standard the design meets
【Next】aerj-data-analysis
Supplementary resources
