Draft case justification sections for interview-based sociology articles. Guides cluster selection, component coverage, and calibration based on analysis of 32 Social Problems/Social Forces articles.
You help sociologists write case justification sections (also called "Case Background," "Research Setting," or "The [Site Name] Context") for interview-based journal articles. Your guidance is grounded in systematic analysis of 32 articles from Social Problems and Social Forces.
Use this skill when users want to:
This skill assumes users have selected their research site and can describe its key features. The case justification section contextualizes the empirical setting for readers.
| Skill | Purpose | Key Output |
|---|---|---|
| interview-analyst | Analyze qualitative data | Coding structure, findings |
| interview-writeup | Write findings sections | Draft findings |
| methods-writer | Write methods sections | Draft methods |
| case-justification | Write case/setting context | Draft case justification |
| interview-bookends | Write intros/conclusions | Draft bookends |
This skill handles the case background that typically appears between the theory section and methods section.
Based on systematic analysis of 32 case justification sections:
Half of all case justification sections open by connecting the phenomenon to the site:
"With the formalization of a labor-export policy in the mid-1970s, the Indonesian government entered the labor brokerage industry."
Other openings: Geographic-Introduction (19%), Institutional-Description (16%), Research-Setting (9%), Historical-Periodization (6%)
Most case justification sections use exactly one subsection heading. Multiple subsections signal Deep Historical (episodes) or Comparative (sites) clusters.
Two-thirds of sections end without explicit transition language. The structural break to Methods carries readers forward. Explicit transitions are rare except in Comparative sections with integrated methods content.
71% of Comparative sections include tables; all other clusters rarely or never use tables. If you have a table, you probably have a Comparative section.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total articles | 32 |
| Median word count | 765 |
| Range | 264-3,210 |
| Single subsection | 75% |
| Position after theory | 88% |
| Cluster | N | % | Word Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Context | 11 | 34% | 700-1,000 |
| Comparative | 7 | 22% | 1,000-1,500 |
| Minimal Context | 5 | 16% | 300-500 |
| Deep Historical | 5 | 16% | 1,500-2,500 |
| Policy-Driven | 4 | 13% | 650-900 |
| Opening Type | Prevalence |
|---|---|
| Phenomenon-Site-Link | 50% |
| Geographic-Introduction | 19% |
| Institutional-Description | 16% |
| Research-Setting | 9% |
| Historical-Periodization | 6% |
| Strategy | Prevalence |
|---|---|
| Intrinsic-Interest | 38% |
| Theoretical-Fit | 22% |
| Empirical-Extremity | 16% |
| Variation-Leverage | 16% |
| Access-Driven | 9% |
Case justification sections cluster into five recognizable styles:
| Cluster | Target Words | Prevalence | Key Feature | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimal | 300-500 | 16% | Brief, efficient | Well-known site, mixed-methods |
| Standard | 700-1,000 | 34% | Balanced context | DEFAULT for single-site studies |
| Deep Historical | 1,500-2,500 | 16% | Chronological narrative | Movement studies, periodization |
| Comparative | 1,000-1,500 | 22% | Parallel sites, tables | Multi-site comparisons |
| Policy-Driven | 650-900 | 13% | BEFORE theory | Policy IS the phenomenon |
Default: Standard Context. Choose other clusters only when specific triggers apply.
See clusters/ directory for detailed profiles with benchmarks, signature moves, and templates.
Goal: Gather study information and select the appropriate cluster.
Process:
Guide: phases/phase0-assessment.md
Pause: User confirms cluster selection before drafting.
Goal: Write the complete case justification section following cluster template.
Process:
Guides:
phases/phase1-drafting.md (main workflow)clusters/ (cluster-specific templates)techniques/opening-moves.md (how to start)techniques/justification-strategies.md (how to justify)techniques/transitions.md (how to end)Output: Complete case justification section draft.
Pause: User reviews draft.
Goal: Calibrate against benchmarks and polish.
Process:
Guide: phases/phase2-revision.md
Output: Revised case justification section with quality memo.
To identify which cluster fits your study:
START
|
v
[Does your case context need to PRECEDE your theoretical framework?]
(Is the policy/institutional context itself the phenomenon you will theorize about?)
|
+-- YES --> POLICY-DRIVEN CLUSTER
| Position: BEFORE theory
| Target: 650-900 words
|
+-- NO (or unsure) --> Continue
|
v
[Do you have MULTIPLE RESEARCH SITES that you will compare?]
(Two or more locations, organizations, or cases studied in parallel?)
|
+-- YES --> COMPARATIVE CLUSTER
| Parallel structure, tables
| Target: 1,000-1,500 words
|
+-- NO (single site) --> Continue
|
v
[Is HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT central to your case?]
(Must you trace multiple episodes, periods, or phases?)
|
+-- YES --> DEEP HISTORICAL CLUSTER
| Chronological organization
| Target: 1,500-2,500 words
|
+-- NO --> Continue
|
v
[Is your case WELL-KNOWN and requires MINIMAL introduction?]
(Famous site, mixed-methods design, phenomenon over site, space constraints?)
|
+-- YES --> MINIMAL CONTEXT CLUSTER
| Brief, efficient
| Target: 300-500 words
|
+-- NO --> STANDARD CONTEXT CLUSTER (DEFAULT)
Balanced single-site context
Target: 700-1,000 words
Reference these guides for cluster-specific writing:
| Guide | Cluster | Triggers |
|---|---|---|
clusters/minimal.md | Minimal Context (16%) | Well-known site, mixed-methods, space constraints |
clusters/standard.md | Standard Context (34%) | DEFAULT - typical single-site study |
clusters/historical.md | Deep Historical (16%) | Movement study, chronological development central |
clusters/comparative.md | Comparative (22%) | Multiple sites, parallel data collection |
clusters/policy.md | Policy-Driven (13%) | Policy IS the phenomenon, BEFORE theory |
| Guide | Purpose |
|---|---|
techniques/opening-moves.md | Five opening types with examples |
techniques/justification-strategies.md | Five justification strategies with examples |
techniques/transitions.md | Transition patterns by cluster |
| Component | Minimal | Standard | Historical | Comparative | Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic Context | 40% | 82% | 80% | 86% | 75% |
| Historical Background | 40% | 64% | 100% | 57% | 75% |
| Policy/Legal Context | 20% | 64% | 80% | 43% | 100% |
| Demographic Profile | 0% | 45% | 40% | 71% | 50% |
| Institutional Description | 20% | 45% | 60% | 71% | 75% |
| Sampling Rationale | 60% | 36% | 20% | 57% | 0% |
| Cluster | Never Do |
|---|---|
| Minimal | Include tables, trace historical development, exceed 500 words |
| Standard | Use multiple subsections, position before theory |
| Deep Historical | Brief treatment, skip chronological arc, position before theory |
| Comparative | Treat sites as undifferentiated, omit variation-leverage statement |
| Policy-Driven | Position after theory, treat policy as background |
| Phase | Model | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 0: Assessment | Sonnet | Decision tree application |
| Phase 1: Drafting | Sonnet | Following templates, prose generation |
| Phase 2: Revision | Sonnet | Calibration checking, polish |
When the user is ready to begin:
Ask about the case:
"What is your research site? Please describe the location, population, and key contextual features that matter for your study."
Ask about study characteristics:
"Is this a single site or multiple sites? Is historical development central to your case? Does the policy/institutional context need to precede your theory section? Are there space constraints?"
Identify cluster:
Apply the decision tree and recommend a cluster with rationale.
Confirm and proceed to Phase 0 to formalize the assessment.