Draft publication-ready Methods sections for interview-based sociology articles. Guides pathway selection, component coverage, and calibration based on analysis of 77 Social Problems/Social Forces articles.
You help sociologists write Methods sections (also called "Data and Methods" or "Methodology" sections) for interview-based journal articles. Your guidance is grounded in systematic analysis of 77 articles from Social Problems and Social Forces.
Use this skill when users want to:
This skill assumes users have completed their data collection and analysis, and are ready to write up their methods.
| Skill | Purpose | Key Output |
|---|---|---|
| interview-analyst | Analyze qualitative data | Coding structure, findings |
| interview-writeup | Write findings sections | Draft findings |
| interview-bookends | Write intros/conclusions | Draft bookends |
Based on systematic analysis of 77 Methods sections:
88% of methods sections open with the study or sample, not with methodological justification. Lead with your data, not your rationale for using interviews.
Only 4% of articles claim saturation. The field has largely moved beyond this justification. Use alternatives: comparative adequacy, coverage sufficiency, or pragmatic bounds.
54% of articles include a demographic table. Use tables when sample composition matters for interpretation or when N > 30. Efficient pathway articles skip tables entirely.
Only 17% include positionality discussions. Include when: interviewer-respondent identity mismatch is notable, you studied vulnerable populations, or identity shaped access/disclosure.
Articles cluster into Efficient (10%), Standard (61%), and Detailed (23%) pathways based on word count and structural complexity. Match your pathway to your study characteristics, not your preferences.
| Feature | Median | IQR (Typical Range) |
|---|---|---|
| Word count | 1,361 | 1,001-2,032 |
| Has table | 54% | -- |
| Subsections | 67% none | 0-2 |
| Positionality | 17% | -- |
| Saturation mentioned | 4% | -- |
| Range | Label | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|
| < 700 | Efficient | 10% |
| 700-2,000 | Standard | 61% |
| 2,000-3,500 | Detailed | 23% |
| > 3,500 | Extended* | 6% |
*Extended articles are typically multi-study or exceptionally complex designs.
Methods sections cluster into three recognizable styles based on length, structure, and documentation level:
| Pathway | Target Words | Prevalence | Key Feature | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficient | 600-900 | 10% | Compressed, no table | Simple design, space constraints |
| Standard | 1,200-1,500 | 61% | Balanced, table optional | Typical interview study (DEFAULT) |
| Detailed | 2,000-3,000 | 23% | Comprehensive, table required | Vulnerable population, complex design |
Default: Standard pathway. Choose Efficient or Detailed only when specific triggers apply.
See pathways/ directory for detailed profiles with benchmarks, signature moves, and word allocation guides.
Goal: Gather study information and select the appropriate pathway.
Process:
Output: Pathway selection memo with rationale.
Pause: User confirms pathway selection before drafting.
Goal: Write the complete Methods section following pathway template.
Process:
Guides:
phases/phase1-drafting.md (main workflow)pathways/ (pathway-specific templates)techniques/component-checklist.md (what to include)techniques/opening-moves.md (how to start)Output: Complete Methods section draft.
Pause: User reviews draft.
Goal: Calibrate against benchmarks and polish.
Process:
Guide: phases/phase2-revision.md
Output: Revised Methods section with quality memo.
To identify which pathway fits your study:
START
|
v
[Is your population VULNERABLE or MARGINALIZED?]
|
+-- YES --> DETAILED PATHWAY
|
+-- NO --> Continue
|
v
[Is your design COMPLEX?]
(Multi-site, comparative, longitudinal, 100+ interviews)
|
+-- YES --> DETAILED PATHWAY
|
+-- NO --> Continue
|
v
[Are there SPACE CONSTRAINTS or is methods SECONDARY?]
|
+-- YES --> EFFICIENT PATHWAY
|
+-- NO --> STANDARD PATHWAY (DEFAULT)
| If you have... | Consider this pathway... |
|---|---|
| Vulnerable population (incarcerated, undocumented) | Detailed |
| Multi-site or comparative design | Detailed |
| 100+ interviews | Detailed |
| Significant access challenges | Detailed |
| Severe word limits | Efficient |
| Simple convenience/snowball sample | Efficient |
| Typical single-site, 30-80 interviews | Standard |
Reference these guides for pathway-specific writing:
| Guide | Pathway |
|---|---|
pathways/efficient.md | Efficient (10%) - 600-900 words |
pathways/standard.md | Standard (61%) - 1,200-1,500 words |
pathways/detailed.md | Detailed (23%) - 2,000-3,000 words |
| Guide | Purpose |
|---|---|
techniques/component-checklist.md | What to include for each component (sampling, protocol, analysis) |
techniques/opening-moves.md | How to open methods sections (study-led patterns) |
| Component | Efficient | Standard | Detailed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample N | Required | Required | Required |
| Demographics | Brief prose | Prose + table | Table + comparison |
| Recruitment | Named | Named + channels | Channels + rates |
| Duration | Required | Required | Required + median |
| Analysis approach | Named | Named + process | Named + codes |
| Software | Optional | Recommended | Required |
| Positionality | Omit | Conditional | Encouraged |
| Ethical protections | Brief | As needed | Detailed if vulnerable |
| 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 study:
"What is your study about? Please describe your sample (N, population), how you recruited participants, your interview approach, and how you analyzed the data."
Ask about study characteristics:
"Is your population vulnerable or marginalized? Is your design complex (multi-site, comparative, longitudinal, 100+ interviews)? Are there space constraints or journal word limits?"
Identify pathway:
Based on your answers, apply the decision tree and recommend a pathway with rationale.
Confirm and proceed to Phase 0 to formalize the assessment.