Aaag theory building
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaag-theory-buildingAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when building the conceptual contribution of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — turning a finding into a geographic argument grounded in geographic theory (place, scale, space-time, environment-society, spatial process). Sharpens the argument; it does not run analyses.
SKILL.md
5.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Theory Building (aaag-theory-building)
An Annals paper is judged on the geographic argument, not only the result. The contribution must do conceptual work with geography's own apparatus — space, place, scale, region, territory, landscape, environment-society relations, spatial process — and be portable enough that other geographers can use it.
When to trigger
- Moving from "we found X" to "X means Y for how geographers understand Z"
- A reviewer said the paper is "descriptive," "atheoretical," or "a case study without a concept"
- Deciding which geographic concept the argument advances or revises
Build the argument with a geographic concept
Pick the concept the paper actually moves and make it load-bearing:
- Scale — the result holds/changes across scales; the argument is about cross-scale processes or the MAUP, not a single resolution.
- Place / region — what is specific vs. generalizable about the setting; what the case is a case of.
- Space-time / spatial process — diffusion, dependence, clustering, mobility as the mechanism, not a backdrop.
- Environment-society — the coupling itself is the object; neither side is mere context.
- Spatial data / representation — for Methods, the conceptual stakes of how space is measured and modeled.
Theory across the four areas (judged on its own terms)
| Area | What "theory" looks like | The bar |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | a formal/computational claim about geographic inference | generalizes beyond one dataset; states assumptions |
| Human | a social-spatial mechanism or relational concept | engages social theory as geography |
| Nature-Society | a mechanism coupling biophysical and social process | both sides theorized; feedbacks named |
| Physical | a process model / hypothesis about earth-surface behavior | testable, scale-aware, mechanism-explicit |
| General | a cross-area conceptual move | reorders how multiple areas see the topic |
The portability test (Annals-specific)
State the contribution as a sentence another geographer could import: "___ is best understood as ___ rather than ___, which means [a different subfield] should expect ___." If the contribution cannot be lifted out of your case, it is a finding, not yet a geographic argument.
From observation to claim
- Name the mechanism / concept, not just the pattern ("clustering" is a pattern; "why and at what scale the process clusters" is the argument).
- State scope conditions: where the argument holds and where it should break — geography rewards explicit scale and place boundaries.
- Distinguish your claim from the nearest rival concept (link to
aaag-literature-positioning).
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A finding: "flood-relief funds reached richer neighborhoods faster in City X."
Pattern only: "relief was spatially unequal" (a map, not a concept)
Geographic argument: relief speed is governed by administrative SCALE mismatch — funds routed through
units that do not match the geography of need, so the same policy produces uneven relief by design
Mechanism: scalar mismatch between funding units and exposure units
Scope conditions: holds where exposure crosses administrative boundaries; breaks where they coincide
Portability: any geographer studying service delivery can ask whether the governing unit matches the
geography of the problem — the concept lifts out of floods
The pattern becomes a portable claim about scalar mismatch, not a description of one city's floods.
Checklist
- The argument names a geographic concept and does conceptual work with it
- Mechanism stated, not just pattern; scope conditions explicit
- Portability sentence written (another subfield could import it)
- Theory matched to the area's tradition and judged on its own terms
- The strongest rival concept is named and distinguished
Anti-patterns
- Descriptive mapping with no concept ("here is the spatial distribution of X")
- Borrowing a non-geographic theory wholesale with no spatial/place/scale work
- A Nature-Society argument that theorizes only the social or only the biophysical side
- Claiming generality from one case with no scope conditions
Output format
【Geographic concept】scale / place / space-time / environment-society / representation
【Mechanism】the process the argument turns on
【Scope conditions】where it holds / breaks
【Portability】the import sentence
【Next】aaag-research-design
Supplementary resources
../../resources/exemplars/library.md— papers whose contribution is a portable geographic concept../../resources/official-source-map.md— area definitions and scope