Compare research methods
Skill xingtaxueshu/literature-review-skills/skills/compare-research-methods
Five open agent skills for sharper literature reviews: question refinement, review modules, method comparison, contradiction mapping, and research gap discovery.
npx -y skills add xingtaxueshu/literature-review-skills --skill compare-research-methodsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Compare research methods for an academic literature review, thesis proposal, or methodology section by linking each method to what it can and cannot answer. Use when the user needs to justify method choice, compare quantitative/qualitative/mixed-method designs, build a methods table, or turn "I will use this method" into a defensible argument tied to the research question.
SKILL.md
3.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Compare Research Methods
Goal
Help the user treat method choice as an argument, not a format requirement. Every recommended method should explain what part of the research question it answers, what it cannot answer, and why it fits better than alternatives.
Workflow
- Restate the research question and the most important thing it needs to know: breadth, depth, correlation, causality, mechanism, process, comparison, or prediction.
- List plausible methods rather than jumping to the user's preferred method.
- Build a three-column comparison: method route, can answer, cannot answer.
- Identify the tradeoff that matters most for this question.
- Recommend a method or mixed sequence with a concise methodological rationale.
Comparison Table Template
Use this structure:
| Method route | Can answer | Cannot answer |
|---|---|---|
| Survey + regression | Which factors are significantly associated with the outcome | How participants actually make decisions or interpret tradeoffs |
| In-depth interviews | Why actors persist, withdraw, or change behavior | Whether the pattern generalizes to a larger population |
| Panel data | How behavior changes before/after an event or policy shift | The lived mechanism that makes the change happen |
| Case comparison | How context shapes mechanisms across cases | Precise population-level effect size |
Adapt the method list to the user's field and data reality.
Rationale Pattern
Write method justification with this chain:
Because prior studies mainly [current limitation], and this question needs to explain [target need], use [method/design] to [specific function]. This method can clarify [answer], but it cannot fully resolve [boundary], so [supplement/limitation statement].
For mixed methods, specify the sequence:
- Quantitative first: use when broad patterns or key variables must be identified before explaining mechanisms.
- Qualitative first: use when concepts, mechanisms, or categories are unclear and need exploration before measurement.
- Parallel design: use when breadth and depth are both needed and can be compared after collection.
Output Format
Provide:
## Method Need
[What the research question most needs]
## Method Comparison
| Method route | Can answer | Cannot answer |
|---|---|---|
## Recommended Design
[Method or sequence]
## Justification Paragraph
[Ready-to-use academic paragraph]
## Boundary Statement
[What this design still cannot claim]
Guardrails
- Do not say a method is "best" without naming the question need it satisfies.
- Do not hide limitations; make them part of the justification.
- Do not recommend mixed methods as a default. Use mixed methods only when the question genuinely needs complementary evidence.