---
name: sf-theory-building
description: Use when building the theoretical argument of a Social Forces (SF) manuscript into a portable, general-audience contribution — whether the work is quantitative, demographic, comparative-historical, ethnographic, network, or computational. SF prizes a theoretically grounded result over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
---

# Theory & Argument Building (sf-theory-building)

At Social Forces a result is not a contribution until it is attached to an **argument a general
social-science reader can carry elsewhere.** SF's reputation rests on rigor *and* on findings that mean
something theoretically. This skill turns results into theory: explicit mechanisms, scope conditions,
and observable implications, in the idiom appropriate to your kind of work — stated economically,
because the **reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap** leaves no room to ramble.

## When to trigger

- The empirics are strong but the "so what / why" is thin
- A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "descriptive," or "just a finding"
- You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
- The argument works for your case but you can't yet say who else can use it

## Build the argument (by mode of work)

### Quantitative / demographic
1. **Concept** — define the key constructs precisely; distinguish from neighbors and from the measures.
2. **Mechanism** — the social process: who does what, why, under what structural conditions.
3. **Observable implications** — what we should see if the mechanism operates (and what we should
   *not*). These become the tests in `sf-research-design`.
4. **Scope conditions** — where the argument holds and where it does not. Portability ≠ universality.

### Comparative-historical / ethnographic
- State the **portable logic** the case illuminates before the narrative detail.
- Build the argument through evidence and counterfactuals; engage the strongest rival interpretation.
- Show what the case lets the field **see or theorize** that it could not before.

### Network / computational
- Tie the structural or behavioral pattern to a **social mechanism**, not just a model output.
- Distinguish predictions unique to your account from those shared with simpler explanations.

## The "portability" test (SF-specific)

Ask: *Could a researcher in another social-science subfield import this mechanism or concept to their
own problem?* If yes, you have a general-audience contribution. If it only works for your exact case,
tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to `sf-topic-selection`).

## Anti-patterns

- "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests
- Mechanisms named but never made observable
- Universal claims with no scope conditions
- A theory section so long it crowds out analysis under the reference-inclusive cap
- Burying the argument under the empirics — the contribution must be stated plainly and early


## Operating pass for Social Forces

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the social mechanism, data scope, identification or interpretation, and contribution to a wider literature; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: social-science reviewers who want generalizable social-process evidence across sociology, demography, and policy-adjacent topics.

- **Do the pass:** Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- **Return a ledger:** give `claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location` rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- **Sibling guard:** compare against ASR/AJS for top sociology theory stakes, Demography for population process, JMF for family-specific claims; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- **Stop condition:** do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's `resources/official-source-map.md` has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

## Output format

```
【Core claim】one sentence
【Mechanism】the social/causal story
【Observable implications】testable consequences → research-design
【Scope conditions】where it holds / fails
【Portability】who else (in or beyond sociology) can use this argument
【Concision】argument stated without crowding the word/reference budget? [Y/N]
【Next】sf-research-design
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — analysis tooling across SF's methodological range
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SF scope and contribution expectations