majiayu000 Research Synthesis
This skill guides the integration of diverse research findings into coherent, actionable conclusions.
Phase 1: Synthesis Preparation
Input Assessment
- What sources/findings need synthesis?
- What is the overarching research question?
- Who is the audience for this synthesis?
- What decisions will this inform?
Source Inventory
| Source | Type | Quality | Key Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Source] | [Type] | [Rating] | [Main finding] |
Compatibility Check
- Do sources address the same question?
- Are methodologies compatible?
- Can findings be meaningfully compared?
- Are there definitional inconsistencies?
CHECKPOINT: Confirm synthesis scope and purpose with user.
Phase 2: Pattern Recognition
Finding Categorization
Group findings by:
By Conclusion:
- Consistent findings (agree)
- Inconsistent findings (disagree)
- Complementary findings (different aspects)
- Unique findings (only one source)
By Evidence Strength:
- Strong evidence (multiple high-quality sources)
- Moderate evidence (some quality sources)
- Weak evidence (limited or low-quality sources)
- Contested (conflicting strong sources)
Convergence Analysis
For each major finding:
- How many sources support it?
- What is their combined quality?
- Are there methodological differences?
- Do any sources contradict?
Phase 3: Weight Assignment
Evidence Weighting Factors
| Factor | Weight Modifier |
|---|---|
| Sample size | Larger = higher weight |
| Study design | RCT > observational |
| Peer review | Reviewed > not reviewed |
| Replication | Replicated > single study |
| Recency | More recent = higher (usually) |
| Relevance | Direct > indirect evidence |
Confidence Levels
- High confidence: Multiple high-quality sources agree, no major contradictions
- Moderate confidence: Good evidence but some limitations or gaps
- Low confidence: Limited evidence, quality concerns, or contradictions
- Very low confidence: Minimal evidence, major limitations
- Insufficient: Cannot draw conclusions
Phase 4: Contradiction Resolution
When Sources Disagree
Step 1: Verify actual disagreement
- Are they measuring the same thing?
- Are conditions comparable?
- Could both be true in different contexts?
Step 2: Assess relative quality
- Which has stronger methodology?
- Which has larger sample?
- Which is more recent?
Step 3: Identify explanatory factors
- Population differences
- Methodological differences
- Context differences
- Time period differences
Step 4: Synthesis approach
| Situation | Approach |
|---|---|
| Quality difference | Favor higher quality |
| Context difference | Specify conditions |
| Genuine debate | Present both positions |
| Unexplained | Acknowledge uncertainty |
CHECKPOINT: Present contradictions and proposed resolution for user input.
Phase 5: Narrative Construction
Synthesis Structure Options
Conceptual Framework: Organize around theoretical concepts
Concept 1 → Concept 2 → Concept 3
↓ ↓ ↓
[Findings] [Findings] [Findings]
Chronological: Trace evolution of understanding
Early understanding → Key developments → Current state
Problem-Solution: Frame around practical questions
Problem → Evidence → Solutions → Remaining gaps
Argument-Based: Build toward conclusions
Claim → Evidence → Counterclaim → Resolution → Conclusion
Narrative Elements
- Opening: Context and importance
- Body: Organized evidence presentation
- Integration: How pieces connect
- Limitations: What we don't know
- Conclusion: Key takeaways
Phase 6: Uncertainty Quantification
Uncertainty Sources
| Source | Description | Handling |
|---|---|---|
| Measurement | Data collection errors | Acknowledge precision limits |
| Sampling | Non-representative samples | Note generalizability limits |
| Model | Theoretical assumptions | Test sensitivity |
| Conflict | Disagreeing sources | Present range of views |
| Gap | Missing information | Explicitly note unknowns |
Uncertainty Communication
Use calibrated language:
| Confidence | Language |
|---|---|
| Very high (>95%) | "The evidence clearly shows..." |
| High (80-95%) | "The evidence strongly suggests..." |
| Moderate (60-80%) | "The evidence suggests..." |
| Low (40-60%) | "Some evidence indicates..." |
| Very low (<40%) | "Limited evidence hints at..." |
Phase 7: Actionable Conclusions
Conclusion Formulation
For each key conclusion:
- State the finding clearly
- Specify confidence level
- Note key supporting evidence
- Acknowledge limitations
- Identify implications
Recommendation Framework
| Evidence Strength | Recommendation Type |
|---|---|
| Strong | Direct recommendation |
| Moderate | Conditional recommendation |
| Weak | Suggestion for consideration |
| Insufficient | No recommendation (need more research) |
Phase 8: Documentation
Output Structure
# Research Synthesis: [Topic]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 paragraph overview of key findings]
## Purpose
[Research question and synthesis goals]
## Sources Synthesized
[Brief description of evidence base]
## Key Findings
### Finding 1: [Statement]
**Confidence**: [Level]
**Evidence**: [Summary of supporting sources]
**Caveats**: [Limitations or conditions]
### Finding 2: [Statement]
[Same structure]
## Areas of Uncertainty
- [Uncertainty 1]: [Description and implications]
- [Uncertainty 2]: [Description and implications]
## Contradictions and Debates
- [Topic]: [Summary of disagreement and interpretation]
## Conclusions
[Integrated conclusions with confidence levels]
## Implications
- For [audience 1]: [Implications]
- For [audience 2]: [Implications]
## Research Gaps
[What remains unknown and needs investigation]
## References
[Formatted citations]
CHECKPOINT: Review synthesis for accuracy and completeness with user.