research-methodology

Research Methodology

Structured approach to finding, vetting, and synthesizing information from diverse sources. Turns research questions into trustworthy, actionable findings through systematic query design, source evaluation, and cross-referencing.

When to Use This Skill

• Conducting competitive analysis or market scans
• Investigating historical events, trends, or technical evolution
• Fact-checking claims across multiple sources
• Synthesizing research into structured deliverables (reports, tables, timelines)
• Any research task that requires more than a single search query

Quick Reference

Resource	Purpose	Load when
references/search-strategies.md	Query design, source vetting, fact verification, synthesis techniques	Starting any research task

---

Workflow

Phase 1: Scope       → Define research objective, key questions, constraints
Phase 2: Explore     → Design queries, search broadly, capture sources
Phase 3: Verify      → Vet sources, cross-reference claims, assess credibility
Phase 4: Synthesize  → Organize findings into structured deliverables

---

Phase 1: Scope the Research

Before searching, clarify the research objective:

1. State the question -- what exactly are we trying to learn?
2. Define success criteria -- what does a complete answer look like?
3. Set constraints -- time period, geography, domains, source types
4. List hypotheses -- what do we expect to find? (helps detect bias)
5. Identify key terms -- domain vocabulary, synonyms, related concepts

Scoping Template

**Research Question**: [precise question]
**Success Criteria**: [what constitutes a complete answer]
**Constraints**: [time period, scope, source types]
**Key Terms**: [domain vocabulary and synonyms]
**Initial Hypotheses**: [what we expect, to check against later]

---

Phase 2: Explore

Design multiple query variations and search broadly before narrowing:

1. Create 3-5 query variations per research question
2. Search broadly first -- cast a wide net with general terms
3. Refine iteratively -- narrow based on initial results
4. Track what you searched -- record every query for reproducibility

Query Design Principles

• Use exact-match phrases in quotes for precision
• Exclude noise with negative keywords
• Target specific timeframes for recency or historical depth
• Vary terminology across queries to avoid vocabulary bias
• Use domain-specific operators when available (site:, filetype:, etc.)

Source Capture

For each promising source, record:

• URL and access date
• Key claims with direct quotes
• Author/publisher and their domain authority
• Any noted biases or limitations

---

Phase 3: Verify

Vet sources and cross-reference claims before trusting them:

1. Assess source authority -- who wrote it, what are their credentials?
2. Check recency -- is the information current enough for the question?
3. Detect bias -- does the source have a commercial, political, or ideological interest?
4. Triangulate -- require 2+ independent sources for any key claim
5. Seek primary sources -- follow citation chains to the original data

Confidence Rating

Level	Criteria
Confirmed	3+ independent, authoritative sources agree
Likely	2 sources agree, no contradictions found
Uncertain	Single source or sources disagree
Contested	Credible sources directly contradict each other

---

Phase 4: Synthesize

Organize findings into a structured deliverable:

Standard Research Report Structure

## Research Summary
[1-2 paragraph overview of findings]

## Key Findings
- [Finding 1] — [confidence level]
- [Finding 2] — [confidence level]

## Detailed Analysis
[Organized by theme or question]

## Source Credibility Assessment
| Source | Authority | Recency | Bias Risk | Rating |
|--------|-----------|---------|-----------|--------|

## Gaps and Limitations
[What we couldn't determine and why]

## Recommendations
[Next steps or actions based on findings]

---

Anti-Patterns

• Do not rely on a single source for any key claim
• Do not present uncertain findings as confirmed facts
• Do not skip source vetting for convenience
• Do not omit contradictory evidence -- always surface disagreements
• Do not let initial hypotheses bias which findings you report