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:

1. How many sources support it?
2. What is their combined quality?
3. Are there methodological differences?
4. 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

1. Opening: Context and importance
2. Body: Organized evidence presentation
3. Integration: How pieces connect
4. Limitations: What we don't know
5. 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.