magnus919_agent-skills/research-methodology/references/synthesis-patterns.md

Synthesis Patterns

Methods for combining findings from multiple sources into something more valuable than any single source.

Thematic Synthesis

Best for: Combining qualitative findings, expert opinions, and case studies.

1. Extract claims. From each source, pull the specific claims relevant to your research question.
2. Find patterns. Group claims that point in the same direction. What themes emerge?
3. Name each theme. A good theme name is specific enough to be meaningful, broad enough to contain related claims.
4. Support each theme. List which sources support it, which contradict it, and which are neutral.
5. Identify convergent and divergent themes. Where do sources agree? Where do they disagree?

Convergence Signals

Signal	What it means
3+ independent sources agree	High confidence in the finding
Sources from different fields converge	Very high confidence — cross-validation across disciplines
Different methodologies produce same result	Method-independent finding
Even critics concede the point	Defensible claim

Divergence Signals

Signal	What it means
Sources disagree without clear pattern	Territory is unsettled — report both sides
Disagreement correlates with methodology	Methods may be driving results
Disagreement correlates with funding source	Conflict of interest may be a factor
Single source contradicts consensus	Investigate deeper — the outlier may be wrong or may have found something others missed

Lines of Argument

Best for: Building a case for or against a position.

1. State the conclusion. What are you trying to support?
2. Build independent lines. Each line of argument is a separate chain of reasoning that supports the conclusion. They should be as independent as possible.
3. Test each line. Does each line stand on its own evidence? Or do they share assumptions?
4. Weight the lines. Some lines are stronger than others. Score each: strong anchoring evidence, moderate supporting evidence, or weak circumstantial evidence.
5. Cross-line consistency. If multiple independent lines all point to the same conclusion, confidence is much higher than if they share a common assumption.

Constant Comparison

Best for: Iterative research where findings emerge gradually.

1. Start with the first source. Extract initial themes.
2. Compare each new source. Does it confirm existing themes? Add new ones? Contradict?
3. Update themes. Refine, split, or merge themes as evidence accumulates.
4. Test saturation. Are new sources adding new themes or just confirming existing ones? When new sources stop adding new themes, you've reached saturation.

The Convergence-Divergence Matrix

Map findings along two axes:

	Convergent (sources agree)	Divergent (sources disagree)
Well-evidenced (many sources)	⭐ High-confidence finding — report as solid	⚠️ Active debate — report both sides with evidence weights
Thinly-evidenced (few sources)	📌 Tentative finding — flag as provisional	🔍 Gap — identify as area needing more research