feat(skills): add deep-research skill
Copy deep-research skill from local Qoder installation to config repo for version control
This commit is contained in:
462
skills/deep-research/references/methodology_patterns.md
Normal file
462
skills/deep-research/references/methodology_patterns.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,462 @@
|
||||
# Research Methodology Patterns — Design Templates
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Ready-to-use methodology templates for common research designs. Used by the research_architect_agent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 1: Systematic Literature Review
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Mapping the state of knowledge on a topic
|
||||
- Identifying gaps in existing research
|
||||
- Synthesizing evidence for policy/practice recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: What is known about [topic] in [context]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Register protocol (PROSPERO or similar)
|
||||
2. Define search strategy (databases, keywords, Boolean operators)
|
||||
3. Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria
|
||||
4. Search execution + documentation
|
||||
5. Two-pass screening (title/abstract → full text)
|
||||
6. Quality appraisal of included studies
|
||||
7. Data extraction
|
||||
8. Synthesis (narrative, thematic, or meta-analytic)
|
||||
9. Report per PRISMA guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Comprehensive search (minimum 3 databases)
|
||||
- Reproducible strategy
|
||||
- Dual screening (2 reviewers or reviewer + verification)
|
||||
- PRISMA checklist completed
|
||||
|
||||
Reporting Standard: PRISMA 2020 (see references/equator_reporting_guidelines.md)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### PRISMA Flow Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Records identified through database searching (n = )
|
||||
Additional records from other sources (n = )
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Records after duplicates removed (n = )
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Records screened (title/abstract) (n = )
|
||||
Records excluded (n = )
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = )
|
||||
Full-text excluded, with reasons (n = )
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Studies included in synthesis (n = )
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 2: Comparative Case Study
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Comparing policies, programs, or institutions
|
||||
- Understanding how context shapes outcomes
|
||||
- Generating theoretical propositions from multiple cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: How does [phenomenon] vary across [cases]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Case selection (theoretical or purposive sampling)
|
||||
2. Define comparison framework (dimensions, variables)
|
||||
3. Data collection per case (documents, interviews, data)
|
||||
4. Within-case analysis
|
||||
5. Cross-case analysis
|
||||
6. Pattern identification and explanation
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Explicit case selection rationale
|
||||
- Consistent data collection across cases
|
||||
- Both within-case and cross-case analysis
|
||||
- Rival explanations considered
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Comparison Matrix Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
| Dimension | Case A | Case B | Case C | Pattern |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|--------|--------|---------|
|
||||
| Context | | | | |
|
||||
| Input | | | | |
|
||||
| Process | | | | |
|
||||
| Outcome | | | | |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 3: Policy Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Evaluating existing or proposed policies
|
||||
- Comparing policy approaches across jurisdictions
|
||||
- Assessing policy outcomes and unintended consequences
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: How effective is [policy] in achieving [goal]?
|
||||
|
||||
Framework Options:
|
||||
A. Bardach's Eightfold Path
|
||||
B. Dunn's Policy Analysis Framework
|
||||
C. SWOT Analysis
|
||||
D. Logic Model (Input → Activity → Output → Outcome → Impact)
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Problem definition
|
||||
2. Evidence gathering (quantitative + qualitative)
|
||||
3. Policy option identification
|
||||
4. Criteria development (effectiveness, efficiency, equity, feasibility)
|
||||
5. Option assessment against criteria
|
||||
6. Recommendation with trade-offs
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Multiple criteria (not just effectiveness)
|
||||
- Stakeholder perspectives included
|
||||
- Unintended consequences assessed
|
||||
- Implementation feasibility addressed
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 4: Mixed Methods (Convergent Parallel)
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Complex phenomena requiring multiple data types
|
||||
- Need to triangulate findings
|
||||
- Quantitative data needs qualitative explanation (or vice versa)
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: What is the nature and extent of [phenomenon]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
QUAN strand: QUAL strand:
|
||||
1. Survey/data collection 1. Interviews/focus groups
|
||||
2. Statistical analysis 2. Thematic analysis
|
||||
3. Quantitative findings 3. Qualitative findings
|
||||
↓
|
||||
4. Integration
|
||||
5. Joint display
|
||||
6. Meta-inference
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Both strands have independent rigor
|
||||
- Integration strategy explicit (not just parallel reporting)
|
||||
- Joint display or mixed methods matrix
|
||||
- Meta-inferences draw on both strands
|
||||
|
||||
Reporting Standards: QUAL strand → COREQ; QUAN strand → STROBE/CONSORT (see references/equator_reporting_guidelines.md)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 5: Content/Document Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Analyzing texts, policies, media, or documents
|
||||
- Identifying patterns in communication
|
||||
- Systematic examination of large document sets
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: What themes/patterns emerge from [document set]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Define corpus (which documents, inclusion criteria)
|
||||
2. Develop coding framework (deductive, inductive, or hybrid)
|
||||
3. Code systematically (inter-coder reliability if multiple coders)
|
||||
4. Analyze codes → categories → themes
|
||||
5. Report with exemplar quotes/excerpts
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Corpus selection transparent
|
||||
- Coding framework documented
|
||||
- Inter-coder reliability reported (if applicable)
|
||||
- Saturation discussed
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 6: Exploratory Research
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- New or under-researched topics
|
||||
- Generating hypotheses for future research
|
||||
- Understanding phenomena from participant perspective
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: How do [participants] experience/understand [phenomenon]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Purposive sampling
|
||||
2. Semi-structured interviews or observations
|
||||
3. Iterative data collection and analysis
|
||||
4. Open coding → axial coding → selective coding
|
||||
5. Theory or framework development
|
||||
6. Member checking / peer debriefing
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Reflexivity statement
|
||||
- Thick description
|
||||
- Data saturation discussed
|
||||
- Transferability criteria addressed
|
||||
|
||||
Reporting Standard: COREQ for interviews/focus groups (see references/equator_reporting_guidelines.md)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 7: Benchmarking Study
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Comparing performance against standards or peers
|
||||
- Identifying best practices
|
||||
- Setting performance targets
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: How does [entity] perform compared to [benchmark]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Select benchmarking type (internal, competitive, functional, generic)
|
||||
2. Identify indicators and metrics
|
||||
3. Collect comparable data
|
||||
4. Analyze gaps
|
||||
5. Identify best practices from high performers
|
||||
6. Develop improvement recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Comparable metrics (apples to apples)
|
||||
- Context factors acknowledged
|
||||
- Multiple indicators (not single metric)
|
||||
- Actionable recommendations
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 8: Technology Requirements Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Assessing feasibility, requirements analysis, and technology comparison for new technologies
|
||||
- Technology selection decisions before system design
|
||||
- Risk and benefit assessment of technology adoption
|
||||
- When research questions involve "Which technology should be used?" or "Can this technology solve the problem?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: What technology approach best addresses [need] given [constraints]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Requirement Elicitation
|
||||
- Stakeholder interviews
|
||||
- Existing system/process analysis
|
||||
- Functional requirements vs non-functional requirements (performance, security, scalability)
|
||||
2. Technology Scanning
|
||||
- Inventory of candidate technologies (at least 3 options)
|
||||
- Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment
|
||||
- Community activity, documentation completeness, long-term maintenance risk
|
||||
3. Feasibility Assessment
|
||||
- Technical feasibility: Can it be done?
|
||||
- Economic feasibility: Is it worth doing?
|
||||
- Organizational feasibility: Does the team have the capability?
|
||||
- Schedule feasibility: Is there enough time?
|
||||
4. Proof of Concept (PoC)
|
||||
- Construct minimal verification targeting key technical risks
|
||||
- Define success criteria (performance thresholds, integration test pass rates)
|
||||
- Document encountered problems and solutions
|
||||
5. Requirement Specification
|
||||
- Produce formal requirements document
|
||||
- Define acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Establish traceability matrix (requirements ↔ design ↔ testing)
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Requirements completeness: All stakeholder requirements have been collected
|
||||
- Traceability: Each requirement is traceable to its source; each design decision maps to a corresponding requirement
|
||||
- Technical feasibility verification: Key technical risks have been validated through PoC
|
||||
- Fair comparison of options: Consistent evaluation framework used to compare different technology options
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Technology Comparison Matrix Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
| Evaluation Dimension | Option A | Option B | Option C | Weight |
|
||||
|---------------------|----------|----------|----------|--------|
|
||||
| Functional Fit | | | | 30% |
|
||||
| Technology Maturity | | | | 20% |
|
||||
| Adoption Cost | | | | 15% |
|
||||
| Maintenance Cost | | | | 10% |
|
||||
| Learning Curve | | | | 10% |
|
||||
| Scalability | | | | 10% |
|
||||
| Community/Ecosystem | | | | 5% |
|
||||
| Weighted Total | | | | 100% |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 9: Legal Case Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Legal and regulatory policy analysis, case law research, legal text interpretation
|
||||
- Analyzing current regulations and judicial opinions on specific legal issues
|
||||
- Comparing legal approaches across different jurisdictions
|
||||
- When research questions involve statutory interpretation, rights and obligations analysis, or legal aspects of policy analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Distinction from Pattern 3 (Policy Analysis)
|
||||
- **Policy Analysis**: Focuses on evaluating policy effectiveness — "Is this policy working?" "Are there better policy options?"
|
||||
- **Legal Case Analysis**: Focuses on analyzing legal texts and case law — "What does the law say?" "How do courts interpret it?" "Are there legal loopholes?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: How does the law address [issue] and what are the implications for [context]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Issue Identification
|
||||
- Translate research question into specific legal issues
|
||||
- Distinguish questions of fact vs questions of law
|
||||
- Define the relevant legal domains (public law / private law / international law)
|
||||
2. Legal Framework Mapping
|
||||
- Constitutional-level provisions
|
||||
- Statutory / regulatory / administrative rule levels
|
||||
- International conventions / soft law
|
||||
- Legislative history and rationale for amendments
|
||||
3. Case Law Analysis
|
||||
- Systematic case law search (court level, time range, keywords)
|
||||
- Extract key holdings from decisions
|
||||
- Analyze trends in case law evolution
|
||||
- Identify majority opinions vs dissenting opinions
|
||||
4. Legal Reasoning
|
||||
- Textual interpretation, systematic interpretation, purposive interpretation, historical interpretation
|
||||
- Comparative law analysis (how other jurisdictions handle the issue)
|
||||
- Review and evaluate scholarly opinions
|
||||
- Interest balancing and value judgments
|
||||
5. Recommendations
|
||||
- Interpretive recommendations under existing law
|
||||
- Legislative reform recommendations (if necessary)
|
||||
- Practical implementation recommendations
|
||||
- Risk warnings
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Legal source accuracy: Cited regulations and cases must be current and effective versions
|
||||
- Logical consistency: Legal reasoning process must not be self-contradictory
|
||||
- Argumentation completeness: All possible interpretive paths have been considered
|
||||
- Comparative law rigor: When comparing jurisdictions, differences in legal system backgrounds must be noted
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Legal Analysis Structure Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
I. Legal Issues
|
||||
[Specific legal issues in dispute]
|
||||
|
||||
II. Relevant Provisions
|
||||
1. Statutory level:
|
||||
2. Regulatory level:
|
||||
3. International norms:
|
||||
|
||||
III. Judicial Opinions
|
||||
1. Majority opinion: [Case number] [Key holding]
|
||||
2. Dissenting opinion: [Case number] [Key holding]
|
||||
3. Trends:
|
||||
|
||||
IV. Scholarly Opinions
|
||||
1. View A:
|
||||
2. View B:
|
||||
3. Author's view:
|
||||
|
||||
V. Comparative Law
|
||||
[How other jurisdictions handle the issue]
|
||||
|
||||
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Pattern 10: Creative/Practice-Based Research
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
- Art-based research: Generating knowledge through artistic creation
|
||||
- Design research / research through design: Generating knowledge through the design process
|
||||
- Practice-based / practice-led research: Practice itself is the research method
|
||||
- When research questions involve creative practice, design thinking, or artistic inquiry
|
||||
|
||||
### Differences from Traditional Academic Research
|
||||
- **Output format**: Can be a creative work + dissertation (not just a dissertation)
|
||||
- **Knowledge type**: Values practical knowledge (tacit knowledge) and embodied knowledge
|
||||
- **Process as method**: The creative/design process itself is the research method, not merely the object of study
|
||||
- **Subjectivity**: The researcher's subjective experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, but requires systematic reflection
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Question: What knowledge emerges through the practice of [creative activity] in [context]?
|
||||
|
||||
Protocol:
|
||||
1. Reflective Practice
|
||||
- Define research question and creative intention
|
||||
- Establish reflective framework (e.g., Schön's reflection-in-action / reflection-on-action)
|
||||
- Confirm researcher positioning (insider / practitioner-researcher)
|
||||
2. Process Documentation
|
||||
- Studio journal / design diary
|
||||
- Process video/audio documentation
|
||||
- Iteration version records (sketches, drafts, prototypes)
|
||||
- Decision point documentation: Why this approach and not another?
|
||||
3. Contextual Analysis
|
||||
- Situate the creative process within disciplinary/cultural/historical context
|
||||
- Engage in dialogue with existing works/theories
|
||||
- Identify themes and insights emerging from the creative process
|
||||
4. Knowledge Articulation
|
||||
- Transform tacit knowledge into communicable forms
|
||||
- Build bridges from practice to concepts
|
||||
- Distill transferable principles or frameworks
|
||||
5. Presentation of Findings
|
||||
- Work presentation (exhibition, performance, prototype demonstration)
|
||||
- Written discourse (exegesis / critical commentary)
|
||||
- Integrate the relationship between work and discourse
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Criteria:
|
||||
- Depth of reflection: Not just describing "what was done," but analyzing "why it was done this way" and "what was learned"
|
||||
- Creative process transparency: Readers can understand the complete path from problem to work
|
||||
- Clarity of knowledge contribution: Clearly state what this research contributes to knowledge
|
||||
- Contextualization quality: The work does not exist in isolation but engages with the discipline
|
||||
- Methodological reflexivity: The researcher is aware of their own role and biases
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Practice-Based Research Documentation Template
|
||||
```
|
||||
Phase 1: Positioning
|
||||
- Research question:
|
||||
- Creative intention:
|
||||
- Researcher positioning (practitioner / observer / participant):
|
||||
- Theoretical framework:
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 2: Process
|
||||
| Iteration | Date | Action | Reflection | Turning Point |
|
||||
|-----------|------|--------|------------|---------------|
|
||||
| v1 | | | | |
|
||||
| v2 | | | | |
|
||||
| v3 | | | | |
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 3: Outcomes
|
||||
- Work description:
|
||||
- Knowledge contribution:
|
||||
- Transferable principles/frameworks:
|
||||
- Recommendations for future practice/research:
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
What type of question?
|
||||
├── "What is known?" → Systematic Literature Review
|
||||
├── "How do cases compare?" → Comparative Case Study
|
||||
├── "Is this policy working?" → Policy Analysis
|
||||
├── "What's happening and why?" → Mixed Methods
|
||||
├── "What do documents reveal?" → Content Analysis
|
||||
├── "How is this experienced?" → Exploratory Research
|
||||
├── "How do we compare?" → Benchmarking Study
|
||||
├── "Which technology should we use?" → Technology Requirements Analysis
|
||||
├── "What does the law say?" → Legal Case Analysis
|
||||
└── "What knowledge emerges from practice?" → Creative/Practice-Based Research
|
||||
|
||||
More nuanced decision:
|
||||
├── Technology assessment related
|
||||
│ ├── Comparing different technology options → Pattern 8 (Technology Requirements Analysis)
|
||||
│ └── Comparing technology adoption across organizations → Pattern 2 (Comparative Case Study)
|
||||
├── Law/policy related
|
||||
│ ├── What legal texts prescribe and how courts interpret them → Pattern 9 (Legal Case Analysis)
|
||||
│ └── Whether a policy is effective and how to improve it → Pattern 3 (Policy Analysis)
|
||||
├── Creative/design related
|
||||
│ ├── Generating knowledge through the creative process → Pattern 10 (Creative/Practice-Based Research)
|
||||
│ ├── Understanding the experience of creators → Pattern 6 (Exploratory Research)
|
||||
│ └── Analyzing creative texts/works → Pattern 5 (Content Analysis)
|
||||
└── Uncertain
|
||||
├── New topic with scarce literature → Pattern 6 (Exploratory Research)
|
||||
├── Complex problem requiring multiple data types → Pattern 4 (Mixed Methods)
|
||||
└── First see how others have approached it → Pattern 1 (Systematic Literature Review)
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user