11 KiB
Synthesis & Analogy Template
Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Synthesis & Analogy Template Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define goal and scope
- [ ] Step 2: Gather and organize sources/domains
- [ ] Step 3: Apply synthesis or analogy techniques
- [ ] Step 4: Extract insights and test validity
- [ ] Step 5: Document findings and validate quality
Step 1: Define goal - synthesis question or analogy purpose. See Section 1.
Step 2: Gather sources/domains - list all sources (synthesis) or identify source/target domains (analogy). See Section 2A or Section 2B.
Step 3: Apply techniques - thematic synthesis, conflict resolution (synthesis) or structural mapping (analogy). See Section 3A or Section 3B.
Step 4: Extract insights - patterns, themes, transferred knowledge. See Section 4.
Step 5: Validate quality - use quality checklist before finalizing. See Quality Checklist.
1. Goal & Scope
Choose One (or combine):
- Synthesis: Combining multiple sources into unified understanding
- Analogy: Transferring knowledge between domains or explaining via familiar concepts
- Both: Synthesize then use analogy to explain
Goal Statement:
[What question are you answering? What problem are you solving? What are you trying to understand or explain?]
Success Criteria:
What does good output look like?
- [Criterion 1 - e.g., "Identifies 3-5 major themes across all sources"]
- [Criterion 2 - e.g., "Resolves apparent conflicts between sources"]
- [Criterion 3 - e.g., "Generates actionable insights not present in individual sources"]
2A. Synthesis: Sources
Skip this section if doing analogy only.
Source Inventory
List all sources to synthesize:
| Source # | Type | Title/Description | Key Claims | Date | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Research paper / Interview / Survey / Data / Report] | [Title or description] | [Main points] | [When] | [High/Med/Low] |
| 2 | [Type] | [Title] | [Points] | [When] | [Quality] |
| 3 | [Type] | [Title] | [Points] | [When] | [Quality] |
| 4 | [Type] | [Title] | [Points] | [When] | [Quality] |
| 5 | [Type] | [Title] | [Points] | [When] | [Quality] |
Total sources: [Count]
Source quality notes: [Any concerns about reliability, bias, or relevance of sources?]
2B. Analogy: Domains
Skip this section if doing synthesis only.
Source Domain (Familiar)
Domain: [What domain are we drawing from? Must be familiar to audience.]
Why this domain? [Why is this a good source for analogy? What makes it familiar and well-understood?]
Key entities in source domain:
- Entity 1: [Name and description]
- Entity 2: [Name and description]
- Entity 3: [Name and description]
Key relationships in source domain:
- Relationship 1: [How entities relate - e.g., "Entity 1 → Entity 2 (causes, contains, transforms)"]
- Relationship 2: [Relationship description]
- Relationship 3: [Relationship description]
Target Domain (Unfamiliar or Complex)
Domain: [What are we trying to explain or solve?]
Why needs explanation/transfer? [What's complex or unfamiliar about this domain?]
Key entities in target domain:
- Entity A: [Name and description]
- Entity B: [Name and description]
- Entity C: [Name and description]
Key relationships in target domain:
- Relationship A: [How entities relate]
- Relationship B: [Relationship description]
- Relationship C: [Relationship description]
3A. Synthesis: Application
Use if synthesizing multiple sources.
Thematic Analysis
Theme 1: [Theme Name]
- Description: [What is this theme about?]
- Frequency: [X/Y sources mention this]
- Supporting sources: [List source #s]
- Key evidence:
- Source [#]: "[Quote or key point]"
- Source [#]: "[Quote or key point]"
- Source [#]: "[Quote or key point]"
- Importance: [Why does this matter? What's the implication?]
Theme 2: [Theme Name] [Same structure as Theme 1]
Theme 3: [Theme Name] [Same structure as Theme 1]
Theme 4: [Theme Name] (if applicable) [Same structure as Theme 1]
Theme 5: [Theme Name] (if applicable) [Same structure as Theme 1]
Agreements Across Sources
What do most/all sources agree on?
| Agreement | Sources Supporting | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| [Point of agreement] | [Source #s] | [Brief supporting quotes/data] |
| [Point of agreement] | [Source #s] | [Evidence] |
| [Point of agreement] | [Source #s] | [Evidence] |
Conflicts & Resolution
Conflict 1:
- Source(s) A claim: [What do some sources say?] (Sources: [#s])
- Source(s) B claim: [What do other sources say?] (Sources: [#s])
- Nature of conflict: [Genuine disagreement or scope/context difference?]
- Resolution: [How can we reconcile? Meta-framework? Scope distinction? Temporal? State uncertainty?]
Conflict 2: [Same structure as Conflict 1]
Conflict 3: [Same structure as Conflict 1]
Patterns & Meta-Insights
Pattern 1:
- Pattern: [What repeats across multiple sources in different guises?]
- Evidence: [Where do we see this? Source #s and examples]
- Meta-insight: [What does this pattern tell us? What's the underlying principle?]
Pattern 2: [Same structure as Pattern 1]
Gaps & Uncertainties:
What's not covered or unclear?
- Gap 1: [What's missing from all sources?]
- Gap 2: [What remains uncertain despite synthesis?]
- Gap 3: [What contradictions remain unresolved?]
3B. Analogy: Application
Use if creating or testing analogy.
Structural Mapping Table
| Source Domain (Familiar) | → | Target Domain (Unfamiliar) | Validity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entity Mapping | |||
| [Source entity 1] | ↔ | [Target entity A] | [Does this map hold? Y/N, why?] |
| [Source entity 2] | ↔ | [Target entity B] | [Validity] |
| [Source entity 3] | ↔ | [Target entity C] | [Validity] |
| Relationship Mapping | |||
| [Source relationship: X→Y] | ↔ | [Target relationship: A→B] | [Do similar causal/structural relations exist?] |
| [Source relationship] | ↔ | [Target relationship] | [Validity] |
| [Source relationship] | ↔ | [Target relationship] | [Validity] |
Deep vs Surface Analysis
Deep (Structural) Similarities:
- [What structural/relational similarities exist? These make the analogy powerful.]
- [Example: "Both have feedback loops", "Both involve hub-spoke topology", "Both use hierarchical organization"]
Surface (Superficial) Similarities:
- [What surface-level similarities exist but don't help understanding?]
- [Example: "Both are round", "Both involve numbers" - note these are weak and should not drive analogy]
Assessment: [Is this analogy primarily deep (good) or surface (weak)?]
Transfer of Insights
What transfers from source to target?
-
Insight/Solution 1: [What knowledge from source domain applies to target?]
- Source: [How it works in source domain]
- Target: [How it could work in target domain]
- Evidence it transfers: [Why does this mapping work?]
-
Insight/Solution 2: [Same structure as Insight 1]
-
Insight/Solution 3: [Same structure as Insight 1]
Limitations & Where Analogy Breaks Down
Critical: Always acknowledge where analogy stops working.
Limitation 1:
- What doesn't transfer: [Aspect of source domain that doesn't map to target]
- Why it breaks: [Explanation]
- Implication: [What this means for using the analogy]
Limitation 2: [Same structure as Limitation 1]
Limitation 3: [Same structure as Limitation 1]
Bottom line: [This analogy is useful for understanding [X, Y, Z] but should not be pushed to explain [A, B, C].]
4. Insights & Findings
Synthesized Summary
Main findings (3-5 bullet points):
- [Finding 1 from synthesis/analogy work]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
- [Finding 4]
- [Finding 5]
New insights not present in individual sources:
[What have we learned from combining sources or mapping analogies that wasn't obvious from any single source? This is the value-add of synthesis/analogy work.]
Supporting Evidence
Claim 1: [Major claim or insight]
- Evidence: [Which sources support this? Specific quotes or data points]
- Strength: [How strong is the evidence? High/Medium/Low]
Claim 2: [Major claim or insight] [Same structure as Claim 1]
Claim 3: [Major claim or insight] [Same structure as Claim 1]
Actionable Implications
What should we do based on these insights?
-
Action 1: [Specific action]
- Rationale: [Why this action follows from synthesis/analogy]
- Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
- Owner: [Who should do this]
-
Action 2: [Same structure as Action 1]
-
Action 3: [Same structure as Action 1]
Confidence & Uncertainties
High confidence in:
- [What are we very sure about based on synthesis/analogy?]
Medium confidence in:
- [What seems likely but has some uncertainty?]
Low confidence / Open questions:
- [What remains uncertain or needs further investigation?]
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
For Synthesis:
- All relevant sources included in inventory (no cherry-picking)
- Thematic analysis identifies 3-5 major themes with supporting evidence
- Agreements across sources documented (what's consensus?)
- Conflicts explicitly addressed and resolved (or stated as uncertain)
- Patterns identified beyond what individual sources state (value-add)
- Evidence cited for major claims (source #s, quotes, data)
- Gaps and uncertainties acknowledged (what's missing or unclear?)
- New insights generated (synthesis adds value, not just summarizes)
- Facts distinguished from interpretations (clear what's data vs analysis)
For Analogy:
- Source domain appropriate (familiar to audience, well-understood)
- Target domain clear (what we're explaining or transferring to)
- Structural mapping table complete (entities and relationships mapped)
- Deep (structural) similarities identified (not just surface features)
- Mapping validity tested (do relationships actually transfer?)
- Insights/solutions transfer clearly explained (what moves from source to target)
- Limitations explicitly stated (where analogy breaks down)
- Analogy doesn't overextend (knows when to stop)
- Helps understanding (audience will grasp target domain better)
- Not used as proof (analogies illustrate, don't prove)
Both:
- Goal from Step 1 achieved (answered question or solved problem)
- Success criteria from Step 1 met (check against your own criteria)
- Evidence-based (grounded in sources/domains, not speculation)
- Actionable implications provided (so what? what should we do?)
- Appropriate level of confidence stated (not overconfident or too hedged)
- Readable and clear (audience will understand)
- No contradictions (internally consistent)
Minimum Standard: All applicable checklist items should be checkable. Average rubric score ≥ 3.5/5.