334 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
334 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# 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](#1-goal--scope).
|
|
|
|
**Step 2**: Gather sources/domains - list all sources (synthesis) or identify source/target domains (analogy). See [Section 2A](#2a-synthesis-sources) or [Section 2B](#2b-analogy-domains).
|
|
|
|
**Step 3**: Apply techniques - thematic synthesis, conflict resolution (synthesis) or structural mapping (analogy). See [Section 3A](#3a-synthesis-application) or [Section 3B](#3b-analogy-application).
|
|
|
|
**Step 4**: Extract insights - patterns, themes, transferred knowledge. See [Section 4](#4-insights--findings).
|
|
|
|
**Step 5**: Validate quality - use quality checklist before finalizing. See [Quality Checklist](#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?**
|
|
|
|
1. **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?]
|
|
|
|
2. **Insight/Solution 2**:
|
|
[Same structure as Insight 1]
|
|
|
|
3. **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?**
|
|
|
|
1. **Action 1**: [Specific action]
|
|
- **Rationale**: [Why this action follows from synthesis/analogy]
|
|
- **Priority**: [High/Medium/Low]
|
|
- **Owner**: [Who should do this]
|
|
|
|
2. **Action 2**:
|
|
[Same structure as Action 1]
|
|
|
|
3. **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.
|