Research Methodology

Research Methodology

Structured approach to finding, vetting, and synthesizing information from diverse sources. Turns research questions into trustworthy, actionable findings through systematic query design, source evaluation, and cross-referencing.

When to Use This Skill

• Conducting competitive analysis or market scans
• Investigating historical events, trends, or technical evolution
• Fact-checking claims across multiple sources
• Synthesizing research into structured deliverables (reports, tables, timelines)
• Any research task that requires more than a single search query

Quick Reference

---

Workflow

Phase 1: Scope       → Define research objective, key questions, constraints
Phase 2: Explore     → Design queries, search broadly, capture sources
Phase 3: Verify      → Vet sources, cross-reference claims, assess credibility
Phase 4: Synthesize  → Organize findings into structured deliverables

---

Phase 1: Scope the Research

Before searching, clarify the research objective:

1. State the question -- what exactly are we trying to learn? 2. Define success criteria -- what does a complete answer look like? 3. Set constraints -- time period, geography, domains, source types 4. List hypotheses -- what do we expect to find? (helps detect bias) 5. Identify key terms -- domain vocabulary, synonyms, related concepts

Scoping Template

**Research Question**: [precise question]
**Success Criteria**: [what constitutes a complete answer]
**Constraints**: [time period, scope, source types]
**Key Terms**: [domain vocabulary and synonyms]
**Initial Hypotheses**: [what we expect, to check against later]

---

Phase 2: Explore

Design multiple query variations and search broadly before narrowing:

1. Create 3-5 query variations per research question 2. Search broadly first -- cast a wide net with general terms 3. Refine iteratively -- narrow based on initial results 4. Track what you searched -- record every query for reproducibility

Query Design Principles

• Use exact-match phrases in quotes for precision
• Exclude noise with negative keywords
• Target specific timeframes for recency or historical depth
• Vary terminology across queries to avoid vocabulary bias
• Use domain-specific operators when available (site:, filetype:, etc.)

Source Capture

For each promising source, record:

• URL and access date
• Key claims with direct quotes
• Author/publisher and their domain authority
• Any noted biases or limitations

---

Phase 3: Verify

Vet sources and cross-reference claims before trusting them:

1. Assess source authority -- who wrote it, what are their credentials? 2. Check recency -- is the information current enough for the question? 3. Detect bias -- does the source have a commercial, political, or ideological interest? 4. Triangulate -- require 2+ independent sources for any key claim 5. Seek primary sources -- follow citation chains to the original data

Confidence Rating

---

Phase 4: Synthesize

Organize findings into a structured deliverable:

Standard Research Report Structure

## Research Summary
[1-2 paragraph overview of findings]

## Key Findings
- [Finding 1] — [confidence level]
- [Finding 2] — [confidence level]

## Detailed Analysis
[Organized by theme or question]

## Source Credibility Assessment
| Source | Authority | Recency | Bias Risk | Rating |
|--------|-----------|---------|-----------|--------|

## Gaps and Limitations
[What we couldn't determine and why]

## Recommendations
[Next steps or actions based on findings]

---

Anti-Patterns

• Do not rely on a single source for any key claim
• Do not present uncertain findings as confirmed facts
• Do not skip source vetting for convenience
• Do not omit contradictory evidence -- always surface disagreements
• Do not let initial hypotheses bias which findings you report

Search Strategies Reference

Techniques for query design, source vetting, fact verification, and research synthesis.

Query Design Techniques

Boolean Operators

Faceted Search

Layer constraints to progressively narrow results:

Base query:     "state management"
+ Domain:       "state management" site:github.com
+ Recency:      "state management" after:2025-01-01
+ File type:    "state management" filetype:md
+ Exclusion:    "state management" -tutorial -beginner

Query Expansion

When initial queries return poor results, expand systematically:

1. Synonym expansion -- replace key terms with alternatives

• "microservices" → "micro-services", "service-oriented architecture", "distributed services"

2. Hypernym expansion -- broaden to parent concepts

• "Redis caching" → "in-memory caching", "key-value store caching"

3. Related concept expansion -- search adjacent topics

• "rate limiting" → "throttling", "backpressure", "circuit breaker"

4. Jargon translation -- use both formal and informal terms

• "eventual consistency" → "data sync delay", "replication lag"

Domain-Specific Queries

---

Source Vetting

Authority Assessment

Evaluate the credibility of each source:

Recency Assessment

Bias Detection

Common bias types to watch for:

---

Fact Verification

Triangulation Method

For any important claim, require three independent paths to confirmation:

Claim: "Library X handles 10K concurrent connections"

Path 1 (primary source):   Official benchmark in library docs
Path 2 (independent test):  Third-party benchmark blog post
Path 3 (community signal):  GitHub issues/discussions confirming at scale

If paths disagree, investigate why. Common reasons:

• Different test conditions (hardware, configuration, workload)
• Different versions of the software
• Different definitions of the metric

Primary Source Tracing

Follow the citation chain to the original data:

Blog post claims "X is 10x faster" →
  cites a conference talk →
    which references a benchmark paper →
      which contains the actual test methodology and data

Evaluate the primary source, not the downstream claim. Downstream sources often:

• Oversimplify or exaggerate findings
• Omit important caveats
• Cite outdated versions of the research

Contradiction Handling

When credible sources disagree:

1. Document both positions with full citations 2. Identify the variable -- what differs between the sources? 3. Assess which context applies to your research question 4. Rate confidence as "Contested" and explain why 5. Recommend resolution -- what additional evidence would settle it?

---

Competitive Analysis Frameworks

Feature Matrix

| Capability | Product A | Product B | Product C |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Feature 1 | Yes (v2+) | Partial   | No        |
| Feature 2 | No        | Yes       | Yes       |
| Pricing   | $X/mo     | $Y/mo     | Free tier |
| License   | MIT       | Apache-2  | AGPL      |

SWOT per Competitor

## [Competitor Name]

**Strengths**: What they do well
**Weaknesses**: Where they fall short
**Opportunities**: Gaps they haven't addressed
**Threats**: Risks they pose to our position

Trend Analysis

Track how a topic evolves over time:

1. Search with date-restricted queries (yearly or quarterly windows) 2. Note when key terms first appear and peak 3. Identify inflection points (new releases, incidents, standards changes) 4. Plot adoption signals (GitHub stars, npm downloads, job postings)

---

Market Research Patterns

TAM/SAM/SOM Estimation

When sizing a market opportunity:

1. Total Addressable Market -- search for industry reports, analyst estimates 2. Serviceable Available Market -- narrow by geography, segment, constraints 3. Serviceable Obtainable Market -- factor in competition and realistic capture

Always cite the source of market size numbers and note the methodology used.

User/Customer Research Signals

Where to find real user sentiment:

---

Synthesis and Reporting

Organizing Findings

Choose organization by what serves the reader:

Evidence Strength Indicators

Use consistent markers in reports:

[CONFIRMED] — 3+ independent authoritative sources agree
[LIKELY]    — 2 sources agree, no contradictions
[UNCERTAIN] — single source or limited evidence
[CONTESTED] — credible sources disagree
[ESTIMATED] — derived from available data, not directly measured

Gap Documentation

Always explicitly state what you could NOT determine:

## Research Gaps

- **[Topic]**: No credible sources found for [specific question]
  - Searched: [queries attempted]
  - Possible next step: [how to resolve]

This prevents readers from assuming silence means "not relevant" when it really means "not found."