psyclaw 0.27.22 → 0.28.0

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/references/methodology_patterns.md

@@ -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)
+```