Claude Academic Research Assistant: Literature Review & Methodology

Synthesize these [N] papers on [research topic].

For each paper, provide a structured summary:
| Paper | Research Question | Method | Key Finding | Limitation (stated) | Limitation (unstated) |

Then, synthesize across papers:

1. THEMATIC CLUSTERS: Group papers that address similar questions.
   What does each cluster collectively say?

2. METHODOLOGICAL PATTERNS: What methods dominate? What methods are missing?
   "This field relies heavily on [method]. Notably absent are [alternative approaches]."

3. CONSENSUS: What findings appear across multiple papers with converging evidence?

4. CONTRADICTIONS: Where do findings conflict? For each contradiction:
   - What's the specific disagreement?
   - Could it be explained by methodological differences?
   - Which finding has stronger evidence?

5. EVOLUTION: If papers span multiple years, trace how understanding evolved.
   What was "known" in 2020 that was overturned by 2024?

6. GAPS: What obvious questions does none of these papers address?
   "Given all this work on X, it's surprising that no one has examined Y."

Write a thematic (not chronological) literature review on [topic] based on
the attached papers.

STRUCTURE:
1. Introduction: The research landscape — what's the central question?
2. Theme 1: [Name the theme] — which papers address it, what do they say?
3. Theme 2: [Name the theme] — which papers address it, what do they say?
4. Theme 3: [Continue for all identified themes]
5. Synthesis: How do these themes relate to each other?
6. Gaps & Future Work: What's missing? What should be studied next?

RULES:
- Every claim must be supported by at least one paper citation
- When papers disagree, present both sides fairly
- Use "Author (Year)" citation format
- Do NOT fabricate papers — only cite papers in the attached set
- If the attached set doesn't address an important aspect of the topic,
  note it: "[Aspect] is not covered in the provided papers."

Based on the attached literature, generate research hypotheses.

For each gap you identify in the literature, formulate:

1. THE GAP: "While existing research has established [X], it has not examined [Y]."

2. THE HYPOTHESIS: "H[N]: [Specific, testable prediction]."

3. THEORETICAL BASIS: Why would this hypothesis be plausible?
   Reference existing theory or findings that support it.

4. TESTABLE PREDICTION: "If H[N] is true, we would expect to observe [specific outcome]."

5. ALTERNATIVE: "The null hypothesis would be [opposite prediction] or an
   alternative explanation could be [competing theory]."

6. FEASIBILITY: How would you test this?
   - Study design: [type]
   - Variables: [independent, dependent, controls]
   - Sample: [type and approximate size needed]
   - Key challenge: [biggest obstacle to testing this]

Generate at least [N] hypotheses ranked by: novelty × feasibility × theoretical grounding.

For my research hypothesis: "[your hypothesis]", generate the strongest possible
counter-arguments.

1. THEORETICAL CHALLENGE: What theory would predict the OPPOSITE result?
2. METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGE: If my study finds support, what methodological
   weakness would skeptics point to?
3. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: If I observe my predicted effect, what else
   (besides my hypothesis) could explain it?
4. BOUNDARY CONDITION: Under what conditions would my hypothesis FAIL?
   "This hypothesis likely doesn't hold when [condition] because [reasoning]."
5. CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Based on the attached literature, what findings
   already challenge my hypothesis that I need to address?

Given this research question: "[question]"

RECOMMEND A METHODOLOGY with the following analysis:

1. APPROACH OPTIONS: List 3 possible methodological approaches.
   For each: brief description, key strength, key weakness.

2. RECOMMENDED APPROACH: [your top recommendation]
   - Why this over the alternatives?
   - What assumptions does this method make about the data/phenomenon?
   - Are those assumptions justified?

3. STUDY DESIGN:
   - Type: [experimental / quasi-experimental / correlational / qualitative / mixed]
   - Variables: independent, dependent, control variables
   - Participants/Sample: type, approximate size, recruitment strategy
   - Procedure: step-by-step flow
   - Instruments: what measures/tools?

4. VALIDITY THREATS:
   - Internal validity: what could make me wrong about causality?
   - External validity: how far do the findings generalize?
   - Construct validity: am I measuring what I think I'm measuring?

5. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
   - Timeline estimate
   - Resource requirements
   - Ethical considerations (IRB concerns?)
   - Biggest risk to the study's success

6. MINIMUM VIABLE STUDY: If resources were very constrained, what's the
   simplest version of this study that would still answer the question?

Format the following references in [APA 7th / MLA 9th / Chicago / IEEE / Harvard] style:

[Paste reference information]

For each reference:
1. Output the formatted citation
2. Flag any missing information that the style requires (e.g., "APA requires DOI — not provided")

Common issues to check:
- Author name format (check style guide for initials vs. full names)
- Title capitalization (APA: sentence case, MLA: title case)
- Journal name italicization
- Volume/issue formatting
- DOI/URL formatting

Return only the formatted citations, one per line, with missing info flags inline.