Reference eligibility: eligible — Institutional or method-author operating guidance documents this procedure; no tool-seller customer-success claim is admitted.
design/research / comm-13
GDS collaborative research analysis
Researchers and observers separate observations, interpretations, and actions while building shared findings.
documented-procedure · conventional-workflow · Source account, not a validated implementation
What goes in
- Session notes
- Recordings
- Observer recollections
What comes out
- Grouped evidence
- Findings
- Proposed actions
Documented sequence
Order described in the source account; not a sequence between pattern families.
- Bring observers together soon after research
- Extract one observed event or statement per note
- Check recordings where needed
- Cluster related observations
- Name and refine groups
- Record findings separately
- Agree actions
- Share the results
Checks described
- Capture what happened before interpreting
- Use separate note colors for findings and actions
What changes with context
- Collaborative analysis; guidance suggests one hour per two hours of research
- Capturing useful sticky notes during sessions is recommended only for experienced lab teams
Shared patterns · provisional interpretation
-
Assemble grounded evidence
Distributed source material → traceable retrieval, synthesis, or a decision-ready evidence packet
Fit: direct. Exploratory analyst coding of collected source summaries; not independently tested
Could this transfer?
Hypothetical: an operations team could synthesize service-desk observations while preserving which statements are facts versus interpretations.
Limit: Discarding isolated observations can hide rare but important failures; the transfer needs explicit minority-evidence handling.
Evidence limits and unknowns
Summary through context_constraints paraphrase source-backed mechanics. structural_motifs, candidate_midlevel_pattern, transfer_example_explicitly_hypothetical and transfer_limit are analyst interpretations, not tested findings.
- Inter-rater agreement
- Treatment of contradictory observations
- Downstream implementation rate
Source eligibility and effectiveness
Allowed use: process reference with explicit limits . Source eligibility is not proof of effectiveness, safety or transferability.
Review attribution: AI-assisted source review · 2026-10-18T03:26:44.526806+00:00.
- Eligibility, where granted, permits a process reference only; it is not proof of usefulness, causal effectiveness, safety, or transferability.
- No workflow software executed, no video playback independently observed, and no outcomes independently measured by this audit.
- Inter-rater agreement
- Treatment of contradictory observations
- Downstream implementation rate
- Discarding isolated observations can hide rare but important failures; the transfer needs explicit minority-evidence handling.
Source and dates
Analyse a research session ↗ · Official research handbook
- Published
- 2016-05-24
- Updated
- 2016-05-24
- Checked (UTC)
- 2026-10-18T03:01:00Z
Updates to this page explicitly labels both publication and last update 24 May 2016; first-publication history matches.
verified explicit publication and update · Date evidence ↗
Try a bounded adaptation
This generated starter is untested. It is not the source author’s prompt or a reviewed Commons skill.