Research and Knowledge Production
Connect previous studies, emerging signals and partner perspectives in a shared workbench. Your researchers assess what matters, work through disagreements and define the questions that should guide the next programme.
Discuss your research workflowFor NGOs, think tanks, research institutes and interdisciplinary programmes. Proposed configuration; sources, coverage and implementation requirements are scoped together.
Illustrative research scenario
An institute is planning five years of work on water security and rural livelihoods. Its studies, new irrigation developments and partner accounts point to different questions. Where should the next programme focus its research effort?
01 Connect the knowledge
Illustrative material. Keep each contribution connected to its source, method and location.
02 Assess the significance
Researcher annotation“What changes our research priorities, and what do we still need to understand?”
AI assists comparison and proposes connections. Researchers test their significance, examine missing perspectives and work through disagreements.
Under what financing and water-management conditions could wider irrigation access improve livelihoods sustainably?
03 Define the research agenda
Research agenda · researcher reviewed
Researchers explain the priorities, record differences and define the evidence needed before new findings can be supported.
The workbench supports the shared inquiry. Researchers own methods, interpretation and publication.
Build on the work
Research and Knowledge Production
Connect previous studies, emerging signals and partner perspectives in a shared workbench. Researchers assess significance, work through disagreements and define questions, evidence gaps and programme implications.
At a glance
01 / The next research agenda
A research institute working with development organisations is planning its next five-year programme on water security and rural livelihoods. Previous studies, new developments and perspectives from partners are spread across teams and engagements.
Its horizon scan brings together affordable solar irrigation, new agricultural finance schemes, changing groundwater conditions and local accounts of unequal access to water. These are illustrative scenario materials, not real findings.
The institution needs to decide which questions deserve investigation. Its research agenda must build on accumulated knowledge, attend to what is changing and explain where further work could make a practical contribution.
02 / Bring the knowledge together
The team brings relevant publications, policy announcements, pilot material and partner observations alongside the institution’s previous studies. Earlier methods, findings and unresolved questions provide a starting point for inquiry.
AI assists discovery, comparison and synthesis, proposing connections across this material. Researchers examine whether an apparent theme reflects a meaningful change, a local exception or renewed attention to an existing issue.
The workbench supports that shared inquiry. Source quality, geographic coverage and missing perspectives remain matters for researchers to examine; a volume of similar reports does not establish significance.
03 / Assess significance and disagreement
Agricultural researchers examine productivity and technology adoption. Environmental specialists consider water availability. Social researchers and local partners examine access, incentives and who may benefit or bear the costs.
Their contributions remain connected to sources, methods and context. Researchers discuss differences of interpretation and resolve them where the evidence allows, recording disagreements that remain. Evidence from different places or populations is not assumed to be interchangeable.
A shared question takes shape: under what financing and water-management conditions could wider irrigation access improve livelihoods sustainably?
Researcher annotation“What changes our research priorities, and what do we still need to understand?”
04 / Define evidence gaps
The team examines what would need to be known to answer the question. Who can access the financing? How does adoption affect water use? Which management arrangements work in each setting?
Possible pathways help expose assumptions: wider access with effective water management, benefits concentrated among better-resourced producers, or expansion that increases pressure on shared water. These may overlap; they are neither forecasts nor an exhaustive set of alternatives.
AI can propose inquiries and alternative pathways. Researchers judge their relevance and define the interviews, field studies or additional data needed. They consider whose experiences and which locations are missing from the evidence.
05 / Agree the agenda and implications
The resulting agenda explains the priority questions, why they matter, what existing knowledge supports them and what evidence is still needed. It identifies settings to compare and the assumptions that could change the programme’s focus.
Researchers review the reasoning and record remaining differences before the agenda informs fieldwork, partner discussions and programme design. Priorities are explained rather than automatically ranked.
A foresight brief can frame the emerging issue and its uncertainties. A comparative research proposal can carry the agreed questions into a defined investigation. Generating either draft does not establish a research finding or complete a systematic review.
Reviewer annotation“Why investigate this question now, and what would change its priority?”
06 / Revisit as knowledge develops
As new studies and partner observations become available, researchers revisit the affected questions, evidence gaps and programme implications. They decide whether the information changes an interpretation, warrants further investigation or calls for a revision to the agenda.
Retaining earlier reasoning helps future teams understand why a priority was chosen, examine its basis and build on the institution’s accumulated knowledge.
Keep the distinctions visible
Build on accumulated knowledge, investigate consequential gaps and explain how research priorities connect to programme and policy needs.
Build on accumulated knowledge, investigate consequential gaps and explain how research priorities connect to programme and policy needs.