Academic and Professional Research Workflows

From Theory to Practice

You’ve built a powerful toolkit over the past five lessons: asking better questions, evaluating sources, summarizing and synthesizing information, and building a knowledge management system. Now it’s time to see how all of these pieces fit together in real research scenarios.

This lesson walks through three complete workflows, step by step. Each one applies techniques from previous lessons to a real-world context. Think of these as templates you can adapt to your own work.

By the end of this lesson, you’ll be able to:

• Execute a complete academic literature review workflow with AI
• Conduct professional competitive analysis using structured AI prompts
• Build a research-backed policy or recommendation brief
• Adapt these workflows to your own academic and professional needs

Recall: The Full Toolkit

Here’s what you’re bringing to these workflows:

• Lesson 2: The question funnel (landscape, angle, deep-dive, synthesis)
• Lesson 3: Source evaluation with CRAAP test and the Triangle Method
• Lesson 4: Summarization and synthesis techniques, the “So What?” test
• Lesson 5: Capture and organization with your second brain

Each workflow below weaves these techniques together. Watch for how they connect.

Workflow 1: Academic Literature Review

Whether you’re writing a thesis, a research paper, or a course assignment, the literature review is where most students struggle. AI transforms this from a painful slog into a structured, almost enjoyable process.

Phase 1: Map the Landscape (20 minutes)

Start broad using the question funnel from Lesson 2.

“I’m writing a literature review on [specific topic] for [course/paper/thesis]. The field is [discipline].

Help me map the research landscape:

1. What are the major theoretical frameworks used to study this topic?
2. Who are the most-cited researchers in this area?
3. What are the key debates and unresolved questions?
4. What methodological approaches are commonly used?
5. How has thinking on this topic evolved over the past 10 years?”

Critical warning: Remember Lesson 3–AI may fabricate researcher names or invent theoretical frameworks. Use this output as a starting map, then verify every name and framework through Google Scholar or your university’s database.

Phase 2: Find and Evaluate Sources (45 minutes)

Now go to actual databases. Use the landscape map to guide your search.

Where to search:

• Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)
• Your university library database
• PubMed (for health/medical topics)
• JSTOR, Web of Science, Scopus (for other academic fields)
• arXiv, SSRN (for preprints)

For each source you find, apply the CRAAP test from Lesson 3. Then use this capture prompt:

“I’m evaluating this paper for my literature review: [paste abstract and key findings].

Help me assess:

• How does this paper’s methodology compare to others in the field?
• What is its main contribution to the literature?
• What are its limitations?
• How does it relate to [other papers I’ve already reviewed]?”

Phase 3: Synthesize by Theme (30 minutes)

Here’s where you apply the synthesis techniques from Lesson 4. Crucially, organize by theme, not by paper.

“I’ve reviewed these sources for my literature review on [topic]:

Paper 1: [title, key finding] Paper 2: [title, key finding] Paper 3: [title, key finding] [continue for all sources]

Organize these into 3-5 thematic groups. For each theme:

• What do the papers collectively tell us?
• Where do they agree and disagree?
• What’s the trajectory of research in this area?
• What gaps exist that my research could address?

Important: Do NOT organize by paper. Organize by theme, weaving multiple papers together.”

Phase 4: Draft the Review (30 minutes)

“Based on the thematic synthesis above, help me draft a literature review that:

1. Opens by establishing why this topic matters
2. Walks through each theme, citing specific papers
3. Identifies the gap my research will fill
4. Ends with a clear statement of how my research builds on existing work

Use academic writing conventions for [discipline]. Include citation placeholders in [APA/MLA/Chicago] format that I can replace with accurate references.”

Then verify every citation. Go back to Phase 2’s actual sources and ensure each citation is real and accurately represents what the paper says. This step is non-negotiable.

Quick Check

If you’re working on an academic paper right now, try Phase 1 on your topic. How does the AI-generated landscape compare to what you already knew? Did it surface any angles you hadn’t considered?

Workflow 2: Professional Competitive Analysis

This workflow applies when you need to understand your company’s competitive landscape for strategy, investor presentations, or product decisions.

Phase 1: Establish the Framework

“I’m conducting a competitive analysis for [company/product] in the [industry] space.

Help me design an analysis framework that covers:

1. Direct competitors (companies solving the same problem)
2. Indirect competitors (different solution, same customer need)
3. Potential disruptors (emerging players or technologies)

For each category, what dimensions should I analyze? Consider: product features, pricing, target market, technology stack, market share, strengths, weaknesses, and recent strategic moves.”

Phase 2: Research Each Competitor

For each identified competitor, run a structured research session:

“I’m analyzing [Competitor Name] as part of a competitive analysis. Based on publicly available information, help me build a profile:

• Product/Service: What do they offer? Key features and differentiators?
• Target Market: Who are their primary customers?
• Pricing: What’s their pricing model and approximate price points?
• Strengths: What do they do best?
• Weaknesses: Where do customers complain? What’s missing?
• Recent Moves: Any recent product launches, partnerships, or pivots?

Flag anything you’re uncertain about so I can verify it.”

Important: Verify this output against the competitor’s actual website, press releases, and customer review sites (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot). AI may have outdated or incomplete competitive information.

Phase 3: Synthesize the Landscape

Apply the synthesis framework from Lesson 4:

“Based on my research on these competitors: [list with brief profiles].

Create a competitive landscape synthesis that includes:

1. A feature comparison matrix (our product vs. competitors)
2. Market positioning map (how each company positions itself)
3. Competitive advantages we have (and evidence for each)
4. Competitive vulnerabilities we should address
5. Market gaps no one is filling yet
6. Limitations of this analysis (what we don’t know)”

That last point–limitations–is crucial for professional credibility. Acknowledging what your analysis doesn’t cover makes the parts it does cover more trustworthy.

Phase 4: Build the Recommendation

Apply the “So What?” test from Lesson 4:

“Based on this competitive analysis, what are the top 3 strategic recommendations for [company]? For each recommendation:

• What specific evidence supports it?
• What’s the risk if we don’t act?
• What’s the cost/effort to implement?
• What would success look like in 6 months?”

Workflow 3: Policy or Recommendation Brief

This applies to any situation where you need to research a topic and present actionable recommendations–workplace policy changes, budget proposals, process improvements.

The Complete Workflow

Step 1: Frame the Problem (Use the “question behind the question” from Lesson 2)

“I need to create a recommendation brief on [topic]. The decision-maker is [who]. The context is [situation]. The constraints are [budget/timeline/resources].

Help me frame this properly:

• What’s the real problem we’re trying to solve?
• What are the key questions this brief needs to answer?
• What evidence would be most persuasive for this audience?”

Step 2: Research Both Sides (Use source evaluation from Lesson 3)

“For this recommendation, I need evidence on both sides. Help me research:

• Arguments FOR [proposed approach], with supporting evidence
• Arguments AGAINST [proposed approach], with supporting evidence
• What organizations similar to ours have done (case studies)
• What the research says about outcomes of different approaches”

Step 3: Synthesize and Recommend (Use synthesis from Lesson 4)

“Based on this research, help me draft a recommendation brief that includes:

1. Executive Summary (2-3 sentences)
2. Background (why this matters now)
3. Options Considered (at least 3, with pros and cons)
4. Recommended Approach (with supporting evidence)
5. Implementation Plan (key steps and timeline)
6. Risks and Mitigations
7. Limitations of This Analysis

Write for a busy executive who will spend 5 minutes on this.”

Step 4: Capture and Store (Use your second brain from Lesson 5)

After completing the brief, create a capture note with key findings, sources, and lessons learned. Next time you write a similar brief, you won’t start from scratch.

Quick Check

Think about a professional research task you’ve faced recently. Which of these three workflows would have been most useful? Could you adapt one of the templates to fit your actual situation?

Adapting These Workflows

These three workflows share a common DNA:

1. Frame before you research – Know what you’re looking for
2. Use AI for exploration, not as the final source – Verify everything that matters
3. Synthesize by theme – Don’t just list what each source says
4. Apply “So What?” – Push for implications and recommendations
5. Store what you’ve learned – Feed completed research into your second brain

Whatever your specific research need–market sizing, technology evaluation, grant writing, journalist investigation–these five steps apply. Adjust the specific prompts, but keep the structure.

Key Takeaways

• Real research workflows combine all previous techniques: questioning, evaluating, summarizing, synthesizing, and capturing
• Academic literature reviews work best when organized by theme, not by paper–and every citation must be verified
• Competitive analysis gains credibility by acknowledging its limitations alongside its findings
• Recommendation briefs are strongest when they research both sides and present multiple options
• All workflows share the same DNA: frame, explore with AI, verify, synthesize, apply “So What?”, capture
• These templates are starting points–adapt the specific prompts to your field and context

Up Next

In Lesson 7, you’ll shift from researching for output to researching for learning. You’ll discover how AI can supercharge study techniques like active recall, spaced repetition, and the Feynman technique–turning research into lasting knowledge that sticks.