ta-findings-writer

TA research findings chapter writing

Convert the thematic summary table from thematic analysis into the paper's findings chapter. Core principles: Every quote must have an interpretation in the researcher's voice; quotes are evidence, not the conclusion itself.

Startup: collect necessary information

Collect at startup (information already available in ta-research-workflow is automatically reused):

Thematic summary table: theme names, core meanings, representative quotes (from thematic-analysis output, or provided by the researcher)
Research questions
Theoretical orientation(A/B/C) — if already confirmed in the workflow, automatically carry it over
Theme relationships(optional): are the themes in a parallel/progressive/causal/oppositional relationship?
Optional: theoretical framework summary (required for A or C orientation)

Step 1: Confirm the impact of the theoretical orientation on the findings chapter

Based on the theoretical orientation, clearly inform the researcher of the writing approach for the findings chapter:

A (theory-driven)

The interpretive paragraph for each theme needs to explicitly echo theoretical concepts
Theme names themselves can use theoretical terms
The findings chapter takes on part of the theoretical interpretation work

B (empirically driven)

The findings chapter maintains data-near language, using the interviewees' language world as much as possible
All theoretical dialogue is left to the discussion chapter
The task here is to "let the data speak", not to "let theory speak"

C (sensitizing concepts)

Theme names can borrow theoretical terms, but interpretation is mainly phenomenological description
Moderately permeate with theoretical language, but do not over-interpret
Theory remains implicit in the findings chapter and is deepened in the discussion chapter

Step 2: Confirm the narrative structure

The skill automatically determines and recommends a structure based on theme relationships, and provides options for the researcher to confirm:

Parallel theme type(recommended condition: themes are mutually independent, with no obvious logical sequence)

Each theme forms its own subsection
Subsections have the same structure: theme interpretation → quote evidence → analytical explanation
Subsections are linked with brief transitional sentences

Sequential theme type(recommended condition: themes have causal chains, progressive logic, or oppositional tension)

Develop along a logical line: condition → process → outcome, or tension → response → consequence
Each theme is a node in the narrative chain
Nodes have clear connective relationships ("against the backdrop of X, actors further...")

Step 3: Write theme by theme

For each theme, write in the following units in order:

Unit 1: Theme interpretation (1 paragraph, mandatory)

Explain what phenomenon or mechanism this theme captures, and why it deserves to be a separate theme.

Writing requirements:

Not a translation of the theme name ("the theme 'adaptive strategies' refers to...")
Rather, it is an interpretation of the phenomenon ("In the data, respondents repeatedly displayed a pattern of..., and the core of this pattern lies in...")
Position A: In the interpretation, identify which theoretical concept it is connected to
Position B: Focus primarily on describing the phenomenon, without over-theorizing
Position C: A theoretical lens may be used to "illuminate" the phenomenon, but it should be grounded in phenomenological description

Unit 2: Quotation evidence (2–3 items, required)

Select the most representative quotations that best illustrate the meaning of the theme, and provide a paragraph of analytical explanation for each quotation.

Quotation presentation format：

"Respondent's exact words" (respondent number/anonymous code, e.g., Interview A, 2023)

Analytical explanation after the quotation(required, cannot be skipped):

What does this passage show? How does it support the core meaning of the theme?
Note which word or expression in this passage has the most analytical value? Why?
Position A: How does this passage enter into dialogue with theoretical concepts?
Position B/C: What logic of action or system of meaning does this passage reveal?

Prohibited actions：

Placing multiple quotations consecutively without analytical explanation ("quotation stacking")
Writing only a vague summary after a quotation ("The above shows that...")
Using quotations as a substitute for thematic interpretation (quotations can only be evidence, not the argument itself)

Unit 3: Internal tensions or variations within the theme (optional, write if present)

If there are disagreements, exceptions, or type differences within the same theme in the data:

Present the differences and explain that they are different manifestations of the same theme (rather than counterexamples)
Handle briefly, in 1–2 paragraphs, without expanding into a separate theme

Unit 4: Transition sentence (used in串联型叙事)

At the end, write a transition sentence connecting this theme to the next theme, explaining the logical relationship between them.

Step 4: Overall check of the findings chapter

After all themes are written, conduct an overall check:

Quotation/analysis ratio: Does every quotation have substantive analysis after it? (1:0 is prohibited, i.e., only quotations without analysis)
Theme naming consistency: Is the same term used for the theme name throughout the text, without arbitrary substitution?
Theoretical positioning consistency: Do the interpretive depth and language style of each theme conform to the selected A/B/C positioning?
Structural clarity: Can readers clearly understand the meaning of each theme from the subsection headings and thematic interpretation paragraphs?

Output and saving

After writing is complete, call the Write tool to save:

File naming:findings.md Save path: current project directory

Inform the researcher:

"The findings chapter has been saved to findings.md([word count] words, [N] themes in total). If in ta-research-workflow, please continue to the next checkpoint (discussion writing)."

Language

Default Chinese
Keep quotations in their original form; do not translate or rewrite them
Academic writing style: formal, precise, avoid colloquialism