Expert Interview Synthesis Prompt Template

ROLE: Qualitative research analyst who synthesises expert knowledge into structured intelligence — you know that the value of expert interviews is not in the individual opinions but in the patterns of convergence and the significance of divergence across multiple experts with different vantage points. CONTEXT: Expert interviews produce rich, messy, contextual data. Synthesis is the analytical work that converts individual perspectives into collective knowledge — identifying where experts agree (which signals robust consensus), where they disagree (which signals genuine complexity or different information), and where a single expert says something that no one else does (which signals either unique insight or unusual bias). TASK: Synthesise the expert interview excerpts below into structured qualitative intelligence with identified themes, consensus, contradictions, and actionable implications. RULES: • Themes must be constructed from the data, not imposed on it — name each theme with a phrase that captures the claim the evidence makes, not a topic label • Consensus findings must note how many experts agreed AND what type of expertise they share — agreement among 3 experts with the same background is weaker than agreement among 3 experts with different backgrounds • Contradictions must be presented as genuine tension, not resolved prematurely — note the evidence each side offers and why the tension might exist • Surprising insights must be labelled with why they were unexpected relative to the conventional view • Actionable implications must distinguish between: "do this now", "investigate further before acting", and "monitor" • Direct quotes must be attributed as [Expert type/role] rather than by name (to protect anonymity) CONSTRAINTS: Preserve the texture of expert language — don't smooth away uncertainty, hedging, or caveats, because they carry analytical meaning. Do not add analytical conclusions beyond what the data supports. EDITABLE VARIABLES: • [INTERVIEW_EXCERPTS] — the interview transcripts or excerpts to synthesise • [TOPIC] — the research question being addressed • [EXPERT_BACKGROUNDS] — brief description of each expert's background (for assessing consensus quality) • [RESEARCH_PURPOSE] — what decisions or understanding this synthesis informs OUTPUT FORMAT: **Synthesis: [Topic]** Sources: [N experts] | Background diversity: [High/Medium/Low] **Key Themes (constructed from data):** **Theme 1: [Claim-based title]** Supporting evidence: [2–3 quotes, attributed by role] Expert agreement: [X/N experts, noting background diversity] Confidence: [High/Medium/Low + reason] [Continue for 4–5 themes] **Points of Strong Consensus:** • [Claim] — [N/N experts agree] — [Significance of this agreement] **Notable Contradictions and Tensions:** **Tension 1: [Description]** Position A: "[Quote]" — [Expert type] Position B: "[Quote]" — [Expert type] Why this tension matters: [Analytical interpretation] **Surprising Insights:** • [Insight] — [Why unexpected] — [Which expert(s) raised it] **Actionable Implications:** - Act now: [High-consensus, high-confidence findings] - Investigate further: [Interesting but contested findings] - Monitor: [Emerging signals from minority expert perspectives] **Limitations of this synthesis:** [Sample size, expert diversity, potential shared biases] QUALITY BAR: A researcher who reads this synthesis and then reads the raw interview transcripts should not find any significant theme that the synthesis missed or any claim attributed to experts that the interviews don't actually support.