# Research Register **The Curiosity Lab** Version: 0.1 Status: Working Draft Path: `/research/literature/Research-Register.md` --- ## 1. Purpose The Research Register records what The Curiosity Lab learns from each research source. It is not a bibliography. The bibliography records sources. The Research Register records interpretation, relevance, implications and research debt. The register exists to preserve the chain between: ```text Source ↓ Evidence ↓ Interpretation ↓ Design Principle ↓ Architecture Implication ↓ Ontology Implication ↓ MVP Experiment ``` This document should become the programme’s evidence memory. --- ## 2. Relationship to Other Documents This register supports: ```text /research/literature/Literature-Review.md /research/domains/*.md /architecture/Living-Information-Architecture-Notebook.md /architecture/Pattern-Catalogue.md /architecture/Ontology.md /mvp/Experiments.md /references/Bibliography.bib /references/Reading-List.md ``` It should be updated whenever a source meaningfully affects the research, architecture or MVP. --- ## 3. Use Rules ### Rule 1 — One source, one entry Each source should have one primary register entry. If the same source is relevant to multiple domains, cross-reference those domains inside the same entry. --- ### Rule 2 — Record interpretation separately from citation A citation says where an idea came from. A register entry says what the programme learned from it. --- ### Rule 3 — Do not hide weak evidence Sources that weaken, complicate or contradict the programme’s assumptions should be recorded. Contradictory evidence is part of the research value. --- ### Rule 4 — Avoid premature synthesis The register should capture source-level findings before they are merged into larger claims. The Literature Review should synthesise. The Research Register should preserve traceability. --- ### Rule 5 — Confidence must be explicit Every entry should include a confidence assessment. Confidence applies to the programme’s interpretation of the source, not to the source’s academic status alone. --- ## 4. Controlled Vocabulary ### 4.1 Domains Use one or more of the following domain labels. ```text Curiosity Knowledge and Meaning Narrative Museum Interpretation Knowledge Representation Information Architecture Patterns Across Disciplines Connected Curiosity MVP Validation Ontology Research Methodology ``` Additional labels may be added if required, but unnecessary category expansion should be avoided. --- ### 4.2 Source Types ```text Peer-reviewed article Scholarly book Book chapter Conference paper Technical standard Institutional report Practitioner article Dataset Case study Other ``` --- ### 4.3 Research Types ```text Empirical Theoretical Review Meta-analysis Design research Case study Technical Methodological Historical Philosophical ``` --- ### 4.4 Evidence Categories Use the categories defined in `/governance/03-Research-Standards.md`. ```text Established Evidence Supported Interpretation Working Hypothesis Design Decision Speculation ``` --- ### 4.5 Confidence Levels ```text High Moderate Low Speculative ``` --- ### 4.6 Review Status ```text Queued Skimmed Read Registered Synthesised Challenged Rejected ``` --- ## 5. Register Index | ID | Citation Key | Source | Domain(s) | Source Type | Research Type | Confidence | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | RR-0001 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | Queued | --- ## 6. Entry Template Copy this template for each new source. --- ### RR-0001 — Source Title **Citation Key:** `TBD` **Full Citation:** TBD **Source Type:** TBD **Research Type:** TBD **Domain(s):** TBD **Review Status:** Queued **Confidence:** TBD --- #### Central Claim TBD --- #### Key Findings - TBD - TBD - TBD --- #### Relevance to The Curiosity Lab TBD --- #### Evidence Category TBD Options: ```text Established Evidence Supported Interpretation Working Hypothesis Design Decision Speculation ``` --- #### Design Implications TBD Questions to answer: - Does this suggest a design principle? - Does this affect how curiosity journeys should be structured? - Does this change how information should be presented? - Does this suggest a user interaction pattern? --- #### Information Architecture Implications TBD Questions to answer: - Does this suggest an entity? - Does this suggest a relationship type? - Does this suggest a traversal pattern? - Does this suggest a hierarchy, graph or sequence? - Does this affect progressive disclosure? --- #### Ontology Implications TBD Possible ontology candidates: ```text Entity: Relationship: Attribute: Constraint: Open question: ``` --- #### MVP Experiment Implications TBD Questions to answer: - What user behaviour could test this? - What experiment could be designed from this? - What would count as supporting evidence? - What would count as weakening evidence? --- #### Contradictions or Limitations TBD Questions to answer: - What does this source not show? - What assumptions does it make? - What contexts might limit its applicability? - Does it contradict any current programme assumption? --- #### Research Debt TBD Examples: - Needs corroborating source - Needs competing viewpoint - Needs empirical validation - Needs translation into ontology - Needs MVP experiment - Needs domain synthesis --- #### Notes TBD --- ## 7. Initial Review Queue The first research cycle should prioritise sources that can inform: 1. Curiosity theory 2. Knowledge and meaning 3. Question asking 4. Interest development 5. Narrative understanding 6. Museum interpretation 7. Knowledge representation 8. Information architecture 9. Exploratory search 10. Learning through analogy and connection Sources should not be added here casually. A source enters the queue when it is likely to affect the research question, architecture or MVP. --- ## 8. Current Research Questions Supported by the Register The register should help answer the following questions: ### Curiosity - What is curiosity? - What triggers curiosity? - How does curiosity differ from novelty-seeking? - Can curiosity be designed for? - Can curiosity be measured? ### Knowledge and Meaning - How do people form meaning? - How do connections between ideas support understanding? - What makes information memorable or significant? - What role do mental models play? ### Narrative - How does narrative organise knowledge? - How do stories create causal understanding? - How does narrative guide attention? ### Museum Interpretation - How do objects become meaningful? - How does context change perception? - How do interpretation strategies provoke curiosity? ### Knowledge Representation - How should concepts, objects, stories and questions be represented? - What relationship types matter? - What should be explicit in the system? ### Information Architecture - How should curiosity journeys be structured? - When should information be revealed? - How should users move from object to question to wider context? ### MVP Validation - What behaviour would suggest increased curiosity? - What behaviour would suggest deeper understanding? - What data can be captured ethically and practically? --- ## 9. Synthesis Log Use this section to record emerging cross-source findings before they are promoted into the Literature Review or domain papers. | Date | Finding | Sources | Confidence | Destination | |---|---|---|---|---| | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | --- ## 10. Contradiction Log Use this section to record findings that challenge the programme’s assumptions. | Date | Assumption Challenged | Contradictory Finding | Source | Consequence | |---|---|---|---|---| | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | --- ## 11. Pattern Candidates Use this section to record possible patterns before they are promoted into `/architecture/Pattern-Catalogue.md`. | Pattern Candidate | Source(s) | Domain(s) | Confidence | Status | |---|---|---|---|---| | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | Pattern statuses: ```text Observed Supported Emerging Speculative Rejected ``` --- ## 12. Ontology Candidates Use this section to record possible ontology entities and relationships before they are promoted into `/architecture/Ontology.md`. | Candidate | Type | Source(s) | Rationale | Confidence | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | TBD | Entity / Relationship / Attribute | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | --- ## 13. MVP Experiment Candidates Use this section to record experiment ideas generated from research sources. | Experiment Candidate | Research Question | Source(s) | Behaviour to Observe | Confidence | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | --- ## 14. Research Debt Log Use this section to track unresolved research obligations. | ID | Debt | Related Source(s) | Impact | Priority | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | RD-0001 | No primary literature registered yet | None | High | High | Open | --- ## 15. Promotion Rules A register finding may be promoted into another artefact when it meets the relevant standard. ### Promote to Literature Review when: - it contributes to a wider synthesis; - it is supported by more than one source; or - it represents a significant viewpoint or contradiction. ### Promote to Pattern Catalogue when: - it recurs across sources or domains; - it has design usefulness; - it can be described clearly; - it has an evidence category and confidence level. ### Promote to Ontology when: - it suggests a stable entity, relationship or attribute; - it supports an experience pattern; - it can be implemented or tested. ### Promote to MVP Experiments when: - it implies observable user behaviour; - it can test a research question; - success and failure criteria can be defined. --- ## 16. Current Status No sources have yet been formally registered. The immediate next task is to add the first reviewed sources for: ```text /research/domains/01-Curiosity.md ``` Minimum first batch target: ```text 5–10 high-relevance sources ``` These should include a mixture of: - foundational curiosity theory; - empirical work on interest and exploration; - work on knowledge gaps or information gaps; - work on question asking; - work relevant to learning design. --- ## 17. Closing Note The Research Register should remain practical. It should not become a decorative archive. Its purpose is to preserve the evidence trail from source to system. Every useful entry should help answer at least one question: ```text What does this source change? What does it support? What does it weaken? What does it suggest we build? What does it suggest we test? ```