Lesson 1.3: Synthesize Data Using Affinity Diagrams

Real-World Examples

See complete synthesis example using the Nigeria Youth Livelihood project, demonstrating how affinity themes emerge from stakeholder data and integrate into Problem Tree refinements.

Example: Nigeria Youth Livelihood Project

Context: This example builds directly from the preliminary Problem Tree created in Lesson 1.1 using Model Context Protocol (MCP) and stakeholder validation from Lesson 1.2.

Phase 1: Insights Captured (47 total)

From 12 stakeholder conversations (unemployed youth, parents, employers, training providers, community leaders), 47 discrete insights were extracted. Here's a sample:

"Transportation costs eat up 30% of potential daily wages"

[Youth Focus Group]

"Vocational graduates lack practical problem-solving skills"

[Employer Interview]

"Young women face family pressure not to travel for work"

[Women's Group]

"Previous training programs failed—no jobs resulted"

[NGO Partner]

Complete Synthesis Flow: Visual Overview

Before diving into each theme, here's how the complete synthesis process unfolded—from 47 raw insights to 6 themes to Problem Tree integration:

graph TB
    %% Top Tier: Raw Data Input
    INSIGHTS["<strong>47 INSIGHTS CAPTURED</strong><br/><br/>From 12 Stakeholder Conversations<br/>(Youth, Parents, Employers, Training Providers,<br/>Community Leaders, NGO Partners)"]

    %% Middle Tier: 6 Themes from Clustering
    THEMES["<strong>6 THEMES EMERGED</strong><br/><br/>Through Phases 2-3: Cluster & Theme"]

    T1["<strong>Theme 1:</strong><br/>Skills-Market Disconnect<br/><br/>8 insights from 5 stakeholders"]
    T2["<strong>Theme 2:</strong><br/>Geographic & Mobility Barriers<br/><br/>6 insights from 4 stakeholders"]
    T3["<strong>Theme 3:</strong><br/>Gender & Family Dynamics<br/><br/>7 insights from 6 stakeholders<br/>(Surprise: HIGH)"]
    T4["<strong>Theme 4:</strong><br/>Trust Deficit from Past Failures<br/><br/>9 insights from 7 stakeholders<br/>(Surprise: HIGH - not in tree!)"]
    T5["<strong>Theme 5:</strong><br/>Limited Local Employment Ecosystem<br/><br/>5 insights from 3 stakeholders"]
    T6["<strong>Theme 6:</strong><br/>Information & Network Gaps<br/><br/>12 insights from 6 stakeholders"]

    %% Integration Process
    INTEGRATION["<strong>PHASE 4: SYNTHESIS</strong><br/><br/>Map Themes to Problem Tree Elements"]

    %% Bottom Tier: Four Outcomes
    VALIDATED["<strong>✅ VALIDATED</strong><br/><br/>Theme 2 → Geographic isolation<br/>limits job access<br/><br/>(A) → (E)"]

    REFINED["<strong>🔄 REFINED</strong><br/><br/>Theme 1 → Skills training exists<br/>but disconnected from needs<br/><br/>(A) reframed → (E)"]

    ADDED["<strong>➕ ADDED NEW</strong><br/><br/>Theme 4 → Trust deficit from<br/>past program failures<br/><br/>New root cause (E)"]

    EXPANDED["<strong>📊 EXPANDED</strong><br/><br/>Themes 3, 5, 6 → Gender dynamics,<br/>local ecosystem gaps, networks<br/><br/>New contextual factors (E)"]

    %% Final Output
    FINAL["<strong>REFINED PROBLEM TREE</strong><br/><br/>Community-Validated Analysis<br/>Ready for Theory of Change (Lesson 1.4)"]

    %% Connections
    INSIGHTS --> THEMES

    THEMES --> T1
    THEMES --> T2
    THEMES --> T3
    THEMES --> T4
    THEMES --> T5
    THEMES --> T6

    T1 --> INTEGRATION
    T2 --> INTEGRATION
    T3 --> INTEGRATION
    T4 --> INTEGRATION
    T5 --> INTEGRATION
    T6 --> INTEGRATION

    INTEGRATION --> VALIDATED
    INTEGRATION --> REFINED
    INTEGRATION --> ADDED
    INTEGRATION --> EXPANDED

    VALIDATED --> FINAL
    REFINED --> FINAL
    ADDED --> FINAL
    EXPANDED --> FINAL

    %% Styling
    style INSIGHTS fill:#E5E7EB,stroke:#6B7280,stroke-width:4px
    style THEMES fill:#72B043,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:4px,color:#fff
    style INTEGRATION fill:#10B981,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:4px,color:#fff
    style FINAL fill:#D1FAE5,stroke:#10B981,stroke-width:4px

    style T1 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px
    style T2 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px
    style T3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F59E0B,stroke-width:2px
    style T4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F59E0B,stroke-width:3px
    style T5 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px
    style T6 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px

    style VALIDATED fill:#D1FAE5,stroke:#10B981,stroke-width:3px
    style REFINED fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F59E0B,stroke-width:3px
    style ADDED fill:#DBEAFE,stroke:#3B82F6,stroke-width:3px
    style EXPANDED fill:#E0E7FF,stroke:#6366F1,stroke-width:3px

Phase 2-3: Clustering & Theming (6 themes emerged)

Now let's examine each theme in detail, showing the supporting insights and their implications for the Problem Tree:

Theme 1: Skills-Market Disconnect

Description:

Current skills development programs are disconnected from actual employer needs and workplace realities. Graduates have theoretical knowledge but lack practical problem-solving skills, exposure to real work environments, and the soft skills that employers prioritize.

Supporting Insights: 8 from 5 stakeholders

Key Quotes:

  • • "Graduates can't solve real workplace problems" - Employer
  • • "Training programs teach outdated techniques" - Provider
  • • "Students learn theory, never see actual workplaces" - Youth

Theme 2: Geographic & Mobility Barriers

Description:

Physical distance and transportation costs create significant barriers to both job access and training participation. Rural youth face daily wage loss due to transport expenses, limiting viable employment options to local opportunities only.

Supporting Insights: 6 from 4 stakeholders

Key Quotes:

  • • "Transport costs eat 30% of daily wages" - Youth Focus Group
  • • "Can't afford daily commute to city jobs" - Parent

Theme 3: Gender & Family Dynamics

Description:

Young women face additional barriers including family permission requirements, expectations to remain near home, and cultural norms limiting participation in certain sectors. Childcare responsibilities and family migration expectations affect both genders.

Supporting Insights: 7 from 6 stakeholders

Surprise Level: HIGH - Gender dynamics more complex than preliminary analysis suggested

Theme 4: Trust Deficit from Past Failures

Description:

Previous training programs and youth employment initiatives failed to deliver promised results, creating widespread skepticism among youth, families, and employers. This trust deficit affects willingness to participate in new programs.

Supporting Insights: 9 from 7 stakeholders

Surprise Level: HIGH - Not identified in preliminary Problem Tree at all

Themes 5-6 Summary

  • Theme 5: Limited Local Employment Ecosystem - Few employers in rural areas, opportunities concentrated in cities (5 insights)
  • Theme 6: Information & Network Gaps - Youth lack knowledge about opportunities and professional networks (12 insights)

Phase 4: Synthesis & Problem Tree Integration

How Themes Refined the Preliminary Problem Tree

The synthesis transformed the Problem Tree created in Lesson 1.1 in four significant ways:

1. Assumptions Validated → Converted (A) to (E)

Original (Assumption):

Geographic isolation limits job access (A)

After Synthesis (Evidence):

Geographic isolation limits job access (E)

Theme 2 validates: 6 stakeholders confirmed transportation barriers significantly restrict employment options

2. Assumptions Refined → Reframed Based on Community Input

Original (Assumption):

Limited access to vocational training (A)

After Synthesis (Refined Evidence):

Skills training exists but disconnected from employer needs and workplace realities (E)

Theme 1 refined: Problem isn't access—it's quality and alignment. This completely changes intervention strategy.

3. New Root Causes Added → Discovered Through Community Insights

New Root Cause (Not in Preliminary Tree):

Previous program failures created stakeholder skepticism and trust deficit (E)

Theme 4 revealed: 9 stakeholders mentioned past failures affecting current participation

Impact: Project now needs credibility-building strategy before launching programs

4. Assumptions Challenged → Removed or Significantly Modified

Original (Assumption):

Youth lack motivation to pursue employment (A)

After Synthesis:

REJECTED - Stakeholders unanimously contradicted this. Youth highly motivated but face structural barriers.

Learning: Preliminary desk research reflected deficit framing not supported by community reality

Before & After Comparison

Dimension Before Synthesis (Lesson 1.1) After Synthesis (Lesson 1.3)
Evidence Base 40% evidence (E), 60% assumptions (A) 85% evidence (E), 15% assumptions (A)
Root Causes 4 root causes (2 validated, 2 assumed) 6 root causes (5 evidence-based, 1 needs validation)
Surprising Findings None - all confirmatory 2 major surprises (trust deficit, gender complexity)
Community Voice External researcher language Stakeholder quotes throughout, community priorities clear
Intervention Strategy Build more training centers Reform curriculum + employer partnerships + address trust + gender-responsive design

What Made This Synthesis Effective

  1. Diverse stakeholder engagement - 12 conversations across 5 stakeholder groups ensured multiple perspectives
  2. Systematic extraction - 47 insights captured with source attribution and context
  3. Natural clustering - Themes emerged from data rather than being imposed
  4. Willingness to be surprised - Team actively sought contradictions to preliminary analysis
  5. Clear traceability - Every Problem Tree update linked to specific themes and stakeholder quotes
  6. Community validation - Synthesis findings shared back with key stakeholders for verification

Ready for Theory of Change?

With your community-validated Problem Tree from synthesis, you're now ready to design your Theory of Change in Lesson 1.4—mapping exactly how your project will create the change that communities told you they need.

Next Lesson: Theory of Change

Transform your refined Problem Tree into a compelling Theory of Change that shows funders and partners exactly how your project will generate lasting impact.

Lesson 1.4: Theory of Change → Back to Lesson Overview ←