how long is a research synthesis

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Literature Review Basics

• What is a Literature Review?
• Synthesizing Research
• Using Research & Synthesis Tables
• Additional Resources

Synthesis: What is it?

First, let's be perfectly clear about what synthesizing your research isn't :

• - It isn't  just summarizing the material you read
• - It isn't  generating a collection of annotations or comments (like an annotated bibliography)
• - It isn't  compiling a report on every single thing ever written in relation to your topic

When you  synthesize  your research, your job is to help your reader understand the current state of the conversation on your topic, relative to your research question.  That may include doing the following:

• - Selecting and using representative work on the topic
• - Identifying and discussing trends in published data or results
• - Identifying and explaining the impact of common features (study populations, interventions, etc.) that appear frequently in the literature
• - Explaining controversies, disputes, or central issues in the literature that are relevant to your research question
• - Identifying gaps in the literature, where more research is needed
• - Establishing the discussion to which your own research contributes and demonstrating the value of your contribution

Essentially, you're telling your reader where they are (and where you are) in the scholarly conversation about your project.

Synthesis: How do I do it?

Synthesis, step by step.

This is what you need to do  before  you write your review.

• Identify and clearly describe your research question (you may find the Formulating PICOT Questions table at  the Additional Resources tab helpful).
• Collect sources relevant to your research question.
• Organize and describe the sources you've found -- your job is to identify what  types  of sources you've collected (reviews, clinical trials, etc.), identify their  purpose  (what are they measuring, testing, or trying to discover?), determine the  level of evidence  they represent (see the Levels of Evidence table at the Additional Resources tab ), and briefly explain their  major findings . Use a Research Table to document this step.
• Study the information you've put in your Research Table and examine your collected sources, looking for  similarities  and  differences . Pay particular attention to  populations ,   methods  (especially relative to levels of evidence), and  findings .
• Analyze what you learn in (4) using a tool like a Synthesis Table. Your goal is to identify relevant themes, trends, gaps, and issues in the research.  Your literature review will collect the results of this analysis and explain them in relation to your research question.

Analysis tips

• - Sometimes, what you  don't  find in the literature is as important as what you do find -- look for questions that the existing research hasn't answered yet.
• - If any of the sources you've collected refer to or respond to each other, keep an eye on how they're related -- it may provide a clue as to whether or not study results have been successfully replicated.
• - Sorting your collected sources by level of evidence can provide valuable insight into how a particular topic has been covered, and it may help you to identify gaps worth addressing in your own work.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Using Research & Synthesis Tables >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:06 PM
• URL: https://usi.libguides.com/literature-review-basics

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 6. Synthesize
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Synthesis Visualization

Synthesis matrix example.

• 7. Write a Literature Review

• Synthesis Worksheet

About Synthesis

Approaches to synthesis.

You can sort the literature in various ways, for example:

How to Begin?

Read your sources carefully and find the main idea(s) of each source

Look for similarities in your sources – which sources are talking about the same main ideas? (for example, sources that discuss the historical background on your topic)

Use the worksheet (above) or synthesis matrix (below) to get organized

This work can be messy. Don't worry if you have to go through a few iterations of the worksheet or matrix as you work on your lit review!

Four Examples of Student Writing

In the four examples below, only ONE shows a good example of synthesis: the fourth column, or  Student D . For a web accessible version, click the link below the image.

Long description of "Four Examples of Student Writing" for web accessibility

• Download a copy of the "Four Examples of Student Writing" chart

Click on the example to view the pdf.

From Jennifer Lim

• << Previous: 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• Next: 7. Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 10, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

• Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

Synthesizing Research

• Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

When combining another author’s ideas with your own, we have talked about how using the can help make sure your points are being adequately argued (if you have not read our handout on the  evidence cycle,  check it out!). Synthesis takes assertions (statements that describe your claim), evidence (facts and proof from outside sources), and commentary (your connections to why the evidence supports your claim), and blends these processes together to make a cohesive paragraph.

In other words, synthesis encompasses several aspects:

• It is the process of integrating support from more than one source for one idea/argument while also identifying how sources are related to each other and to your main idea.
• It is an acknowledgment of how the source material from several sources address the same question/research topic.
• It is the identification of how important factors (assumptions, interpretations of results, theories, hypothesis, speculations, etc.) relate between separate sources.

TIP: It’s a fruit smoothie!

Think of synthesis as a fruit smoothie that you are creating in your paper. You will have unique parts and flavors in your writing that you will need to blend together to make one tasty, unified drink!

Why Synthesis is Important

• Synthesis integrates information from multiple sources, which shows that you have done the necessary research to engage with a topic more fully.
• Research involves incorporating many sources to understand and/or answer a research question, and discovering these connections between the sources helps you better analyze and understand the conversations surrounding your topic.
• Successful synthesis creates links between your ideas helping your paper “flow” and connect better.
• Synthesis prevents your papers from looking like a list of copied and pasted sources from various authors.
• Synthesis is a higher order process in writing—this is the area where you as a writer get to shine and show your audience your reasoning.

Types of Synthesis

Demonstrates how two or more sources agree with one another.

The collaborative nature of writing tutorials has been discussed by scholars like Andrea Lunsford (1991) and Stephen North (1984). In these essays, they explore the usefulness and the complexities of collaboration between tutors and students in writing center contexts.

Demonstrates how two or more sources support a main point in different ways.

While some scholars like Berlin (1987) have primarily placed their focus on the histories of large, famous universities, other scholars like Yahner and Murdick (1991) have found value in connecting their local histories to contrast or highlight trends found in bigger-name universities.

Accumulation

Demonstrates how one source builds on the idea of another.

Although North’s (1984) essay is fundamental to many writing centers today, Lunsford (1991) takes his ideas a step further by identifying different writing center models and also expanding North’s ideas on how writing centers can help students become better writers.

Demonstrates how one source discusses the effects of another source’s ideas.

While Healy (2001) notes the concerns of having primarily email appointments in writing centers, he also notes that constraints like funding, resources, and time affect how online resources are formed. For writing centers, email is the most economical and practical option for those wanting to offer online services but cannot dedicate the time or money to other online tutoring methods. As a result, in Neaderheiser and Wolfe’s (2009) reveals that of all the online options available in higher education, over 91% of institutions utilize online tutoring through email, meaning these constraints significantly affect the types of services writing centers offer.

Discussing Specific Source Ideas/Arguments

To debate with clarity and precision, you may need to incorporate a quote into your statement. Using can help you to thoroughly introduce your quotes so that they fit in to your paragraph and your argument. Remember that you need to use the to bridge between your ideas and outside source material.

Berlin, J. (1987).  Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985 . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Boquet, E.H. (2001). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre- to open admissions. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.),  The Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 42-60). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carino, P. (1995). Early writing centers: Toward a history.  The Writing Center Journal ,  15 (2), 103-15.

Healy, D. (2001). From place to space: Perceptual and administrative issues in the online writing center. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.), T he Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 541-554). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of the writing center.  The Writing Center Journal ,  12 (1), 310-75.

Neaderheiser, S. & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers.  The Writing Center Journal .  29 (1), 49-75.

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center.  College English ,  45 (5), 433-446.

Yahner, W. & Murdick, W. (1991). The evolution of a writing center: 1972-1990.  Writing Center Journal ,  11 (2), 13-28.

A Guide to Evidence Synthesis: What is Evidence Synthesis?

• Meet Our Team
• Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Develop a Protocol
• 1. Draft your Research Question
• 2. Select Databases
• 3. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 4. Write a Search Strategy
• 5. Register a Protocol
• 6. Translate Search Strategies
• 7. Citation Management
• 8. Article Screening
• 9. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 10. Data Extraction
• 11. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources

What are Evidence Syntheses?

What are evidence syntheses.

According to the Royal Society, 'evidence synthesis' refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. They generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question.  Their aim is to identify and synthesize all  of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Evidence syntheses are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making, as well as to identify gaps in the research. Evidence syntheses may also include a meta-analysis, a more quantitative process of synthesizing and visualizing data retrieved from various studies. 

Evidence syntheses are much more time-intensive than traditional literature reviews and require a multi-person research team. See this PredicTER tool to get a sense of a systematic review timeline (one type of evidence synthesis). Before embarking on an evidence synthesis, it's important to clearly identify your reasons for conducting one. For a list of types of evidence synthesis projects, see the next tab.

How Does a Traditional Literature Review Differ From an Evidence Synthesis?

How does a systematic review differ from a traditional literature review.

One commonly used form of evidence synthesis is a systematic review.  This table compares a traditional literature review with a systematic review.

Video: Reproducibility and transparent methods (Video 3:25)

Reporting Standards

There are some reporting standards for evidence syntheses. These can serve as guidelines for protocol and manuscript preparation and journals may require that these standards are followed for the review type that is being employed (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, etc). ​

• PRISMA checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• PRISMA-P Standards An updated version of the original PRISMA standards for protocol development.
• PRISMA - ScR Reporting guidelines for scoping reviews and evidence maps
• PRISMA-IPD Standards Extension of the original PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data.
• EQUATOR Network The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. They provide a list of various standards for reporting in systematic reviews.

Video: Guidelines and reporting standards

PRISMA Flow Diagram

The  PRISMA  flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of an evidence synthesis. It maps the search (number of records identified), screening (number of records included and excluded), and selection (reasons for exclusion).  Many evidence syntheses include a PRISMA flow diagram in the published manuscript.

See below for resources to help you generate your own PRISMA flow diagram.

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Tool
• PRISMA Flow Diagram Word Template
• << Previous: Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• Next: Types of Evidence Synthesis >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 2:56 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis

• The Handbook of Research Synthesis

In this Book

• Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges
• Published by: Russell Sage Foundation

Table of Contents

• Frontmatter

• Title Page, Copyright
• Contributors
• Part I: Introduction
• 1. Research Synthesis as a Scientific Enterprise
• Part II: Formulating a Problem for a Research Synthesis
• 2. Hypotheses and Problems in Research Synthesis
• 3. Statistical Considerations
• Part III: Searching the Literature
• 4. Scientific Communication and Literature Retrieval
• 5. Using Reference Databases
• 6. Research Registers
• 7. The Fugitive Literature
• Part IV: Evaluating the Literature
• 8. Judging Research Quality
• 9. Identifying Potentially Interesting Variables and Analysis Opportunities
• pp. 111-123
• 10. Systematic Coding for Research Synthesis
• pp. 125-138
• 11. Evaluating Coding Decisions
• pp. 139-162
• 12. Methods for Handling Missing Data in Research Synthesis
• pp. 163-175
• 13. Managing Meta-Analytic Databases
• pp. 177-189
• Part V: Statistically Describing and Combining Studies
• pp. 191-281
• 14. Vote-Counting Procedures in Meta-Analysis
• pp. 193-213
• 15. Combining Significance Levels
• pp. 215-230
• 16. Parametric Measures of Effect Size
• pp. 231-244
• 17. Measures of Effect Size for Categorical Data
• pp. 245-260
• 18. Combining Estimates of Effect Size
• pp. 261-281
• Part VI: Statistically Analyzing Effect Sizes
• pp. 283-336
• 19. Fixed Effects Models
• pp. 285-299
• 20. Random Effects Models
• pp. 301-321
• 21. Correcting for Sources of Artificial Variation Across Studies
• pp. 323-336
• Part VII: Special Statistical Issues and Problems
• pp. 337-422
• 22. Stochastically Dependent Effect Sizes
• pp. 339-355
• 23. Examining Explanatory Models Through Research Synthesis
• pp. 357-381
• 24. Sensitivity Analysis and Diagnostics
• pp. 383-398
• 25. Publication Bias
• pp. 399-409
• 26. Bayesian Approaches to Research Synthesis
• pp. 411-422
• Part VIII: Reporting the Results of Research Synthesis
• pp. 423-453
• 27. The Reporting Format
• pp. 425-437
• 28. The Visual Presentation and Interpretation of Meta-Analyses
• pp. 439-453
• Part IX: Tying Research Synthesis to Substantive Issues
• pp. 455-500
• 29. Meta-Analytic Synthesis for Theory Development
• pp. 457-483
• 30. Using Research Syntheses to Plan Future Research
• pp. 485-500
• Part X: Summary
• pp. 501-529
• 31. Threats to the Validity of Research Syntheses
• pp. 503-520
• 32. Potentials and Limitations of Research Synthesis
• pp. 521-529
• pp. 531-542
• Appendix A: Data Sets
• pp. 543-547
• Appendix B: Tables
• pp. 549-552
• pp. 553-573

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

Table of Contents

Ai, ethics & human agency, collaboration, information literacy, writing process, synthesizing your research findings.

• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 by Christine Photinos - National University, San Diego

Synthesis is something you already do in your everyday life.  For example, if you are shopping for a new car, the research question you are trying to answer is, “Which car should I buy”?  You explore available models, prices, options, and consumer reviews, and you make comparisons.  For example:  Car X costs more than car Y but gets better mileage.  Or:  Reviewers A, B, and C all prefer Car X, but their praise is based primarily on design features that aren’t important to you.  It is this analysis across sources that moves you towards an answer to your question.

Early in an academic research project you are likely to find yourself making initial comparisons—for example, you may notice that Source A arrives at a conclusion very different from that of Source B—but the task of synthesis will become central to your work when you begin drafting your research paper or presentation. 

Remember, when you synthesize, you are not just compiling information.  You are organizing that information around a specific argument or question, and this work—your own intellectual work—is central to research writing.

Below are some questions that highlight ways in which the act of synthesizing brings together ideas and generates new knowledge. 

How do the sources speak to your specific argument or research question?

Your argument or research question is the main unifying element in your project.  Keep this in the forefront of your mind when you write about your sources.  Explain how, specifically, each source supports your central claim/s or suggests possible answers to your question.  For example:  Does the source provide essential background information or a definitional foundation for your argument or inquiry? Does it present numerical data that supports one of your points or helps you answer a question you have posed?  Does it present a theory that might be applied to some aspect of your project?  Does it present a recognized expert’s insights on your topic? 

How do the sources speak to each other? 

Sometimes you will find explicit dialogue between sources (for example, Source A refutes Source B by name), and sometimes you will need to bring your sources into dialogue (for example, Source A does not mention Source B, but you observe that the two are advancing similar or dissimilar arguments).  Attending to interrelationships among sources is at the heart of the task of synthesis.

Begin by asking:  What are the points of agreement?  Where are there disagreements?

But be aware that you are unlikely to find your sources in pure positions of “for” vs. “against.”  You are more likely to find agreement in some areas and disagreement in other areas.  You may also find agreement but for different reasons—such as different underlying values and priorities, or different methods of inquiry.

(See also Identifying a Conversation )

Where are there, or aren’t there, information gaps?

Where is the available information unreliable (for example, it might be difficult to trace back to primary sources), or limited, (for example, based on just a few case studies, or on just one geographical area), or difficult for non-specialists to access (for example, written in specialist language, or tucked away in a physical archive)? 

Does your inquiry contain sub-questions that may not at present be answerable, or that may not be answerable without additional primary research—for example, laboratory studies, direct observation, interviews with witnesses or participants, etc.?

Or, alternatively, is there a great deal of reliable, accessible information that addresses your question or speaks to your argument or inquiry? 

In considering these questions, you are engaged in synthesis: you are conducting an overview assessment of the field of available information and in this way generating composite knowledge.

Remember, synthesis is about pulling together information from a range of sources in order to answer a question or construct an argument. It is something you will be called upon to do in a wide variety of academic, professional, and personal contexts. Being able to dive into an ocean of information and surface with meaningful conclusions is an essential life skill.

Brevity – Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence – How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow – How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity – Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style – The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority – How to Establish Credibility in Speech & Writing

• Research Guides

6 Stages of Research

• 5: Synthesis
• 1: Task Definition
• 2: Information Seeking
• 3: Location & Access
• 4: Use of Information
• 6: Evaluation

Ask a Librarian

Browse our FAQ, Chat Live with a Librarian, Call, Text, Email, or Make an Appointment.

We are here to help!

Librarian Hot Take

Instead of sending your professor a draft of your paper before it is due, send them an outline of the paper. 

• It will force you to organize your thoughts before you start writing. 
• Your professor is much more likely to read it carefully if what you send them is shorter.
• If there are structural issues or problems with your argument, your professor can point them out to you before you spend all the time and effort of writing the paper. 

Synthesizing Information

The purpose of this stage is to take multiple bits of evidence, opinion, theory, and personal experience and combining it into something new..

Writing a research paper or doing a research project has to include synthesis, otherwise, you are just plagiarizing the work of others. 

This is a youtube video from GCFLearnFree.org that explains the process of synthesis in an easy, digestible manner.

Organize from multiple sources

• Reread your notes
• Take a Breath
• Write an Outline

Rereading and organizing your notes

When synthesizing information, it really helps to refresh yourself on the evidence you have already collected. As you read, you will probably start to notice patterns in the evidence and concepts will start to form about how everything fits together. 

Tips for organizing your notes:

• You can also use MindMup or Coggle  to map out the evidence
• Try organizing your information by fitting it into a theory you have read associated with your discipline. Include a section for evidence that disproves or doesn't fit with the theory. 
• Write down your own thoughts or experiences with the topic, including the ones that have been challenged or disproved by the evidence you have read, then start organizing them with the rest of your notes. 

Note: This takes time!

Now that you have reread and organized your notes, it is time to take a step back. Give yourself some breathing room and return to your research question. 

• Do you have an answer now?
• What is the answer?

You might have already developed your thesis while you were organizing your notes, but if not, give yourself time to think and mull over the evidence and perspectives. 

Additional considerations:

At this moment you may realize that you don't have enough evidence to make the argument you want to make, in which case return to step 3 in the process and find the missing information. 

Writing an outline

Writing an outline is one of the best ways to organize your thoughts and craft an effective argument. There are numerous ways to write an outline, but the methodology isn't as important as just doing the process. With that said, outlines usually include a thesis statement, sub-sections of the arguments, and evidence that supports those sub-sections. For a more in-depth discussion of how to outline and why you should outline, watch the video below. 

This video from the University of British Columbia talks about the process of organizing notes, creating an outline, writing a research paper, and time management all with a delightful British accent.

Present the Information

• Writing Help

Write to the Assignment

• Are there specific sections that need to be included in your assignment?
• Has the professor provided you with examples you can look at?
• Is there a rubric you can look at to determine what you will be graded on?

Writing Tips

• Use topic sentences
• Use transitions
• Give yourself 24 hours after writing the first draft to go back and edit
• Look for words that you repeat too often and replace them
• Look through your writing for "is" and "be" verbs and replace them with more interesting verbs.
• Avoid passive voice (Aka, indicate who is taking an action instead of saying that an action has taken place)
• Write to your audience
• 10 Ways to Improve your Academic Writing "Academic writing is an essential skill set that all students must develop. In order to succeed in the competitive world of academia, you must be able to communicate your ideas with grace, clarity and power. These ten tips will help you enhance and polish your academic writing so that you can impress your peers, professors and even publications." -Proofreading Services US

The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University is open to users worldwide. It contains numerous writing resources from style guides, structural outlines, to citation help. Where a roommate might be able to help you proofread, Purdue OWL can help you improve your writing. 

FHSU Writing Center

Located on the main floor of Forsyth Library, the Writing Center offers trained consultants to help you tackle those writing assignments. From choosing a topic to perfecting your documentation style, our consultants can help you to strengthen your writing skills and prepare you to take your place in the world.   Appointments are recommended and can be made online on the  Writing Center  site.

Citation Style Guides

• Other Styles
• How to Read a Citation

FHSU APA Guide: quick citation guide with examples.

• Excelsior OWL APA Excellent help guide for APA 7th and 6th editions. Also contains extensive help with academic writing, avoiding plagiarism, and more. Created by Excelsior College.
• APA Style Blog
• APA Guide from the Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab)
• Northwest MO State University APA Citation Style Guide

FHSU MLA Guide : quick citation guide with examples.

• The MLA Style Center A companion to the MLA Handbook. Provides advice, templates, and examples.
• Excelsior Online Writing Lab: MLA Style 8th edition Clear explanations of citation styles, with examples.Also has writing and grammar tips.
• MLA Style Citation Examples from Northwest Missouri State University, provided color-coded templates to follow.
• MLA Style Guide from the Purdue OWL

FHSU Chicago Style Guide : quick citation guide with examples.

• Excelsior Online Writing Lab: Chicago Style Clear explanations of citation styles, with examples.Also has writing and grammar tips.
• Massey University Online Writing Lab: Chicago Style In-depth explanation of Notes-Bibliography System and Author-Date System
• Purdue Online Writing Lab: Chicago Style Well-known site with extensive explanation of citation styles and writing tips.

• NW Missouri University Writing Center Turabian Style Guide
• Turabian Manual Quick Guide
• American Sociological Association (ASA) The ASA Guide is currently on its 6th edition
• American Chemical Society (ACS) FHSU has access to this resource online. The most current edition is from 2020. Find more information on our Chemistry guide
• Harvard Style
• Council of Science Editors Style (CSE)
• << Previous: 4: Use of Information
• Next: 6: Evaluation >>
• Last Updated: Mar 29, 2024 11:34 AM
• URL: https://fhsuguides.fhsu.edu/6stages

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Synthesising the data

Synthesis is a stage in the systematic review process where extracted data, that is the findings of individual studies, are combined and evaluated.   

The general purpose of extracting and synthesising data is to show the outcomes and effects of various studies, and to identify issues with methodology and quality. This means that your synthesis might reveal several elements, including:  

• overall level of evidence  
• the degree of consistency in the findings  
• what the positive effects of a drug or treatment are ,  and what these effects  are  based on  
• how many studies found a relationship or association between two components, e.g. the impact of disability-assistance animals on the psychological health of workplaces

There are two commonly accepted methods of synthesis in systematic reviews:  

Qualitative data synthesis

• Quantitative data synthesis  (i.e. meta-analysis)  

The way the data is extracted from your studies, then synthesised and presented, depends on the type of data being handled.  

In a qualitative systematic review, data can be presented in a number of different ways. A typical procedure in the health sciences is  thematic analysis .

Thematic synthesis has three stages:

• the coding of text ‘line-by-line’
• the development of ‘descriptive themes’
• and the generation of ‘analytical themes’

If you have qualitative information, some of the more common tools used to summarise data include:  

• textual descriptions, i.e. written words  
• thematic or content analysis

Example qualitative systematic review

A good example of how to conduct a thematic analysis in a systematic review is the following journal article on cancer patients. In it, the authors go through the process of:

• identifying and coding information about the selected studies’ methodologies and findings on patient care
• organising these codes into subheadings and descriptive categories
• developing these categories into analytical themes

What Facilitates “Patient Empowerment” in Cancer Patients During Follow-Up: A Qualitative Systematic Review of the Literature

Quantitative data synthesis

In a quantitative systematic review, data is presented statistically. Typically, this is referred to as a  meta-analysis .

The usual method is to combine and evaluate data from multiple studies. This is normally done in order to draw conclusions about outcomes, effects, shortcomings of studies and/or applicability of findings.

Remember, the data you synthesise should relate to your research question and protocol (plan). In the case of quantitative analysis, the data extracted and synthesised will relate to whatever method was used to generate the research question (e.g. PICO method), and whatever quality appraisals were undertaken in the analysis stage.

If you have quantitative information, some of the more common tools used to summarise data include:  

• grouping of similar data, i.e. presenting the results in tables  
• charts, e.g. pie-charts  
• graphical displays, i.e. forest plots

Example of a quantitative systematic review

A quantitative systematic review is a combination of qualitative and quantitative, usually referred to as a meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of Acupuncturing at the Sphenopalatine Ganglion Acupoint Alone for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

About meta-analyses

A systematic review may sometimes include a  meta-analysis , although it is not a requirement of a systematic review. Whereas, a meta-analysis also includes a systematic review.  

A meta-analysis is a statistical  analysis  that combines data from  previous  studies  to calculate an overall result.

One way of accurately representing all the data is in the form of a  forest plot . A forest plot is a way of combining the results of multiple studies in order to show point estimates arising from different studies of the same condition or treatment.

It is comprised of a graphical representation and often also a table. The graphical display shows the mean value for each study and often with a confidence interval (the horizontal bars). Each mean is plotted relative to the vertical line of no difference.

The following is an example of the graphical representation of a forest plot.

“File:The effect of zinc acetate lozenges on the duration of the common cold.svg”  by  Harri Hemilä  is licensed under  CC BY 3.0

Watch the following short video where a social health example is used to explain how to construct a forest plot graphic.

Forest Plots: Understanding a Meta-Analysis in 5 Minutes or Less (5:38 mins)

Forest Plots – Understanding a Meta-Analysis in 5 Minutes or Less  (5:38 min) by The NCCMT ( YouTube )

Test your knowledge

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Library Guides

Literature reviews: synthesis.

• Criticality

Synthesise Information

So, how can you create paragraphs within your literature review that demonstrates your knowledge of the scholarship that has been done in your field of study?  

You will need to present a synthesis of the texts you read.  

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains synthesis for us in the following video:  

Synthesising Texts  

What is synthesis? 

Synthesis is an important element of academic writing, demonstrating comprehension, analysis, evaluation and original creation.  

With synthesis you extract content from different sources to create an original text. While paraphrase and summary maintain the structure of the given source(s), with synthesis you create a new structure.  

The sources will provide different perspectives and evidence on a topic. They will be put together when agreeing, contrasted when disagreeing. The sources must be referenced.  

Perfect your synthesis by showing the flow of your reasoning, expressing critical evaluation of the sources and drawing conclusions.  

When you synthesise think of "using strategic thinking to resolve a problem requiring the integration of diverse pieces of information around a structuring theme" (Mateos and Sole 2009, p448). 

Synthesis is a complex activity, which requires a high degree of comprehension and active engagement with the subject. As you progress in higher education, so increase the expectations on your abilities to synthesise. 

How to synthesise in a literature review: 

Identify themes/issues you'd like to discuss in the literature review. Think of an outline.  

Read the literature and identify these themes/issues.  

Critically analyse the texts asking: how does the text I'm reading relate to the other texts I've read on the same topic? Is it in agreement? Does it differ in its perspective? Is it stronger or weaker? How does it differ (could be scope, methods, year of publication etc.). Draw your conclusions on the state of the literature on the topic.  

Start writing your literature review, structuring it according to the outline you planned.  

Put together sources stating the same point; contrast sources presenting counter-arguments or different points.  

Present your critical analysis.  

Always provide the references. 

The best synthesis requires a "recursive process" whereby you read the source texts, identify relevant parts, take notes, produce drafts, re-read the source texts, revise your text, re-write... (Mateos and Sole, 2009). 

What is good synthesis?  

The quality of your synthesis can be assessed considering the following (Mateos and Sole, 2009, p439):  

Integration and connection of the information from the source texts around a structuring theme. 

Selection of ideas necessary for producing the synthesis. 

Appropriateness of the interpretation.  

Elaboration of the content.  

Example of Synthesis

Original texts (fictitious): 

Synthesis: 

Animal experimentation is a subject of heated debate. Some argue that painful experiments should be banned. Indeed it has been demonstrated that such experiments make animals suffer physically and psychologically (Chowdhury 2012; Panatta and Hudson 2016). On the other hand, it has been argued that animal experimentation can save human lives and reduce harm on humans (Smith 2008). This argument is only valid for toxicological testing, not for tests that, for example, merely improve the efficacy of a cosmetic (Turner 2015). It can be suggested that animal experimentation should be regulated to only allow toxicological risk assessment, and the suffering to the animals should be minimised.   

Bibliography

Mateos, M. and Sole, I. (2009). Synthesising Information from various texts: A Study of Procedures and Products at Different Educational Levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education,  24 (4), 435-451. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760 [Accessed 29 June 2021].

• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Criticality >>
• Last Updated: Nov 18, 2023 10:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/literature-reviews

CONNECT WITH US

Writing Resources

• Student Paper Template
• Grammar Guidelines
• Punctuation Guidelines
• Writing Guidelines
• Creating a Title
• Outlining and Annotating
• Using Generative AI (Chat GPT and others)
• Introduction, Thesis, and Conclusion
• Strategies for Citations
• Determining the Resource This link opens in a new window
• Citation Examples
• Paragraph Development
• Paraphrasing
• Inclusive Language
• International Center for Academic Integrity
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Decoding the Assignment Prompt
• Annotated Bibliography
• Comparative Analysis
• Conducting an Interview
• Infographics
• Office Memo
• Policy Brief
• Poster Presentations
• PowerPoint Presentation
• White Paper
• Writing a Blog
• Research Writing: The 5 Step Approach
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• MLA Resources
• Time Management

ASC Chat Hours

ASC Chat is usually available at the following times ( Pacific Time):

If there is not a coach on duty, submit your question via one of the below methods:

  928-440-1325

  Ask a Coach

  [email protected]

Search our FAQs on the Academic Success Center's  Ask a Coach   page.

Learning about Synthesis Analysis

What D oes Synthesis and Analysis Mean?

Synthesis: the combination of ideas to

• show commonalities or patterns

Analysis: a detailed examination

• of elements, ideas, or the structure of something
• can be a basis for discussion or interpretation

Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to

• show how commonalities, patterns, and elements fit together
• form a unified point for a theory, discussion, or interpretation
• develop an informed evaluation of the idea by presenting several different viewpoints and/or ideas

Key Resource: Synthesis Matrix

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is an excellent tool to use to organize sources by theme and to be able to see the similarities and differences as well as any important patterns in the methodology and recommendations for future research. Using a synthesis matrix can assist you not only in synthesizing and analyzing,  but it can also aid you in finding a researchable problem and gaps in methodology and/or research.

Use the Synthesis Matrix Template attached below to organize your research by theme and look for patterns in your sources .Use the companion handout, "Types of Articles" to aid you in identifying the different article types for the sources you are using in your matrix. If you have any questions about how to use the synthesis matrix, sign up for the synthesis analysis group session to practice using them with Dr. Sara Northern!

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: International Center for Academic Integrity
• Next: How to Synthesize and Analyze >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 2:12 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/writingresources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review

Elaine barnett-page.

1 Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI-) Centre, Social Science Research Unit, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0NS, UK

James Thomas

Associated data.

In recent years, a growing number of methods for synthesising qualitative research have emerged, particularly in relation to health-related research. There is a need for both researchers and commissioners to be able to distinguish between these methods and to select which method is the most appropriate to their situation.

A number of methodological and conceptual links between these methods were identified and explored, while contrasting epistemological positions explained differences in approaches to issues such as quality assessment and extent of iteration. Methods broadly fall into 'realist' or 'idealist' epistemologies, which partly accounts for these differences.

Methods for qualitative synthesis vary across a range of dimensions. Commissioners of qualitative syntheses might wish to consider the kind of product they want and select their method – or type of method – accordingly.

The range of different methods for synthesising qualitative research has been growing over recent years [ 1 , 2 ], alongside an increasing interest in qualitative synthesis to inform health-related policy and practice [ 3 ]. While the terms 'meta-analysis' (a statistical method to combine the results of primary studies), or sometimes 'narrative synthesis', are frequently used to describe how quantitative research is synthesised, far more terms are used to describe the synthesis of qualitative research. This profusion of terms can mask some of the basic similarities in approach that the different methods share, and also lead to some confusion regarding which method is most appropriate in a given situation. This paper does not argue that the various nomenclatures are unnecessary, but rather seeks to draw together and review the full range of methods of synthesis available to assist future reviewers in selecting a method that is fit for their purpose. It also represents an attempt to guide the reader through some of the varied terminology to spring up around qualitative synthesis. Other helpful reviews of synthesis methods have been undertaken in recent years with slightly different foci to this paper. Two recent studies have focused on describing and critiquing methods for the integration of qualitative research with quantitative [ 4 , 5 ] rather than exclusively examining the detail and rationale of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research. Two other significant pieces of work give practical advice for conducting the synthesis of qualitative research, but do not discuss the full range of methods available [ 6 , 7 ]. We begin our Discussion by outlining each method of synthesis in turn, before comparing and contrasting characteristics of these different methods across a range of dimensions. Readers who are more familiar with the synthesis methods described here may prefer to turn straight to the 'dimensions of difference' analysis in the second part of the Discussion.

Overview of synthesis methods

Meta-ethnography.

In their seminal work of 1988, Noblit and Hare proposed meta-ethnography as an alternative to meta-analysis [ 8 ]. They cited Strike and Posner's [ 9 ] definition of synthesis as an activity in which separate parts are brought together to form a 'whole'; this construction of the whole is essentially characterised by some degree of innovation, so that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. They also borrowed from Turner's theory of social explanation [ 10 ], a key tenet of which was building 'comparative understanding' [[ 8 ], p22] rather than aggregating data.

To Noblit and Hare, synthesis provided an answer to the question of 'how to "put together" written interpretive accounts' [[ 8 ], p7], where mere integration would not be appropriate. Noblit and Hare's early work synthesised research from the field of education.

Three different methods of synthesis are used in meta-ethnography. One involves the 'translation' of concepts from individual studies into one another, thereby evolving overarching concepts or metaphors. Noblit and Hare called this process reciprocal translational analysis (RTA). Refutational synthesis involves exploring and explaining contradictions between individual studies. Lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis involves building up a picture of the whole (i.e. culture, organisation etc) from studies of its parts. The authors conceptualised this latter approach as a type of grounded theorising.

Britten et al [ 11 ] and Campbell et al [ 12 ] have both conducted evaluations of meta-ethnography and claim to have succeeded, by using this method, in producing theories with greater explanatory power than could be achieved in a narrative literature review. While both these evaluations used small numbers of studies, more recently Pound et al [ 13 ] conducted both an RTA and an LOA synthesis using a much larger number of studies (37) on resisting medicines. These studies demonstrate that meta-ethnography has evolved since Noblit and Hare first introduced it. Campbell et al claim to have applied the method successfully to non-ethnographical studies. Based on their reading of Schutz [ 14 ], Britten et al have developed both second and third order constructs in their synthesis (Noblit and Hare briefly allude to the possibility of a 'second level of synthesis' [[ 8 ], p28] but do not demonstrate or further develop the idea).

In a more recent development, Sandelowski & Barroso [ 15 ] write of adapting RTA by using it to ' integrate findings interpretively, as opposed to comparing them interpretively' (p204). The former would involve looking to see whether the same concept, theory etc exists in different studies; the latter would involve the construction of a bigger picture or theory (i.e. LOA synthesis). They also talk about comparing or integrating imported concepts (e.g. from other disciplines) as well as those evolved 'in vivo'.

Grounded theory

Kearney [ 16 ], Eaves [ 17 ] and Finfgeld [ 18 ] have all adapted grounded theory to formulate a method of synthesis. Key methods and assumptions of grounded theory, as originally formulated and subsequently refined by Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] and Strauss and Corbin [ 20 , 21 ], include: simultaneous phases of data collection and analysis; an inductive approach to analysis, allowing the theory to emerge from the data; the use of the constant comparison method; the use of theoretical sampling to reach theoretical saturation; and the generation of new theory. Eaves cited grounded theorists Charmaz [ 22 ] and Chesler [ 23 ], as well as Strauss and Corbin [ 20 ], as informing her approach to synthesis.

Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] foresaw a time when a substantive body of grounded research should be pushed towards a higher, more abstract level. As a piece of methodological work, Eaves undertook her own synthesis of the synthesis methods used by these authors to produce her own clear and explicit guide to synthesis in grounded formal theory. Kearney stated that 'grounded formal theory', as she termed this method of synthesis, 'is suited to study of phenomena involving processes of contextualized understanding and action' [[ 24 ], p180] and, as such, is particularly applicable to nurses' research interests.

As Kearney suggested, the examples examined here were largely dominated by research in nursing. Eaves synthesised studies on care-giving in rural African-American families for elderly stroke survivors; Finfgeld on courage among individuals with long-term health problems; Kearney on women's experiences of domestic violence.

Kearney explicitly chose 'grounded formal theory' because it matches 'like' with 'like': that is, it applies the same methods that have been used to generate the original grounded theories included in the synthesis – produced by constant comparison and theoretical sampling – to generate a higher-level grounded theory. The wish to match 'like' with 'like' is also implicit in Eaves' paper. This distinguishes grounded formal theory from more recent applications of meta-ethnography, which have sought to include qualitative research using diverse methodological approaches [ 12 ].

Thematic Synthesis

Thomas and Harden [ 25 ] have developed an approach to synthesis which they term 'thematic synthesis'. This combines and adapts approaches from both meta-ethnography and grounded theory. The method was developed out of a need to conduct reviews that addressed questions relating to intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability – as well as those relating to effectiveness – without compromising on key principles developed in systematic reviews. They applied thematic synthesis in a review of the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children.

Free codes of findings are organised into 'descriptive' themes, which are then further interpreted to yield 'analytical' themes. This approach shares characteristics with later adaptations of meta-ethnography, in that the analytical themes are comparable to 'third order interpretations' and that the development of descriptive and analytical themes using coding invoke reciprocal 'translation'. It also shares much with grounded theory, in that the approach is inductive and themes are developed using a 'constant comparison' method. A novel aspect of their approach is the use of computer software to code the results of included studies line-by-line, thus borrowing another technique from methods usually used to analyse primary research.

Textual Narrative Synthesis

Textual narrative synthesis is an approach which arranges studies into more homogenous groups. Lucas et al [ 26 ] comment that it has proved useful in synthesising evidence of different types (qualitative, quantitative, economic etc). Typically, study characteristics, context, quality and findings are reported on according to a standard format and similarities and differences are compared across studies. Structured summaries may also be developed, elaborating on and putting into context the extracted data [ 27 ].

Lucas et al [ 26 ] compared thematic synthesis with textual narrative synthesis. They found that 'thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation' whereas textual narrative synthesis is more likely to make transparent heterogeneity between studies (as does meta-ethnography, with refutational synthesis) and issues of quality appraisal. This is possibly because textual narrative synthesis makes clearer the context and characteristics of each study, while the thematic approach organises data according to themes. However, Lucas et al found that textual narrative synthesis is 'less good at identifying commonality' (p2); the authors do not make explicit why this should be, although it may be that organising according to themes, as the thematic approach does, is comparatively more successful in revealing commonality.

Paterson et al [ 28 ] have evolved a multi-faceted approach to synthesis, which they call 'meta-study'. The sociologist Zhao [ 29 ], drawing on Ritzer's work [ 30 ], outlined three components of analysis, which they proposed should be undertaken prior to synthesis. These are meta-data-analysis (the analysis of findings), meta-method (the analysis of methods) and meta-theory (the analysis of theory). Collectively, these three elements of analysis, culminating in synthesis, make up the practice of 'meta-study'. Paterson et al pointed out that the different components of analysis may be conducted concurrently.

Paterson et al argued that primary research is a construction; secondary research is therefore a construction of a construction. There is need for an approach that recognises this, and that also recognises research to be a product of its social, historical and ideological context. Such an approach would be useful in accounting for differences in research findings. For Paterson et al, there is no such thing as 'absolute truth'.

Meta-study was developed to study the experiences of adults living with a chronic illness. Meta-data-analysis was conceived of by Paterson et al in similar terms to Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnography (see above), in that it is essentially interpretive and seeks to reveal similarities and discrepancies among accounts of a particular phenomenon. Meta-method involves the examination of the methodologies of the individual studies under review. Part of the process of meta-method is to consider different aspects of methodology such as sampling, data collection, research design etc, similar to procedures others have called 'critical appraisal' (CASP [ 31 ]). However, Paterson et al take their critique to a deeper level by establishing the underlying assumptions of the methodologies used and the relationship between research outcomes and methods used. Meta-theory involves scrutiny of the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of the included research papers; this includes looking at the wider context in which new theory is generated. Paterson et al described meta-synthesis as a process which creates a new interpretation which accounts for the results of all three elements of analysis. The process of synthesis is iterative and reflexive and the authors were unwilling to oversimplify the process by 'codifying' procedures for bringing all three components of analysis together.

Meta-narrative

Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ]'s meta-narrative approach to synthesis arose out of the need to synthesise evidence to inform complex policy-making questions and was assisted by the formation of a multi-disciplinary team. Their approach to review was informed by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [ 33 ], in which he proposed that knowledge is produced within particular paradigms which have their own assumptions about theory, about what is a legitimate object of study, about what are legitimate research questions and about what constitutes a finding. Paradigms also tend to develop through time according to a particular set of stages, central to which is the stage of 'normal science', in which the particular standards of the paradigm are largely unchallenged and seen to be self-evident. As Greenhalgh et al pointed out, Kuhn saw paradigms as largely incommensurable: 'that is, an empirical discovery made using one set of concepts, theories, methods and instruments cannot be satisfactorily explained through a different paradigmatic lens' [[ 32 ], p419].

Greenhalgh et al synthesised research from a wide range of disciplines; their research question related to the diffusion of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. They thus identified a need to synthesise findings from research which contains many different theories arising from many different disciplines and study designs.

Based on Kuhn's work, Greenhalgh et al proposed that, across different paradigms, there were multiple – and potentially mutually contradictory – ways of understanding the concept at the heart of their review, namely the diffusion of innovation. Bearing this in mind, the reviewers deliberately chose to select key papers from a number of different research 'paradigms' or 'traditions', both within and beyond healthcare, guided by their multidisciplinary research team. They took as their unit of analysis the 'unfolding "storyline" of a research tradition over time' [[ 32 ], p417) and sought to understand diffusion of innovation as it was conceptualised in each of these traditions. Key features of each tradition were mapped: historical roots, scope, theoretical basis; research questions asked and methods/instruments used; main empirical findings; historical development of the body of knowledge (how have earlier findings led to later findings); and strengths and limitations of the tradition. The results of this exercise led to maps of 13 'meta-narratives' in total, from which seven key dimensions, or themes, were identified and distilled for the synthesis phase of the review.

Critical Interpretive Synthesis

Dixon-Woods et al [ 34 ] developed their own approach to synthesising multi-disciplinary and multi-method evidence, termed 'critical interpretive synthesis', while researching access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. Critical interpretive synthesis is an adaptation of meta-ethnography, as well as borrowing techniques from grounded theory. The authors stated that they needed to adapt traditional meta-ethnographic methods for synthesis, since these had never been applied to quantitative as well as qualitative data, nor had they been applied to a substantial body of data (in this case, 119 papers).

Dixon-Woods et al presented critical interpretive synthesis as an approach to the whole process of review, rather than to just the synthesis component. It involves an iterative approach to refining the research question and searching and selecting from the literature (using theoretical sampling) and defining and applying codes and categories. It also has a particular approach to appraising quality, using relevance – i.e. likely contribution to theory development – rather than methodological characteristics as a means of determining the 'quality' of individual papers [ 35 ]. The authors also stress, as a defining characteristic, critical interpretive synthesis's critical approach to the literature in terms of deconstructing research traditions or theoretical assumptions as a means of contextualising findings.

Dixon-Woods et al rejected reciprocal translational analysis (RTA) as this produced 'only a summary in terms that have already been used in the literature' [[ 34 ], p5], which was seen as less helpful when dealing with a large and diverse body of literature. Instead, Dixon-Woods et al adopted a lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis, in which – rejecting the difference between first, second and third order constructs – they instead developed 'synthetic constructs' which were then linked with constructs arising directly from the literature.

The influence of grounded theory can be seen in particular in critical interpretive synthesis's inductive approach to formulating the review question and to developing categories and concepts, rejecting a 'stage' approach to systematic reviewing, and in selecting papers using theoretical sampling. Dixon-Woods et al also claim that critical interpretive synthesis is distinct in its 'explicit orientation towards theory generation' [[ 34 ], p9].

Ecological Triangulation

Jim Banning is the author of 'ecological triangulation' or 'ecological sentence synthesis', applying this method to the evidence for what works for youth with disabilities. He borrows from Webb et al [ 36 ] and Denzin [ 37 ] the concept of triangulation, in which phenomena are studied from a variety of vantage points. His rationale is that building an 'evidence base' of effectiveness requires the synthesis of cumulative, multi-faceted evidence in order to find out 'what intervention works for what kind of outcomes for what kind of persons under what kind of conditions' [[ 38 ], p1].

Ecological triangulation unpicks the mutually interdependent relationships between behaviour, persons and environments. The method requires that, for data extraction and synthesis, 'ecological sentences' are formulated following the pattern: 'With this intervention, these outcomes occur with these population foci and within these grades (ages), with these genders ... and these ethnicities in these settings' [[ 39 ], p1].

Framework Synthesis

Brunton et al [ 40 ] and Oliver et al [ 41 ] have applied a 'framework synthesis' approach in their reviews. Framework synthesis is based on framework analysis, which was outlined by Pope, Ziebland and Mays [ 42 ], and draws upon the work of Ritchie and Spencer [ 43 ] and Miles and Huberman [ 44 ]. Its rationale is that qualitative research produces large amounts of textual data in the form of transcripts, observational fieldnotes etc. The sheer wealth of information poses a challenge for rigorous analysis. Framework synthesis offers a highly structured approach to organising and analysing data (e.g. indexing using numerical codes, rearranging data into charts etc).

Brunton et al applied the approach to a review of children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling; Oliver et al to an analysis of public involvement in health services research. Framework synthesis is distinct from the other methods outlined here in that it utilises an a priori 'framework' – informed by background material and team discussions – to extract and synthesise findings. As such, it is largely a deductive approach although, in addition to topics identified by the framework, new topics may be developed and incorporated as they emerge from the data. The synthetic product can be expressed in the form of a chart for each key dimension identified, which may be used to map the nature and range of the concept under study and find associations between themes and exceptions to these [ 40 ].

'Fledgling' approaches

There are three other approaches to synthesis which have not yet been widely used. One is an approach using content analysis [ 45 , 46 ] in which text is condensed into fewer content-related categories. Another is 'meta-interpretation' [ 47 ], featuring the following: an ideographic rather than pre-determined approach to the development of exclusion criteria; a focus on meaning in context; interpretations as raw data for synthesis (although this feature doesn't distinguish it from other synthesis methods); an iterative approach to the theoretical sampling of studies for synthesis; and a transparent audit trail demonstrating the trustworthiness of the synthesis.

In addition to the synthesis methods discussed above, Sandelowski and Barroso propose a method they call 'qualitative metasummary' [ 15 ]. It is mentioned here as a new and original approach to handling a collection of qualitative studies but is qualitatively different to the other methods described here since it is aggregative; that is, findings are accumulated and summarised rather than 'transformed'. Metasummary is a way of producing a 'map' of the contents of qualitative studies and – according to Sandelowski and Barroso – 'reflect [s] a quantitative logic' [[ 15 ], p151]. The frequency of each finding is determined and the higher the frequency of a particular finding, the greater its validity. The authors even discuss the calculation of 'effect sizes' for qualitative findings. Qualitative metasummaries can be undertaken as an end in themselves or may serve as a basis for a further synthesis.

Dimensions of difference

Having outlined the range of methods identified, we now turn to an examination of how they compare with one another. It is clear that they have come from many different contexts and have different approaches to understanding knowledge, but what do these differences mean in practice? Our framework for this analysis is shown in Additional file 1 : dimensions of difference [ 48 ]. We have examined the epistemology of each of the methods and found that, to some extent, this explains the need for different methods and their various approaches to synthesis.

Epistemology

The first dimension that we will consider is that of the researchers' epistemological assumptions. Spencer et al [ 49 ] outline a range of epistemological positions, which might be organised into a spectrum as follows:

Subjective idealism : there is no shared reality independent of multiple alternative human constructions

Objective idealism : there is a world of collectively shared understandings

Critical realism : knowledge of reality is mediated by our perceptions and beliefs

Scientific realism : it is possible for knowledge to approximate closely an external reality

Naïve realism : reality exists independently of human constructions and can be known directly [ 49 , 45 , 46 ].

Thus, at one end of the spectrum we have a highly constructivist view of knowledge and, at the other, an unproblematized 'direct window onto the world' view.

Nearly all of positions along this spectrum are represented in the range of methodological approaches to synthesis covered in this paper. The originators of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study all articulate what might be termed a 'subjective idealist' approach to knowledge. Paterson et al [ 28 ] state that meta-study shies away from creating 'grand theories' within the health or social sciences and assume that no single objective reality will be found. Primary studies, they argue, are themselves constructions; meta-synthesis, then, 'deals with constructions of constructions' (p7). Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ] also view knowledge as a product of its disciplinary paradigm and use this to explain conflicting findings: again, the authors neither seek, nor expect to find, one final, non-contestable answer to their research question. Critical interpretive synthesis is similar in seeking to place literature within its context, to question its assumptions and to produce a theoretical model of a phenomenon which – because highly interpretive – may not be reproducible by different research teams at alternative points in time [[ 34 ], p11].

Methods used to synthesise grounded theory studies in order to produce a higher level of grounded theory [ 24 ] appear to be informed by 'objective idealism', as does meta-ethnography. Kearney argues for the near-universal applicability of a 'ready-to-wear' theory across contexts and populations. This approach is clearly distinct from one which recognises multiple realities. The emphasis is on examining commonalities amongst, rather than discrepancies between, accounts. This emphasis is similarly apparent in most meta-ethnographies, which are conducted either according to Noblit and Hare's 'reciprocal translational analysis' technique or to their 'lines-of-argument' technique and which seek to provide a 'whole' which has a greater explanatory power. Although Noblit and Hare also propose 'refutational synthesis', in which contradictory findings might be explored, there are few examples of this having been undertaken in practice, and the aim of the method appears to be to explain and explore differences due to context, rather than multiple realities.

Despite an assumption of a reality which is perhaps less contestable than those of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study, both grounded formal theory and meta-ethnography place a great deal of emphasis on the interpretive nature of their methods. This still supposes a degree of constructivism. Although less explicit about how their methods are informed, it seems that both thematic synthesis and framework synthesis – while also involving some interpretation of data – share an even less problematized view of reality and a greater assumption that their synthetic products are reproducible and correspond to a shared reality. This is also implicit in the fact that such products are designed directly to inform policy and practice, a characteristic shared by ecological triangulation. Notably, ecological triangulation, according to Banning, can be either realist or idealist. Banning argues that the interpretation of triangulation can either be one in which multiple viewpoints converge on a point to produce confirming evidence (i.e. one definitive answer to the research question) or an idealist one, in which the complexity of multiple viewpoints is represented. Thus, although ecological triangulation views reality as complex, the approach assumes that it can be approximately knowable (at least when the realist view of ecological triangulation is adopted) and that interventions can and should be modelled according to the products of its syntheses.

While pigeonholing different methods into specific epistemological positions is a problematic process, we do suggest that the contrasting epistemologies of different researchers is one way of explaining why we have – and need – different methods for synthesis.

Variation in terms of the extent of iteration during the review process is another key dimension. All synthesis methods include some iteration but the degree varies. Meta-ethnography, grounded theory and thematic synthesis all include iteration at the synthesis stage; both framework synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis involve iterative literature searching – in the case of critical interpretive synthesis, it is not clear whether iteration occurs during the rest of the review process. Meta-narrative also involves iteration at every stage. Banning does not mention iteration in outlining ecological triangulation and neither do Lucas or Thomas and Harden for thematic narrative synthesis.

It seems that the more idealist the approach, the greater the extent of iteration. This might be because a large degree of iteration does not sit well with a more 'positivist' ideal of procedural objectivity; in particular, the notion that the robustness of the synthetic product depends in part on the reviewers stating up front in a protocol their searching strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria etc, and being seen not to alter these at a later stage.

Quality assessment

Another dimension along which we can look at different synthesis methods is that of quality assessment. When the approaches to the assessment of the quality of studies retrieved for review are examined, there is again a wide methodological variation. It might be expected that the further towards the 'realism' end of the epistemological spectrum a method of synthesis falls, the greater the emphasis on quality assessment. In fact, this is only partially the case.

Framework synthesis, thematic narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis – methods which might be classified as sharing a 'critical realist' approach – all have highly specified approaches to quality assessment. The review in which framework synthesis was developed applied ten quality criteria: two on quality and reporting of sampling methods, four to the quality of the description of the sample in the study, two to the reliability and validity of the tools used to collect data and one on whether studies used appropriate methods for helping people to express their views. Studies which did not meet a certain number of quality criteria were excluded from contributing to findings. Similarly, in the example review for thematic synthesis, 12 criteria were applied: five related to reporting aims, context, rationale, methods and findings; four relating to reliability and validity; and three relating to the appropriateness of methods for ensuring that findings were rooted in participants' own perspectives. Studies which were deemed to have significant flaws were excluded and sensitivity analyses were used to assess the possible impact of study quality on the review's findings. Thomas and Harden's use of thematic narrative synthesis similarly applied quality criteria and developed criteria additional to those they found in the literature on quality assessment, relating to the extent to which people's views and perspectives had been privileged by researchers. It is worth noting not only that these methods apply quality criteria but that they are explicit about what they are: assessing quality is a key component in the review process for both of these methods. Likewise, Banning – the originator of ecological triangulation – sees quality assessment as important and adapts the Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3 (a quality assessment tool for quantitative research) for use when appraising qualitative studies [ 50 ]. Again, Banning writes of excluding studies deemed to be of poor quality.

Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative review [ 32 ] modified a range of existing quality assessment tools to evaluate studies according to validity and robustness of methods; sample size and power; and validity of conclusions. The authors imply, but are not explicit, that this process formed the basis for the exclusion of some studies. Although not quite so clear about quality assessment methods as framework and thematic synthesis, it might be argued that meta-narrative synthesis shows a greater commitment to the concept that research can and should be assessed for quality than either meta-ethnography or grounded formal theory. The originators of meta-ethnography, Noblit and Hare [ 8 ], originally discussed quality in terms of quality of metaphor, while more recent use of this method has used amended versions of CASP (the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, [ 31 ]), yet has only referred to studies being excluded on the basis of lack of relevance or because they weren't 'qualitative' studies [ 8 ]. In grounded theory, quality assessment is only discussed in terms of a 'personal note' being made on the context, quality and usefulness of each study. However, contrary to expectation, meta-narrative synthesis lies at the extreme end of the idealism/realism spectrum – as a subjective idealist approach – while meta-ethnography and grounded theory are classified as objective idealist approaches.

Finally, meta-study and critical interpretive synthesis – two more subjective idealist approaches – look to the content and utility of findings rather than methodology in order to establish quality. While earlier forms of meta-study included only studies which demonstrated 'epistemological soundness', in its most recent form [ 51 ] this method has sought to include all relevant studies, excluding only those deemed not to be 'qualitative' research. Critical interpretive synthesis also conforms to what we might expect of its approach to quality assessment: quality of research is judged as the extent to which it informs theory. The threshold of inclusion is informed by expertise and instinct rather than being articulated a priori.

In terms of quality assessment, it might be important to consider the academic context in which these various methods of synthesis developed. The reason why thematic synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation have such highly specified approaches to quality assessment may be that each of these was developed for a particular task, i.e. to conduct a multi-method review in which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The concept of quality assessment in relation to RCTs is much less contested and there is general agreement on criteria against which quality should be judged.

Problematizing the literature

Critical interpretive synthesis, the meta-narrative approach and the meta-theory element of meta-study all share some common ground in that their review and synthesis processes include examining all aspects of the context in which knowledge is produced. In conducting a review on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups, critical interpretive synthesis sought to question 'the ways in which the literature had constructed the problematics of access, the nature of the assumptions on which it drew, and what has influenced its choice of proposed solutions' [[ 34 ], p6]. Although not claiming to have been directly influenced by Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative approach, Dixon-Woods et al do cite it as sharing similar characteristics in the sense that it critiques the literature it reviews.

Meta-study uses meta-theory to describe and deconstruct the theories that shape a body of research and to assess its quality. One aspect of this process is to examine the historical evolution of each theory and to put it in its socio-political context, which invites direct comparison with meta-narrative synthesis. Greenhalgh et al put a similar emphasis on placing research findings within their social and historical context, often as a means of seeking to explain heterogeneity of findings. In addition, meta-narrative shares with critical interpretive synthesis an iterative approach to searching and selecting from the literature.

Framework synthesis, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, meta-ethnography and grounded theory do not share the same approach to problematizing the literature as critical interpretive synthesis, meta-study and meta-narrative. In part, this may be explained by the extent to which studies included in the synthesis represented a broad range of approaches or methodologies. This, in turn, may reflect the broadness of the review question and the extent to which the concepts contained within the question are pre-defined within the literature. In the case of both the critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative reviews, terminology was elastic and/or the question formed iteratively. Similarly, both reviews placed great emphasis on employing multi-disciplinary research teams. Approaches which do not critique the literature in the same way tend to have more narrowly-focused questions. They also tend to include a more limited range of studies: grounded theory synthesis includes grounded theory studies, meta-ethnography (in its original form, as applied by Noblit and Hare) ethnographies. The thematic synthesis incorporated studies based on only a narrow range of qualitative methodologies (interviews and focus groups) which were informed by a similarly narrow range of epistemological assumptions. It may be that the authors of such syntheses saw no need for including such a critique in their review process.

Similarities and differences between primary studies

Most methods of synthesis are applicable to heterogeneous data (i.e. studies which use contrasting methodologies) apart from early meta-ethnography and synthesis informed by grounded theory. All methods of synthesis state that, at some level, studies are compared; many are not so explicit about how this is done, though some are. Meta-ethnography is one of the most explicit: it describes the act of 'translation' where terms and concepts which have resonance with one another are subsumed into 'higher order constructs'. Grounded theory, as represented by Eaves [ 17 ], is undertaken according to a long list of steps and sub-steps, includes the production of generalizations about concepts/categories, which comes from classifying these categories. In meta-narrative synthesis, comparable studies are grouped together at the appraisal phase of review.

Perhaps more interesting are the ways in which differences between studies are explored. Those methods with a greater emphasis on critical appraisal may tend (although this is not always made explicit) to use differences in method to explain differences in finding. Meta-ethnography proposes 'refutational synthesis' to explain differences, although there are few examples of this in the literature. Some synthesis methods – for example, thematic synthesis – look at other characteristics of the studies under review, whether types of participants and their context vary, and whether this can explain differences in perspective.

All of these methods, then, look within the studies to explain differences. Other methods look beyond the study itself to the context in which it was produced. Critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study look at differences in theory or in socio-economic context. Critical interpretive synthesis, like meta-narrative, also explores epistemological orientation. Meta-narrative is unique in concerning itself with disciplinary paradigm (i.e. the story of the discipline as it progresses). It is also distinctive in that it treats conflicting findings as 'higher order data' [[ 32 ], p420], so that the main emphasis of the synthesis appears to be on examining and explaining contradictions in the literature.

Going 'beyond' the primary studies

Synthesis is sometimes defined as a process resulting in a product, a 'whole', which is more than the sum of its parts. However, the methods reviewed here vary in the extent to which they attempt to 'go beyond' the primary studies and transform the data. Some methods – textual narrative synthesis, ecological triangulation and framework synthesis – focus on describing and summarising their primary data (often in a highly structured and detailed way) and translating the studies into one another. Others – meta-ethnography, grounded theory, thematic synthesis, meta-study, meta-narrative and critical interpretive synthesis – seek to push beyond the original data to a fresh interpretation of the phenomena under review. A key feature of thematic synthesis is its clear differentiation between these two stages.

Different methods have different mechanisms for going beyond the primary studies, although some are more explicit than others about what these entail. Meta-ethnography proposes a 'Line of Argument' (LOA) synthesis in which an interpretation is constructed to both link and explain a set of parts. Critical interpretive synthesis based its synthesis methods on those of meta-ethnography, developing an LOA using what the authors term 'synthetic constructs' (akin to 'third order constructs' in meta-ethnography) to create a 'synthesising argument'. Dixon-Woods et al claim that this is an advance on Britten et al's methods, in that they reject the difference between first, second and third order constructs.

Meta-narrative, as outlined above, focuses on conflicting findings and constructs theories to explain these in terms of differing paradigms. Meta study derives questions from each of its three components to which it subjects the dataset and inductively generates a number of theoretical claims in relation to it. According to Eaves' model of grounded theory [ 17 ], mini-theories are integrated to produce an explanatory framework. In ecological triangulation, the 'axial' codes – or second level codes evolved from the initial deductive open codes – are used to produce Banning's 'ecological sentence' [ 39 ].

The synthetic product

In overviewing and comparing different qualitative synthesis methods, the ultimate question relates to the utility of the synthetic product: what is it for? It is clear that some methods of synthesis – namely, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation – view themselves as producing an output that is directly applicable to policy makers and designers of interventions. The example of framework synthesis examined here (on children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling) involved policy makers and practitioners in directing the focus of the synthesis and used the themes derived from the synthesis to infer what kind of interventions might be most effective in encouraging walking and cycling. Likewise, the products of the thematic synthesis took the form of practical recommendations for interventions (e.g. 'do not promote fruit and vegetables in the same way in the same intervention'). The extent to which policy makers and practitioners are involved in informing either synthesis or recommendation is less clear from the documents published on ecological triangulation, but the aim certainly is to directly inform practice.

The outputs of synthesis methods which have a more constructivist orientation – meta-study, meta-narrative, meta-ethnography, grounded theory, critical interpretive synthesis – tend to look rather different. They are generally more complex and conceptual, sometimes operating on the symbolic or metaphorical level, and requiring a further process of interpretation by policy makers and practitioners in order for them to inform practice. This is not to say, however, that they are not useful for practice, more that they are doing different work. However, it may be that, in the absence of further interpretation, they are more useful for informing other researchers and theoreticians.

Looking across dimensions

After examining the dimensions of difference of our included methods, what picture ultimately emerges? It seems clear that, while similar in some respects, there are genuine differences in approach to the synthesis of what is essentially textual data. To some extent, these differences can be explained by the epistemological assumptions that underpin each method. Our methods split into two broad camps: the idealist and the realist (see Table ​ Table1 1 for a summary). Idealist approaches generally tend to have a more iterative approach to searching (and the review process), have less a priori quality assessment procedures and are more inclined to problematize the literature. Realist approaches are characterised by a more linear approach to searching and review, have clearer and more well-developed approaches to quality assessment, and do not problematize the literature.

Summary table

N.B.: In terms of the above dimensions, it is generally a question of degree rather than of absolute distinctions.

Mapping the relationships between methods

What is interesting is the relationship between these methods of synthesis, the conceptual links between them, and the extent to which the originators cite – or, in some cases, don't cite – one another. Some methods directly build on others – framework synthesis builds on framework analysis, for example, while grounded theory and constant comparative analysis build on grounded theory. Others further develop existing methods – meta-study, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative all adapt aspects of meta-ethnography, while also importing concepts from other theorists (critical interpretive synthesis also adapts grounded theory techniques).

Some methods share a clear conceptual link, without directly citing one another: for example, the analytical themes developed during thematic synthesis are comparable to the third order interpretations of meta-ethnography. The meta-theory aspect of meta-study is echoed in both meta-narrative synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis (see 'Problematizing the literature, above); however, the originators of critical interpretive synthesis only refer to the originators of meta-study in relation to their use of sampling techniques.

While methods for qualitative synthesis have many similarities, there are clear differences in approach between them, many of which can be explained by taking account of a given method's epistemology.

However, within the two broad idealist/realist categories, any differences between methods in terms of outputs appear to be small.

Since many systematic reviews are designed to inform policy and practice, it is important to select a method – or type of method – that will produce the kind of conclusions needed. However, it is acknowledged that this is not always simple or even possible to achieve in practice.

The approaches that result in more easily translatable messages for policy-makers and practitioners may appear to be more attractive than the others; but we do need to take account lessons from the more idealist end of the spectrum, that some perspectives are not universal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors made substantial contributions, with EBP taking a lead on writing and JT on the analytical framework. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59/prepub

Supplementary Material

Dimensions of difference . Ranging from subjective idealism through objective idealism and critical realism to scientific realism to naïve realism

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful contributions of the following in commenting on earlier drafts of this paper: David Gough, Sandy Oliver, Angela Harden, Mary Dixon-Woods, Trisha Greenhalgh and Barbara L. Paterson. We would also like to thank the peer reviewers: Helen J Smith, Rosaline Barbour and Mark Rodgers for their helpful reviews. The methodological development was supported by the Department of Health (England) and the ESRC through the Methods for Research Synthesis Node of the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). An earlier draft of this paper currently appears as a working paper on the National Centre for Research Methods' website http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/ .

• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwhal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (1):45–53b. doi: 10.1258/1355819052801804. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003; 9 (2):179–186. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):6–20. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Shaw RL, Smith J, Sutton A, Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006; 6 :27–44. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: a Guide to Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S, Jenson L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14 :1342–1365. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269888. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: CRD; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. London: Sage; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strike K, Posner G. In: Knowledge Structure and Use. Ward S, Reed L, editor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1983. Types of synthesis and their criteria. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner S. Sociological Explanation as Translation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesis qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res. 2002; 7 :209–15. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432732. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 65 :671–84. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :133–155. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutz A. Collected Paper. Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Research Nurs Health. 2001; 24 :270–82. doi: 10.1002/nur.1029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eaves YD. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35 :654–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finfgeld D. Courage as a process of pushing beyond the struggle. Qual Health Res. 1999; 9 :803–814. doi: 10.1177/104973299129122298. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. In: Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings. Emerson RM, editor. Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL; 1983. The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation; pp. 109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chesler MA. Professionals' Views of the Dangers of Self-Help Groups: Explicating a Grounded Theoretical Approach. [Michigan]: Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour Centre for Research on Social Organisation, Working Paper Series; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1988; 21 :179–186. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199804)21:2<179::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-G. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2008; 8 :45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas PJ, Arai L, Baird, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2007; 7 (4) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community H. 2004; 58 :794–800. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao S. Metatheory, metamethod, meta-data-analysis: what, why and how? Sociol Perspect. 1991; 34 :377–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzer G. Metatheorizing in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm date unknown.
• Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :417–30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Meth. 2006; 6 (35) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D. In: Applied and Practice-based Research. 2. Furlong J, Oancea A, editor. Vol. 22. Special Edition of Research Papers in Education; 2007. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence; pp. 213–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The Research Act: a Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Ecological Triangulation. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf
• Banning J. Ecological Sentence Synthesis. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Sentence%20Synthesis.pdf
• Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T. A Synthesis of Research Addressing Children's, Young People's and Parents' Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver S, Rees R, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008; 11 :72–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320 :114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J, Spencer L. In: Analysing Qualitative Data. Bryman A, Burgess R, editor. London: Routledge; 1993. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research; pp. 173–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans D, Fitzgerald M. Reasons for physically restraining patients and residents: a systematic review and content analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002; 39 :739–743. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00015-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suikkala A, Leino-Kilpi H. Nursing student-patient relationships: a review of the literature from 1984–1998. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 33 :42–50. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01636.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weed M. 'Meta-interpretation': a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005; 6 :Art 37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D, Thomas J. Dimensions of difference in systematic reviews. http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/RMF2008/festival/programme/sys1
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: a Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3: A response from a qualitative perspective. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Design%20and%20Implementation%20Assessment%20Device.pdf
• Paterson BL. In: Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice. Webb C, Roe B, editor. [Oxford]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2007. Coming out as ill: understanding self-disclosure in chronic illness from a meta-synthesis of qualitative research; pp. 73–83. [ Google Scholar ]

Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?

• Questions & Quandaries
• Published: 18 April 2024

Cite this article

• H. Carrie Chen 1 ,
• Ayelet Kuper 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Jennifer Cleland 5 &
• Patricia O’Sullivan 6  

257 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of whether one should conduct a literature review or knowledge synthesis, considering the why, when, and how, as well as its potential pitfalls. The goal is to guide supervisors and students who are considering whether to embark on a literature review in education research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Two junior colleagues come to you to ask your advice about carrying out a literature review on a particular topic. “Should they?” immediately pops into your mind, followed closely by, if yes, then what kind of literature review is appropriate? Our experience is that colleagues often come to suggest a literature review to “kick start” their research (in fact, some academic programs require them as part of degree requirements), without a full understanding of the work involved, the different types of literature review, and what type of literature review might be most suitable for their research question. In this Questions and Quandaries, we address the question of literature reviews in education research, considering the why, when, and how, as well as potential pitfalls.

First, what is meant by literature review? The term literature review has been used to refer to both a review of the literature and a knowledge synthesis (Maggio et al., 2018 ; Siddaway et al., 2019 ). For our purposes, we employ the term as commonly used to refer to a knowledge synthesis , which is a formal comprehensive review of the existing body of literature on a topic. It is a research approach that critically integrates and synthesizes available evidence from multiple studies to provide insight and allow the drawing of conclusions. It is an example of Boyer’s scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990 ). In contrast, a review of the literature is a relatively casual and expedient method for attaining a general overview of the state of knowledge on a given topic to make the argument that a new study is needed. In this interpretation, a literature review serves as a key starting point for anyone conducting research by identifying gaps in the literature, informing the study question, and situating one’s study in the field.

Whether a formal knowledge synthesis should be done depends on if a review is needed and what the rationale is for the review. The first question to consider is whether a literature review already exists. If no, is there enough literature published on the topic to warrant a review? If yes, does the previous review need updating? How long has it been since the last review and has the literature expanded so much or are there important new studies that need integrating to justify an updated review? Or were there flaws in the previous review that one intends to address with a new review? Or does one intend to address a different question than the focus of the previous review?

If the knowledge synthesis is to be done, it should be driven by a research question. What is the research question? Can it be answered by a review? What is the purpose of the synthesis? There are two main purposes for knowledge synthesis– knowledge support and decision support. Knowledge support summarizes the evidence while decision support takes additional analytical steps to allow for decision-making in particular contexts (Mays et al., 2005 ).

If the purpose is to provide knowledge support, then the question is how or what will the knowledge synthesis add to the literature? Will it establish the state of knowledge in an area, identify gaps in the literature/knowledge base, and/or map opportunities for future research? Cornett et al., performed a scoping review of the literature on professional identity, focusing on how professional identity is described, why the studies where done, and what constructs of identity were used. Their findings advanced understanding of the state of knowledge by indicating that professional identity studies were driven primarily by the desire to examine the impact of political, social and healthcare reforms and advances, and that the various constructs of professional identity across the literature could be categorized into five themes (Cornett et al., 2023 ).

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the knowledge synthesis is to provide decision support, for whom will the synthesis be relevant and how will it improve practice? Will the synthesis result in tools such as guidelines or recommendations for practitioners and policymakers? An example of a knowledge synthesis for decision support is a systematic review conducted by Spencer and colleagues to examine the validity evidence for use of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (OSCORE) assessment tool. The authors summarized their findings with recommendations for educational practice– namely supporting the use of the OSCORE for in-the-moment entrustment decisions by frontline supervisors in surgical fields but cautioning about the limited evidence for support of its use in summative promotions decisions or non-surgical contexts (Spencer et al., 2022 ).

If a knowledge synthesis is indeed appropriate, its methodology should be informed by its research question and purpose. We do not have the space to discuss the various types of knowledge synthesis except to say that several types have been described in the literature. The five most common types in health professions education are narrative reviews, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews (meta-syntheses), scoping reviews, and realist reviews (Maggio et al., 2018 ). These represent different epistemologies, serve different review purposes, use different methods, and result in different review outcomes (Gordon, 2016 ).

Each type of review lends itself best to answering a certain type of research question. For instance, narrative reviews generally describe what is known about a topic without necessarily answering a specific empirical question (Maggio et al., 2018 ). A recent example of a narrative review focused on schoolwide wellbeing programs, describing what is known about the key characteristics and mediating factors that influence student support and identifying critical tensions around confidentiality that could make or break programs (Tan et al., 2023 ). Umbrella reviews, on the other hand, synthesize evidence from multiple reviews or meta-analyses and can illuminate agreement, inconsistencies, or evolution of evidence on a topic. For example, an umbrella review on problem-based learning highlighted the shift in research focus over time from does it work, to how does it work, to how does it work in different contexts, and pointed to directions for new research (Hung et al., 2019 ).

Practical questions for those considering a literature review include whether one has the time required and an appropriate team to conduct a high-quality knowledge synthesis. Regardless of the type of knowledge synthesis and use of quantitative or qualitative methods, all require rigorous and clear methods that allow for reproducibility. This can take time, up to 12–18 months. A high-quality knowledge synthesis also requires a team whose members have expertise not only in the content matter, but also in knowledge synthesis methodology and in literature searches (i.e. a librarian). A team with multiple reviewers with a variety of perspectives can also help manage the volume of large reviews, minimize potential biases, and strengthen the critical analysis.

Finally, a pitfall one should be careful to avoid is merely summarizing everything in the literature without critical evaluation and integration of the information. A knowledge synthesis that merely bean counts or presents a collection of unconnected information that has not been reflected upon or critically analyzed does not truly advance knowledge or decision-making. Rather, it leads us back to our original question of whether it should have been done in the first place.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (pp. 18–21). Princeton University Press.

Cornett, M., Palermo, C., & Ash, S. (2023). Professional identity research in the health professions—a scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 28 (2), 589–642.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher , 38 (7), 746–750.

Hung, W., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2019). A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: Trends, gaps and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 24 , 943–957.

Maggio, L. A., Thomas, A., & Durning, S. J. (2018). Knowledge synthesis. In T. Swanwick, K. Forrest, & B. C. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, theory, and practice (pp. 457–469). Wiley.

Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , 10 (1_suppl), 6–20.

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology , 70 , 747–770.

Spencer, M., Sherbino, J., & Hatala, R. (2022). Examining the validity argument for the Ottawa Surgical Competency operating room evaluation (OSCORE): A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 27 , 659–689.

Tan, E., Frambach, J., Driessen, E., & Cleland, J. (2023). Opening the black box of school-wide student wellbeing programmes: A critical narrative review informed by activity theory. Advances in Health Sciences Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10261-8 . Epub ahead of print 02 July 2023.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

H. Carrie Chen

Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Ayelet Kuper

Division of General Internal Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Canada

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Jennifer Cleland

University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA

Patricia O’Sullivan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Carrie Chen .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chen, H.C., Kuper, A., Cleland, J. et al. Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?. Adv in Health Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1

Download citation

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program honors nine Chemistry student community members

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (4/26/2023) – Nine members of the Department of Chemistry student community were recently honored with recognition by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP). Briana Krupinsky, Grace Murphy, Timmy Nguyen, and Ulises Perez were awarded fellowships, and Mrinalni Iyer, Killian MacFeely, Wallee Naimi, Miles Willis, and Ali Younis received honorable mentions.

Briana Krupinsky is a second-year graduate student in the Lamb group . She joined the UMN community after completing her undergraduate studies at the University of North Dakota. Briana investigates N-hetereocyclic carbene-carbodiimide (NHC-CDI) adducts for application as catalyst precursors in organocatalysis. At the moment, this includes working towards understanding the thermodynamic and kinetic properties of NHC-CDI adducts for well-controlled catalysis. One of Briana’s research goals is to develop a light-activated NHC-CDI catalyst precursor to achieve spatiotemporal control for the synthesis of polymers.

Grace Murphy , a member of the Hoover lab , came to UMN after completing her undergraduate studies at Saint Louis University. One of her long-term goals as a chemist is to study and develop transition metal catalyzed reactions that are used in organic chemistry. She is particularly interested in understanding the structure-reactivity relationships that make difficult reactions possible. Grace is currently working towards understanding the mechanism of nickel catalyzed/mediated decarbonylation, a reaction that has potential future applications to the synthesis of pharmaceuticals to polymer upcycling.

Timmy Nguyen first came to UMN for a summer research experience program in 2022, right before his senior year at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He officially joined the graduate program in 2023 as a member of the Haynes group. Timmy is interested in anisotropic nanoparticles as substrates and recently started working on a project to synthesize silica-coated gold nanorods for use in SERS sensors. He is also passionate about participating in outreach activities through Science for All, a student group that works to bring the excitement of science to Minnesota middle schools.

Ulises Perez , a Spring 2023 graduate from the UMN Chemistry undergraduate program and current PhD student at University of Washington, was also awarded a fellowship.

The NSF GRFP recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees at accredited United States institutions. The program also seeks to support the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM graduate studies.

Mrinalni Iyer, Killian MacFeely, Wallee Naimi, Miles Willis, and Ali Younis received honorable mentions for their applications. The Department of Chemistry congratulates all nine students on this significant national academic achievement!

Related news releases

• Kargbo, Pham, and Tuga receive Merck Underrepresented Chemists of Color Research Award
• Taimeng Liang awarded ACS Division of Medicinal Chemistry Predoctoral Fellowship
• Manuraj Kallumkal and Pete Gabriel Ledesma receive Pothapragada International Graduate Student Fellowship
• PhD candidate Casey Ritts receives American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowship
• PhD students recognized with awards and honors at Fall Kickoff Seminar
• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

More From Forbes

Dna synthesis approaches: will new methods stand the test of time.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Demaris Mills is president at Integrated DNA Technologies , a global genomics solutions provider.

DNA synthesis is vital to several processes in biopharmaceutical innovation, including the development of gene therapies, CRISPR gene editing, antisense oligonucleotides and RNA therapies. The need for developers to quickly produce DNA is accelerating along with the pace of research and therapeutic drug development—so much so that the market for DNA synthesis is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of more than 19.6% and reach more than $12 billion by 2030.

The increased demand for synthesized DNA is fueling a wave of startups promising to make the process faster, more efficient and more sustainable. Some are even offering technology that will allow customers to synthesize DNA in their own labs.

As exciting and convenient as this new plug-and-play approach sounds, it’s still an imperfect science that comes with its share of risks. Although it can be easy to get caught up in the hype, genomics developers need to fully understand the different DNA synthesis methods to ensure they’re selecting the one that best fits their needs.

Chemicals Vs. Enzymes

Let’s examine current technologies by which DNA can be synthesized. The most tested and common method is chemical synthesis, which has been used for more than 40 years to manufacture DNA strands that can extend up to several hundred nucleotides in length and be customized with a wide variety of chemical modifications. A newer method, enzymatic DNA synthesis , closely mirrors a process that’s undertaken by living cells. This method typically uses the innate functions of a naturally occurring enzyme, such as terminal transferase (TdT) to build synthetic DNA.

Apple iPhone 16 Unique All New Design Promised In New Report

The best romantic comedy of the last year just hit netflix, the world s best beers according to the 2024 world beer cup.

A major selling point of enzymatic DNA synthesis is the efficiency by which enzymes such as TdT can add bases to growing DNA molecules relative to traditional chemical synthesis. Theoretically, this can allow the creation of accurate sequences that are thousands of nucleotides in length. This can make it possible to synthesize long gene-sized fragments or even entire genomes, which is challenging with chemical synthesis. About a half-dozen startups offering fast enzymatic DNA synthesis have attracted millions in venture capital in the last few years.

Despite investor enthusiasm, there are some major hurdles to overcome before enzymatic synthesis will be ready for prime time. One challenge of enzymatic synthesis is that natural nucleotides used to build the DNA molecule must be blocked so that only the single desired base is added at each step. This block must be removed before the next nucleotide is added to the reaction. Failure to block or unblock any molecule at the correct time results in errors in the DNA molecule.

What’s more, enzymes must be engineered to recognize and use these blocked nucleotides, which can be costly. The selectivity of the enzymes also limits the types of modifications that can be incorporated into DNA. Chemical synthesis , on the other hand, uses low-cost materials and can be used to make DNA molecules with thousands of different modifications to the standard four bases of A, G, C and T. Such modifications help limit degradation and increase the effectiveness of DNA used in applications such as CRISPR and therapeutics and are important for researchers who often add fluorescent dyes or linkers to control and visualize the material in living systems. These modifications can be challenging to pull off with enzymatic DNA synthesis.

Improving Sustainability And Efficiency

Enzymatic DNA synthesis is often viewed as the more sustainable choice because it can be done in aqueous solutions. Although enzymatic DNA producers have to inactivate recombinant proteins from aqueous solutions before discarding them—so biowaste doesn’t endanger the environment—they don’t have to implement complex hazardous-waste mitigation strategies required with chemical DNA synthesis.

However, forward-thinking providers of chemical DNA synthesis are finding innovative ways to make the process more sustainable. In some cases, manufacturers are implementing processes for recycling chemicals produced during DNA synthesis, thereby reducing the amount of toxic waste that needs to be mitigated.

Other improvements in chemical synthesis are improving the efficiency of the process. Over the past two decades, for example, the output of some DNA synthesis technologies such as IDT's has increased significantly, making it possible to produce several times more DNA without having to increase the footprint of the process.

Partnering To Optimize Success

So, how can biopharmaceutical innovators work with technology partners to determine the optimal DNA synthesis methods for their projects? Although it may be tempting to go online and select a reasonably priced option, that’s not always the best idea, particularly for researchers working with long, complex strands of DNA. A better strategy is to partner with DNA providers that can design the optimal process, provide continuous feedback on the output's quality and adjust the process as needed along the way. It's all about benefiting from cycles of learning that can improve the quality of the end product.

Ideally, chemical and enzymatic DNA synthesis will someday live side by side in hybrid production plants. That will allow biopharmaceutical developers and their partners to switch from one method to another based on the demands of the particular genomic innovation they're developing. Leveraging the complementary capabilities of these two methods will broaden access to DNA synthesis for the betterment of the life sciences industry.

In the meantime, both chemical and enzymatic synthesis companies need to continue working to overcome their respective hurdles. In a market in which speed is becoming increasingly important, chemical synthesis companies must show that their tried-and-true methods are now more efficient and sustainable. For enzymatic synthesis companies, speed and size can’t come at the expense of quality and purity, or they risk losing customers whose work has little margin for error.

Most importantly, customers need to make sure they're educated on what DNA solutions are available in the market. The stakes are high, especially for those who are working to bring life-saving therapies to patients in need.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions