By Patricia D'Urso

Synthesis

Essential Questions

1. What is synthesis?

2. What is the difference between explanatory synthesis and argumentative synthesis?

3. How does synthesis differ from other processes or terms used in developing the literature review?

4. What is the difference between summary and synthesis?

5. What are some strategies one can use to synthesize research studies and literary articles?

6. How does synthesis �t into the literature review?

Introduction A primary aspect of writing the literature review is to focus and contextualize the study, which requires the

writer to generate information to substantiate the topic and problem as demonstrated in the publication of

prior knowledge in scholarly literature (Mertens & McLaughlin, 1995). In writing the literature review for a

dissertation study, the researcher needs to place the topic or problem in the broader scholarly literature as well

as in an appropriate historical context of the �eld. Additionally, the doctoral learner should distinguish what

research has been done in the �eld of study as well as what needs to be done. Articulation of important

variables and phenomena relevant to the topic should be included and synthesized to demonstrate a new

perspective on the literature and prior research on the topic. There will be inconsistencies and tension in the

literature, which should be clari�ed and discussed. The doctoral researcher must illuminate the scope and

discuss limitations of the existing literature. Achieving these goals requires a variety of writing and research

skills, one of which is synthesis. This chapter of the textbook presents information related to the skill of

synthesis and how it is a critical component of the literature review process.

What Is Synthesis?

Synthesis includes acts of constructing or bringing together the different elements or strands of information

that contribute to a body of knowledge on a topic. Synthesis in the literature review is the way the researcher

integrates the analysis and evaluation of the many research studies and literary works of authors who have

published on the topic. Researchers will approach synthesis in a variety of ways, sometimes in�uenced by

their own schemas.

Synthesis should include a critical analysis of the literature wherein the doctoral researcher identi�es the

most important ideas read, discusses the importance of those ideas within the context of his/her own study,

and integrates all or most of those ideas, whether they are similar or dissimilar (Paul & Elder, 2006). By doing

so, the literature review can provide the opportunity to look across many disciplines that include the same

concept or construct for a comparative or contrasting analysis.

The writer should corroborate,

compare, and contrast �ndings

among the many sources.

When synthesizing, the writer should go beyond describing philosophy or �ndings, using critical analysis to

compare and contrast works. Some strategies used for critical analysis of the research include:

Read diagnostically and comprehensively for the problem spaces in the literature.

Identify groups or situations that still need to be studied on the topic.

Identify what authoritative researchers and thought leaders in the �eld suggest still needs to be explored

or investigated.

Think about how a contrarian position on what is in the literature to date could be a worthy opponent.

Identify the precedents that exist in the literature on the topic.

Analyze to separate the literature into constituent parts and describe each part as it relates to other parts

(Hart, 2010). "Analysis activities are characteristically re�ective, such as investigating the problem,

perhaps discovering previous solutions … and reviewing solution candidates" (Att�eld, Blandford, &

Dowell, 2003, p. 13).

Compare to relate two or more concepts, philosophies, elements, techniques, practices or whatever the

fundamental issue of interest is in the spirit of constructing an argument, where the items to be

compared are similar.

Compare what one thought leader has offered, perhaps in theory, and what others have offered; seek to

understand the existing perspectives in the �eld of study to establish credibility.

Contrast to differentiate two or more concepts, philosophies, elements, techniques, practices or whatever

the fundamental issue of interest is in the spirit of constructing an argument, where the items to be

contrasted are dissimilar.

Draw conclusions to think about a restatement of the topic and thesis for the section of a literature

review. The conclusion should address alternate explanations and perspectives and should also outline

potential actions or new research directions. A conclusion is drawn from what has been written, and a

mention of the problem space(s) found in the research process should be explained.

Once the doctoral researcher has engaged in suf�cient reading and critical analysis to arrive at valid

information to make an argument, explanatory and argument synthesis can be crafted. The literature review

can inform the reader how the researcher's study is different from the previous studies analyzed in the

literature review and how this study can extend previous research (Pyrczak & Bruce, 2011). This expression of

ideas moves the researcher from existing perspectives to emerging perspectives from which he/she could

form new plausible arguments.

Many synthesis sections will include the following:

Discovery,

Explanation and argument,

A conclusion that follows the premise of the study, and

A declaration of the realization that it is impossible (most times) to represent all of what is in the

literature.

According to Hart (2010), taking this realistic approach about one's research enables the reader to understand

that the researcher's inquisitive attitude prevails in order to facilitate ways of looking at different ideas and

synthesizing them into new ideas.

Doctoral researchers, researchers of empirical work, interested citizens, all bring individual perspectives to a

discussion of a topic. This is to be expected. One responsibility of the sophisticated doctoral researcher is to

present crucial source material in suf�cient detail to capture the attention of the reader about the topic and to

present this information in a logical �ow as the argument is developed. Transitioning from summaries of

existing material often requires the researcher to synthesize

information from more than one source to create the new

perspective. The steps more commonly used to synthesize

properly are organizing to combine information, recalling

from the research, recreating from summary, and forming a

different whole to provide different meaning. The writer

should corroborate, compare, and contrast �ndings among the many sources to identify the similarities, the

differences, and other subtleties that could be lost easily without this deep analysis. Once these tasks are

completed, the doctoral researcher can form a new perspective (synthesis).

Synthesis should be grounded in a strong comprehension of the literature reviewed. For example, in practice, a

journalist has an assignment to get the story. This is like reviewing the literature and getting the facts as

written in scholarly journals about the dissertation topic. Not until all the facts are uncovered about the story,

and this could take months, even years, can the readers/viewers of this story be convinced of the a priori

assertion. At the time that all or most of the facts are revealed, a reader/viewer may change his/her mind from

the a priori formation because the facts revealed are grounded in a strong comprehensive investigation, which

includes corroborating, comparing, and contrasting the facts with other players in the scenario and, perhaps,

receives full exposure in a courtroom trial proceeding. This process requires the writer to develop both an

explanatory and argument synthesis of the facts and details related to the story. Explanatory synthesis or

argument synthesis, or a combination of both, can also be appropriate for the dissertation study. An

explanatory synthesis will provide information for the reader to understand the topic. In contrast, argument

synthesis, is used to present the focus and defend the problem statement from the many sources chosen to

analyze, realizing that any argumentative writing could be debated. There will be situations where two

doctoral researchers will present factual source materials and arrive at opposite theses (Att�eld, Blandford, &

Dowell, 2003). Many GCU doctoral learners use both explanatory and argument synthesis in their dissertation

literature reviews.

Often, explanatory synthesis is used in the initial parts of the dissertation literature review as the researcher

presents background information related to the topic. For example, conducting educational research

pertaining to the learner achievement gap before and after the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 will

immerse the researcher within Title I provisions applied to disadvantaged learners. Explanatory synthesis, in

this respect, may also include associated problems of statewide testing, local �exibility, and accountability

systems. The implementation of the NCLB Act impacted education in many ways, particularly with regard to

learner achievement. A literary non�ction account will present a perspective on problems associated with

NCLB (Quinton, 2015). Moreover, the researcher will understand that debates related to the implementation of

the act. Sections that incorporate information to enable reader understanding in the literature review will

again implement explanatory synthesis; however, argument synthesis is used in the literature review as well.

The GCU doctoral learner will use argument synthesis to focus and defend the problem statement. Here, the

researcher will identify a problem space from prior research on the topic. Therefore, the research studies must

be synthesized or categorized in some like manner, such as by method, data-collection instrument, sample, or

results. As part of the literature review, the researcher must present and analyze studies that have been

conducted on the topic. Here, the researcher will take the studies and will identify similarities among them

and present an argument for the problem under study. This process will be presented in more detail later in

this chapter and the dissertation template (https://dc.gcu.edu/dissertation/dissertation-templates).

There are a number of steps to take to establish a convincing and logical argumentation synthesis. The writer

should consider what the structure of the argument will look like and how the argument will be built,

analyzed, and evaluated relative to the dissertation topic. The tools and process of developing a logical

argument and then the defense of the argument are essential to understand if the doctoral researcher is

attempting to in�uence the reader. According to Hart (2010) "argumentation analysis and evaluation …

deconstructs and then reconstructs differently the ideas of other people" (p. 97). Deconstructing and

reconstructing is part of the overall process, and these steps are necessary for the doctoral researcher to

develop the argument, support (or refute) the argument, and synthesize all the information analyzed.

Tools and Tips

Capture factual statements to demonstrate something is true (cite your work).

Check the facts. Is one set of facts better than another to establish something is true?

State the premise or problem statement clearly. Check that the claim the argument is

making is reasonable.

Check the literature for other sources.

Early in the literature review, the doctoral researcher will start with a topic in mind, but that topic is subject to

change as the researcher gets deeper into the subject matter and experiences a deeper understanding. It is

advisable not to make unequivocal statements at any stage of the argument construction unless you can

substantiate such statements from the literature review. A good practice is to assess the information at stages

and synthesize the information to determine if a priori thoughts still hold up, or if, after rede�ning and

rethinking, the researcher discovers so much more about the problem that he/she realizes a need to critically

evaluate his/her own original perceptions or misconceptions. An example of this type of problem solving in

decision science is Bayes theorem. A priori information is available upon which the decision maker makes a

decision, but when new evidence is available the decision maker can update his/her beliefs and perhaps

change the original decision. In linear analysis, Bayes theorem, a derivative of theory of probability, can be

applied in the activity of the literature review, in that probability of an event measures a degree of one's belief

(Lind et al., 2012). Capturing this information in an authentic whole requires the ability to synthesize. There are

several strategies one can use to structure the literature review in such a way that effectively combines

summary with synthesis.

What Is the Difference Between Summary and Synthesis? One issue that doctoral learners experience when writing the literature review includes learning how to

synthesize information rather than summarizing or writing in a book report format. When writers summarize,

they highlight the main ideas of a written work and paraphrase them in their own words. They also give

credit to those individuals who expounded the original work. In contrast, when writers synthesize, they

engage in higher level thinking, combining information into a new whole. Table 3.1 highlights the differences

between synthesis and summary.

Table 3.1

Differences Between Summary and Synthesis

When summarizing, the writer will �rst read two or more articles or research studies and annotate them,

highlighting key words and main ideas, making notes in the margins, writing down main ideas, and

identifying headings and categories. After reading and annotating, the writer will then make an outline or

summary of each article separately, to include the main content, main claims, and author's purpose as well as

details, such as the population, methodology, and results of an empirical study. To demonstrate the summary

process, consider the following simple exercise: Every household has a junk drawer that serves as the "catch

all" for items. Have a friend or family member go to that junk drawer and randomly extract three items. For the

purposes of this discussion, a writer has taken the following three items from an of�ce desk drawer: a

computer mouse, a tube of lotion, and a wooden stamp set. The following is one possible summary of the three

items:

Summary Synthesis

Lower level thinking Higher level thinking

Lists facts or main ideas from a single source Integrates information from more than one source into a new whole

Entails restating the information in writers’ own words.

Compares and contrasts information from sources

Summarize: “Summarizing is an essential activity in literature reviewing. It is also an essential part of managing the literature and provides the basis for the organizing, analyzing and synthesizing which follow” (Punch, 2009, p. 101).

Combines information from more than one source in writers’ own words.

Multiple sources in a paragraph in which “findings are compared/contrasted/analyzed, and if possible synthesized, along with a discussion on how these references relate to your study” (Simon & Goes, 2013, p. 277).

The computer mouse is used to navigate the computer. It is about 3 inches long and 1.5 inches wide.

It is purple on top with black sides and bottom. It has a wheel on the top that the writer can use to

move the page on the computer screen up and down. There are indentations on the side for the

thumb and �ngers. On the bottom one will �nd a removable door for the battery and an on/off

switch, which also indicates whether or not the battery is working.

The tube of lotion is about 3 inches tall and holds healing, aloe lotion. The cover says the lotion has

a clean scent, contains vitamins A, C, and E, and is nongreasy. The lid to the tube is gold and the

actual tube is cream colored. The tube contains blue symbols that look like molecules and writing.

The lotion itself is white, creamy, and smells like coconut oil.

The wooden stamp set comes in a square box that is pink and white with gold lettering. There are

six stamps in the box, which offer words of af�rmation: thank you, hi, to: from, hooray, and

congratulations. The stamps are in three different sizes: two are rectangular, two are cubes and one

In the above sample, the author describes three separate items from a desk drawer for the reader. However, as

stated earlier in this chapter, synthesis entails the writer including information from more than one source in

his or own words. This requires the writer to compare, contrast, and analyze the information. The following

paragraph represents a synthesis of the three objects from the desk drawer. First, the writer combines all three

summaries into one paragraph. Then, the writer includes a paragraph that discusses the similarities and

differences of the items. Finally, the writer writes a conclusion that highlights the main themes from the

articles and how they relate to the overall topic. The writer may suggest areas for further consideration or

research in the conclusion, as well. The next example shows a synthesis of the three items from the desk

drawer:

In this synthesis, the writer �rst compares all three items from the desk drawer and then contrasts them.

Finally, the writer draws conclusions about the three items. This paragraph moves beyond the summary

description of the three items to analyze the purpose and functionality between the items, along with the

choices of those items.

In Chapter 2 of the dissertation, the literature review, doctoral learners often summarize research studies

related to their dissertation topics. The following passage shows an example of how one writer summarized a

research study.

is long and rectangular in shape. The stamps have black, cursive lettering.

The �rst item described is a purple, computer mouse, which is used to navigate the computer. The

mouse is approximately 3 inches long and 1.5 inches wide, with a wheel on the top the writer can

use to move the page on the computer screen up and down. There are indentations on the side for

the thumb and �ngers and the bottom there is a removable door for the battery and a power switch.

The second item is tube of cream and blue tube of healing, aloe lotion, which is approximately 3

inches tall. The lotion contains vitamins A, C, and E and is nongreasy. The lotion is white, with a

coconut scent. The third item is a box of six wooden stamps that come in a square box that is pink

and white with gold lettering. The six stamps have phrases with black cursive letting: thank you, hi,

to: from, hooray, and congratulations. The stamps are three different sizes: two rectangular, two

cubes, and one long rectangular.

All three, colorful, compact objects were retrieved from one of�ce desk drawer and are used during

the course of the day. Two of the objects (the stamps and the mouse) are used for daily work tasks,

whereas the tube of lotion is used for personal reasons. The items are different shapes. Two items,

the mouse and lotion are bene�cial for the worker. The mouse helps navigate the computer, and the

hand lotion eases dry skin. The stamp set is "fun" and not a necessity for the of�ce.

In sum, desk objects offer some similarities and differences. They are all used in the of�ce setting,

but for different purposes. They also re�ect the worker's or owner's personality in that they are

colorful, cheerful, and to a degree, whimsical. One may conclude that the of�ce worker wants some

variety in her day, so she chose fun, colorful items and maintain her soft hands to get their job done.

Cross (2014) conducted a quantitative study designed to determine what, if any, impact "grit" had on

learner success in the doctoral program. Grit was de�ned as the persistence, determination, and

passion the learners had to reach their long-term goal of completing the doctoral degree (Duckworth

et al., 2007). Cross (2014) used a correlational design to determine if learner "grit" was related to

learners' current GPA. The independent variable for the study was learner "grit" scores as measured by

the Grit-S survey developed by Duckworth and Quinn, (2009). The dependent variable was learners'

current GPA in the doctoral program. Other controlling variables of learner gender and age were

collected and tested in the study. The sample consisted of 669 doctoral learners from a private, for-

pro�t university in the United States. Results of Pearson R correlations showed a statically signi�cant

relationship existed between learner grit scores and their GPA. When speci�c demographic factors

were tested, the results revealed a statistically signi�cant relationship between the grit scores of

females and GPA, but not males. Furthermore, results showed that a learner's age was not signi�cantly

related to GPA, but grit scores were. Grit was positively related to GPA, but only for the female learners.

Cross (2014) concluded that in some ways, grit is a factor associated with the success of the online

doctoral learners in this sample, warranting need for further research on the topic.

This passage represents a summary of a research study on a speci�c topic, that of learner grit. The author has

highlighted the key components of the study; however, the passage does not re�ect synthesis, because the

author has not compiled information on more than one study within a passage and offered a comparison or

contrast of those studies. While it is important to summarize and fully present studies to identify a potential

limitation and problem space, synthesis is also important for certain parts of the literature review as the

author attempts to pull together components from more than one source and combine them in a new "whole"

to present information and set context for the study.

In order to determine what synthesis is, one might consider what it is not. First, synthesis is not accomplished

when a writer lists information from three or four authors in one paragraph (Craigo, 2003). Consider the

following example using �ctitious sources (Note: The example presented refers to purely �ctitious studies. As

such, references for these studies do not appear in the reference list at the end of the chapter.):

This paragraph, while containing valuable information on the attributes of leaders, does not compare or

contrast the attributes presented by the three authors. Instead, the writer summarizes the respective attributes

of leaders. Likewise, synthesis is not achieved when the writer quotes three or more authors in a paragraph.

When synthesizing, the writer will integrate information from more than one source to present his/her

position on the topic, as seen in this �ctitious passage (Note: The presented refers to purely �ctitious studies.

As such, references for these studies do not appear in the reference list at the end of the chapter.):

There are many attributes of great leaders. Great leaders are value-based, not fear-based (Smith, 2009).

Great leaders provide the opportunity to be heard, as in a democratic organization (Johnson, 2013). Other

great leaders give employees a voice, emphasizing their values (Brown, 1985).

A fundamental statement of the Rushmorean principle is that trust derives from the respect a leader

displays for followers. Respect for employees is evidenced when leaders actively listen and loyally

represent employee interests. Great leaders are values-based, not fear-based, provide employees a voice

with opportunities to be heard, keep promises, and promote employee dreams and aspirations to achieve

cause, without harm (Brown, 1985; Johnson, 2009; O'Malley 2003). If the Rushmorean principle were

adopted authentically in a workplace where there exists con�ict, dissention, and hostility, over time, it

could take a longer to realize improvement. Employees at all levels should observe and engage in

behaviors that emanate directly from listening to one another, responding with care and representing

In this passage, the author synthesizes information on great leaders from four different sources, and then

connects these perspectives to her own study on the Rushmorean principle, providing context and evidence of

her position. Thus, the difference between summary and synthesis lies in the details. Summary includes the

writer's own recount of information from one source. Synthesis, on the other hand, includes the writer's own

recount of information from more than one source, presented as critical thought through comparison and

contrast. The following section describes some approaches writers use to synthesize information.

What Strategies Can Writers Use to Synthesize Information? Several strategies may be used to synthesize information. When beginning the research process, the writer

must consider what other authors have published on the topic, what that writing entailed, and how those

works were related (Bowling Green State University, 2011). Then, the writer re�ects on how the view of others

can be incorporated into his/her own views in a new and meaningful work. A synthesis extends beyond a

summary or series of summaries; it includes several works woven together with the author's unique

perspective on the topic. Additionally, the writer can discuss how the sources or results relate to the study,

argument, or topic.

The key to synthesis is to use several different sources to support one main idea but discuss the relationship

between the sources. Considering the following questions may also help the writer synthesize:

Do the authors or study results agree?

Do the authors or study results disagree?

Does the work of one author or results of one study add to or advance an idea or results presented by the

other? (Bowling Green State University, 2011).

In the synthesis, the writer may also address the following:

How are the studies similar (compare)? Different (contrast)?

How accurate and valid are the measurements?

Are the conclusions supported based on the data and analysis?

What are the strengths and weakness of the studies?

What is known and not known – identify the overlaps and problem spaces in the knowledge?

Thus, synthesis allows the writer to take information from more than one source and create a new and

meaningful whole. The new whole demonstrates the doctoral learner's ability to identify the interrelationships

between and among the literature and research on the topic.

Graphic Organizers

Writers can also use graphic organizers to organize and compare and contrast ideas during the synthesis

process. To create a Venn diagram (see Figure 3.1), draw overlapping circles and place each signi�cant element

of the discussion of empirical works so that in the section where the elements overlap, those traits or

attributes are presented that make a difference or contribute to the basic or central part of the argument of the

study.

others' welfare, and managers and employees alike at all levels staying true to their word. "I've got your

back" would be an anthem for such a workplace. Oberon and Adams (2006) found that organizational

citizenship behavior was positively related to intrinsic motivators, which contribute to a positive work

attitude. The Rushmorean principle, which espouses values, such as respect, honor, integrity, justice, can

change worker attitudes, beliefs, and goals.

Figure 3.1

Comparison Matrix

Many GCU doctoral learners and faculty use a matrix to help synthesize writing. A comparison matrix can

help learners keep large amounts of information focused and organized. It also provides a place to view

selected notes side-by-side for comparison and analysis. By itself, it is simply an empty table, but once

learners assign categories to compare, then it becomes an effective research tool. The columns represent the

selected articles, and the rows contain the different sections the learner wants to compare. More rows and

columns can be added as the research expands. The comparison matrix allows learners to recognize

similarities and differences between the articles. Once learners have identi�ed the sections and input their

�ndings in each box, they are able to examine and analyze the information. Ultimately, learners will

synthesize the data in the rows and columns into a written document that demonstrates their analytic

abilities and understanding of the subject material. A comparison matrix is only as good as the learner's

ability to adequately identify each section and produce comprehensive notes that communicate the necessary

information that can be synthesized later into sound analysis. A synthesis matrix is similar to a comparison

matrix, as it is a tool to help learners identify patterns and themes within the literature. For a synthesis paper

in a course, students identify themes to support a thesis, and while the task is comparable to a dissertation,