Section 4.1: Synthesis of the Literature

The term synthesis means to make a whole from separate parts.  This term is frequently used by researchers (and English teachers) to refer to a paper that must be constructed from a variety of different sources.  The social scientific literature review is such a paper.  When social scientists refer to the “literature,” they are talking about scholarly papers and books related to a specific topic.  Many of these will be research reports.

A key element for the writer to keep in mind is that literature reviews are topical, and should be organized around particular topics, not particular sources.  When a writer lists a source, summarizes that source, then moves on to another source, the result is called an annotated bibliography.  These are useful but are quite different than a literature review.  When a professor assigns a paper with no further instructions, you can assume that a literature review is expected.

The idea of a literature review paper, then, is to first analyze the literature and then synthesize it into a cohesive paper.  Recall that to analyze something means to break it down and examine the component parts.  In research situations, these literature reviews are leading the reader to a point.  Often, the point of a literature review is to provide background for a research hypothesis that the author is evaluating later in the paper.

It is also common to see literature reviews standing alone; the purpose of these articles, when found in scholarly journals, is to clarify and summarize an often messy and disjointed body of literature.  Often such articles will try to identify themes, describe the current state of the art, and suggest directions for future research. Often, researchers write articles that pose more questions than answers.  When an important question exists and no research exists to answer it, a gap exists in the literature.  Gaps in the literature provide an excellent source of ideas for researchers looking for a research topic.

When preparing to write a literature review (or any scholarly paper), several things should be considered before the actual writing begins.

Audience

The first thing an author should do before writing is to consider the audience.  Who will read the paper, article, or book once it is finished?  Effective writers tailor their writing to the audience for which it is written.  The most important aspect of writing for a particular audience is readability.  Can the audience make sense of the material that is presented without too much effort? 

The audience also affects the tone and style of writing.  Writers in the social sciences will most always use a formal tone because they want to be seen by their audience as credible.  Often, social science writers are writing for several audiences. Most writers presume to be writing only for a community of scholars.  If the work is important, this scope is too narrow. Journalists, politicians, students, and concerned citizens may all wish to read social scientific writing.  In addition, writing intended for publication must take editors and peer reviewers into consideration. Careful writers ask several questions about their audience before writing.  Some of these are as follows:

• Can knowledge of the terminology and concepts being used be assumed, or should they be explicitly defined?
• Should extensive background information be provided, or is a brief summary adequate?
• What expectations does the audience have?
• Does the audience insist on certain writing practices, styles, and conventions?
• What is the reading level of the audience?
• Is the audience likely to agree or disagree with the points made?

Readability

Almost every style manual available encourages writers to use plain English.  Often writers use words and sentences that are pompous in an effort to sound formal or sophisticated.  The simple fact is that people will not read unnecessarily difficult material. This is not necessarily because they do not have the reading skill, but merely because it is not worth the effort.  Several factors influence academic writers to write bloated, pompous prose that is generally not readable. The most obvious culprit is higher education.

Most social scientists are academics of some sort.  They are likely to have spent years reading the “classics.”  These classics generally embody what it is to write such that the average person will not attempt to read.  One needs only to turn to Blackstone’s Commentaries to verify this point.  Young scholars read the classics and determine that good professional writing requires the use of big words, complex sentences, and ample jargon.  Most editors come from the same background as writers and see to it that these terrible myths are perpetuated. There seems to be an unwritten rule that intelligent people write this way naturally.  However, as Albert Einstein is reported to have said, “Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.” Alternatively, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.”

Several scholars have devised methods of assessing just how readable writing is.  This is most often accomplished by assigning a reading level to a piece of writing.  Many word processors (such is Microsoft’s Word) now make this relatively painless.  Several measures of readability are included in the software.  If a piece of writing is over an eighth or ninth grade reading level, it is too complicated for the average person to bother reading.  Some simple practices can do much to improve readability:

1.  Keep sentences short.

This does not mean that writers should resort to sentences of the “see spot run” variety.  The writer must make a judgment call as to whether the length is a hindrance to understanding.

2.  Prefer the active tense to the passive.

This results in shorter sentences that are more easily understood.

3.  Prefer verbs to nouns.

Why would a prisoner “effect an escape” when he can more easily “flee?”

4.  Prefer familiar words.

This is the point most painful for scholars to accept.  All too often archaic terms and jargon are used to create a formal tone.  

6.  Avoid synonyms in strings.

Lawyers are especially guilty of this practice.  Why are contracts “null and void?” This redundancy leaves the reader wondering if there is a technical difference between “null” and “void.”

8.  Avoid ambiguity.

Simplicity is desirable, but should not be used as an excuse for lack of precision.  Writers should state precisely what they mean, but do it in the simplest way possible.

Types and Purposes of Writing

For the professional writer in the social sciences, writing creates a visible and permanent record of ideas.  Most often, the purpose of this writing is simply to inform and explain. Thus, informative writing focuses on the topic being discussed.  This purpose stands out in stark contrast to persuasive writing. Persuasive writers seek to convince readers that their ideas are correct or superior to another.  The majority of professional writing in the social sciences is informative, often regarded as scientific. It is expected that informative writers present their topic with a minimum amount of bias.  The aim is to teach, not to preach. This obviously is not always the case. Police ethics, for example, is ultimately subjective and to treat it as scientific would amount to sophistry. This lack of objective standards does not, however, relieve the author of the responsibility to present information completely and clearly.

A common pitfall of professional writing is to allow personal biases—especially concerning strongly held beliefs—to cloud professional objectivity.  This objectivity, however, is of great importance to the writer. Once the reader detects bias in the writer’s prose, the writer’s credibility as a scholar comes into question.  Obvious ex post facto compilations of facts and figures to support a previously held belief amounts to a sermon, not a scholarly paper.  The scholar is expected to gather all information on all sides of an issue, and, like blind lady justice, carefully weigh the evidence and draw conclusions based on careful judgment.  Of course, some bias is bound to slip into even the most careful writer’s prose. Yet, when the intent of the work is to inform and not to persuade, then authors should take care to eliminate as much bias as possible.

When persuasion is the desired result, it is not enough to merely state an opinion.  As with informative writing, convincing information must be offered. This information must support the author’s point of view.

Crafting Introductions in Social Science Literature Reviews

Setting the Stage: Every great story starts with an engaging introduction, and academic pieces are no exception. The introduction to a social science literature review is the gateway, offering readers their first glimpse into the vast landscape of inquiry and discourse. It should succinctly outline the topic, its significance, and the scope of the review. By providing this contextual backdrop, the introduction primes the reader for the exploration ahead, ensuring they grasp the gravity and relevance of the forthcoming discussions.

Establishing the Theoretical Framework: Central to many social science studies is the theoretical lens through which phenomena are examined. The introduction should elucidate the foundational theories or models that anchor the review. Whether it’s social constructivism, behaviorism, or any other paradigm, articulating the theoretical underpinning not only offers readers a conceptual scaffold but also aligns the discourse within established scholarly traditions. This ensures that the review isn’t just a collection of disparate studies but a cohesive narrative threaded together by shared theoretical principles.

Highlighting the Research Gap: One of the primary motivations behind any literature review is the identification of knowledge gaps. The introduction should hint at these voids, underscoring the areas of neglect or contention in the existing literature. By pinpointing these lacunae, the introduction not only sets the stage for the ensuing discussion but also establishes the review’s purpose: to shed light on underexplored or contentious terrains.

Posing the Central Questions or Hypotheses: A well-crafted introduction in the realm of social science often presents the central questions or hypotheses guiding the review. These inquiries serve as the compass, steering the narrative and ensuring its focus. Whether they’re open-ended questions about societal trends or specific hypotheses about behavioral dynamics, these guiding lights provide readers with clarity on the review’s objectives and the benchmarks for its conclusions.

Creating a Roadmap: Lastly, given the comprehensive nature of literature reviews, the introduction should offer readers a brief roadmap. This overview outlines the structure and flow of the review, hinting at the major themes or sections. By providing this skeletal preview, the introduction ensures that readers can navigate the dense forest of literature with ease, appreciating the deliberate organization and thematic coherence of the review.

Critical Thinking in Literature Synthesis

Recognizing Biases: At the heart of a comprehensive literature review lies the principle of objective examination. While sources provide an array of data and interpretations, it’s paramount that the reviewer exercises discernment by identifying biases. Biases can skew the perception of a topic and potentially lead to misinformed conclusions. Scholarly papers, no matter how meticulously crafted, often reflect the perspectives, backgrounds, and particular circumstances of their authors. By recognizing these inherent biases—whether they arise from cultural, institutional, or personal viewpoints—the researcher can present a balanced overview that doesn’t favor one perspective over another.

Evaluating Methods: Beyond identifying biases, critical thinking involves a rigorous assessment of the methodologies employed in the sources under review. The credibility of findings is largely determined by the robustness of the methods used to arrive at them. For instance, was the sample size in a study sufficiently large? Were the research instruments valid and reliable? Were controls put in place to minimize confounding variables? By examining these methodological components, a researcher can determine the weight and significance to accord each source in the synthesis. This level of scrutiny ensures that the literature review isn’t just a compilation, but a rigorous examination of the quality and reliability of included studies.

Contrasting Different Views: One of the primary purposes of a literature review is to provide an overview of existing research on a particular topic. This means navigating a sea of diverse opinions, interpretations, and findings. Critical thinking in this context requires the ability to juxtapose these varying views, highlighting areas of agreement and pinpointing contentious issues. Instead of merely cataloging different perspectives, the astute reviewer will engage with them, drawing out their implications and assessing their contributions to the broader discourse.

Bridging Knowledge Gaps: A crucial aspect of critical thinking is the ability to identify gaps or areas of neglect in the existing body of literature. These gaps can signify uncharted territories, offering new avenues for exploration and research. By critically assessing the scope and focus of existing studies, a researcher can discern areas that may benefit from further investigation. Highlighting these gaps not only underscores the comprehensiveness of the literature review but also sets the stage for future scholarly endeavors.

Promoting Informed Conclusions: Ultimately, the essence of critical thinking in literature synthesis is to foster well-informed conclusions. A literature review that embodies critical thinking will be more than just a summary—it will be an insightful discourse that offers clarity and direction. By recognizing biases, evaluating methods, contrasting views, and identifying gaps, the researcher provides a foundation upon which other scholars can build. Such a review serves as a beacon, guiding future research towards areas of promise and ensuring that scholarly dialogues are rooted in rigorous, objective analysis.

Integrating Sources into the Narrative

Introduction of Sources: Initiating discourse with a source begins long before quoting or paraphrasing its content. The introduction serves as a handshake between the reader and the new information, setting the stage for what’s to come. An adept researcher will provide context before delving into a citation or reference. Who is the author or institution behind the source? What credentials or significance do they hold within the context of the topic? Establishing such credibility ensures that the reader is primed to receive the forthcoming information with the intended weight and seriousness.

Seamless Integration: The true art of source integration lies in its seamlessness—how it weaves into the overarching narrative without disrupting the flow of the text. Whether through a direct quote or a paraphrase, the source should fit organically, echoing the voice of the main text. This demands a keen understanding of the narrative’s tone, style, and purpose. For instance, a technical research paper might necessitate precise language and direct quotes, while a general review article might benefit more from paraphrased content that aligns with a broader audience’s understanding.

Commentary and Contextualization: Merely citing or referencing a source isn’t the end of its journey in the narrative. It’s essential to follow up with commentary that elucidates the significance of the information. How does this piece of data or perspective enhance the ongoing discussion? In what context should the reader interpret this information? Offering such insights ensures that the source isn’t just passively consumed but actively engaged with, adding depth and layers to the broader argument or exposition.

Balancing Originality and Cited Content: While it’s crucial to lean on credible sources for validation and depth, it’s equally vital for the author’s voice to shine through. The narrative should strike a balance between original ideas and sourced content. This equilibrium ensures that the paper isn’t just a mosaic of external perspectives but a cohesive argument or discussion shaped by the author’s unique insights and interpretations.

Maintaining Citation Integrity: As much as the narrative flow is essential, the integrity of source representation is paramount. Every quote or paraphrased section must faithfully mirror the source’s intent, devoid of misrepresentation or cherry-picking. Additionally, adhering to consistent and accurate citation styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) not only lends credibility to the narrative but also provides readers with a clear roadmap to the original sources, fostering a transparent and trustworthy scholarly dialogue.

Crafting Conclusions and Implications

Summarizing Main Findings: Every journey of exploration, no matter how vast, requires a moment of reflection at its end. In a literature review, this moment materializes as the conclusion. It’s not merely a regurgitation of discussed content; rather, it’s a synthesized recapitulation that draws together the main threads of the discourse. This summary should be succinct, focusing on the pivotal discoveries and interpretations. By presenting the highlights, it offers readers a distilled essence of the entire review, emphasizing the core takeaways.

Emphasizing Implications: Beyond summarization, conclusions should also delve into the broader implications of the findings. How do these discoveries reshape our understanding of the topic? What consequences might they bear in real-world scenarios? For instance, in a review of studies on remote work’s impact on employee productivity, implications might touch upon organizational strategies, mental health considerations, or technological adaptations. By delineating these ramifications, the conclusion not only encapsulates past and present understandings but also projects into future possibilities.

Suggesting Future Research Directions: No exploration is ever truly exhaustive, and the realm of academia thrives on this perpetual thirst for knowledge. Thus, an effective conclusion often points towards uncharted territories – gaps in the literature, unanswered questions, or emerging trends. By identifying areas ripe for further investigation, the review not only acknowledges the limitations of current literature but also offers a beacon for subsequent research endeavors. This not only enriches the academic field but also encourages a continuous cycle of inquiry and discovery.

Connecting Back to the Introduction: Cohesiveness in a literature review is crucial, and a well-drafted conclusion often echoes themes or questions posited at the outset. By revisiting the review’s initial objectives or hypotheses, the conclusion creates a full-circle narrative. This reaffirms the review’s purpose and underscores the progression of the discourse, ensuring that the reader appreciates the journey from ignorance to enlightenment.

Positioning the Review within the Broader Discourse: Finally, it’s vital to recognize that every literature review, no matter how comprehensive, is but a fragment of an ever-evolving academic conversation. The conclusion should, therefore, position the review within this vast mosaic of scholarship. By highlighting the review’s unique contributions, acknowledging its limitations, and inviting further discourse, the conclusion ensures that the conversation continues, fostering a dynamic and vibrant academic ecosystem.

Plagiarism (another reminder)

Plagiarism means not giving credit for words or ideas borrowed from others.  When such credit is not given, the reader can only assume that the words and ideas expressed are those of the authors.  Thus, plagiarism amounts to the theft of intellectual property. Most writers know that using someone else’s exact words is wrong.  Many do not understand that using the ideas of others without giving them credit is also wrong. Generally, it is not necessary to cite sources for well-known ideas such as natural law or easily accessible facts such as the date of the last federal execution.  Less general ideas and facts, however, should be cited. Whether or not to cite a reference is often a gray area. When in doubt, cite the source.

Modification History

File Created:  07/25/2018

Last Modified:  09/21/2023

[ Back | Content | Next]

This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.