LITERATURE REVIEW AND

SYNTHESIS.
P r e s e n t e d B y : D r. S h e e n a M o r r i s
OBJECTIVES

OVERVIEW

C R E AT I N G A S U M M A RY TA B L E

STRUCTURE OF AN ARGUMENT

S T R U C T U R E O F T H E L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W

SIGNPOSTS

TIPS FOR WRITING THE BODY OF YOUR

L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W

MAKE USE OF FEEDBACK

C O M M O N E R R O R S T O AV O I D
OVERVIEW OF
SYNTHESIZING
Overview of Synthesizing
Combining separate elements into a whole is the dictionary definition of synthesis. It is a way to make
connections among and between numerous and varied source materials.

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography, organized by title, author, or date of publication.
Rather, it is grouped by topic to create a whole view of the literature relevant to your research question.

Your synthesis must demonstrate a critical analysis of the papers you collected as well as your ability to
integrate the results of your analysis into your own literature review.

Each paper collected should be critically evaluated and weighed for “adequacy, appropriateness, and
thoroughness” (Garrard, 2017) before inclusion in your own review. Papers that do not meet these criteria
likely should not be included in your literature review.
Where to Begin?
Begin the synthesis process by using the literature review table I provided in your resource section for this module assignment. This is an
outline where you will summarize, using common themes you have identified and the sources you have found.

·The literature review table will help you compare and contrast the themes so you can see the relationships among them as well as areas where you may need
to do more searching. ·This type of organization will help you to both understand the information you find and structure the writing of your review.

Remember, although “the means of summarizing can vary, the key at this point is to make sure you understand what you’ve found and how it relates to your
topic and research question” (Bennard et al., 2014).
As you read through the material you gather, look for common themes as they may provide the structure for your literature review.
·Remember, research is an iterative process: it is not unusual to go back and search information sources for more material.

At one extreme, if you are claiming, ‘There are no prior publications on this topic,’ it is more likely that you have not found them yet and may need to
broaden your search. At another extreme, writing a complete literature review can be difficult with a well-trod topic.

Do not cite it all; instead cite what is most relevant. If that still leaves too much to include, be sure to reference influential sources…as well as high-quality
work that clearly connects to the points you make. (Klingner, Scanlon, & Pressley, 2005).
 Be Critical and Consistent
Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting.

A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out
research gaps.

After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

·The major achievements in the reviewed field

·The main areas of debate,
·The outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts.

In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency.

·Example : passives vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.
CREATING A SUMMARY
TABLE
Creating a Summary Table
Literature reviews can be organized sequentially or by topic, theme, method, results, theory, or argument.
It’s important to develop categories that are meaningful and relevant to your research question.
Take detailed notes on each article and use a consistent format for capturing all the information each article provides.
These notes and the summary table can be done manually, using note cards.
·However, given the amount of information you will be recording, an electronic file created in a word processing or spreadsheet is more manageable.
·That is why I have provided an electronic word version of the literature review table to use during this course.
Despite there being numerous variations of summary tables and templates available, these are the important fields to have included:
• Authors’ names
• Article title
• Publication year
• Main purpose of the article
• Methodology or research design
• Participants
• Variables
• Measurement
• Results
• Conclusions
Other fields that will be useful when you begin to synthesize the sum total of your research:
• Specific details of the article or research that are especially relevant to your study
• Key terms and definitions
• Statistics
• Strengths or weaknesses in research design
• Relationships to other studies
• Possible gaps in the research or literature (for example, many research articles conclude with the statement “more research is needed in this area”)
• Finally, note how closely each article relates to your topic. You may want to rank these as high, medium, or low relevance. For papers that you decide not to
include, you may want to note your reasoning for exclusion, such as ‘small sample size’, ‘local case study,’ or ‘lacks evidence to support assertion.’.
This is not required for this course, but I believe that having additional fields to aid in research synthesis is beneficial in the long run.
If you want, make your own summary table that includes the extra recommended but not required fields above.
Thinking through your sources
Step 1:

As you read, keep in mind your purpose.

• Why are you reading this source?
• About what will you be writing?
Write down your thoughts on how the text fits in with what you are currently thinking about your topic; if you did not begin your research with ideas, start thinking and building
as you read.
• Try to make complete sentences.
Often, you may summarize or paraphrase a bit of what the text is saying as you refer to it in the context of your own thinking, but do not just summarize what the text says.
Capture what you think as you read: your reactions, how it is helpful, how it is relevant.
Incorporate any quotes you find especially helpful, but rather than simply copying the quote, write about and around the quote.

Repeat step 1 for each source you think you may use to build your argument.
Identifying your thesis:
Whether or not you began with firm ideas about your topic, your reading, and more precisely, your thinking as you read, will be the source of new ideas.
Your thesis, then, will emerge during your reading as the product of how all of your reading and thinking comes together to create a position you can support, with your sources
and with your own well-informed argumentation.
Even if you began your research holding a clear position on your topic, give your thesis permission to change as you read.
• Not doing so limits your capacity to learn and grow through your reading and, moreover, risks leaving you unable to support your thesis with your sources.
When you feel as though you have read and thought enough to develop a position on your topic that your sources can support, and that you can stand behind, take note of that
position as your thesis.
• Know, though, that your thesis may still grow and change as you continue to read, think, and draft if you find your sources leading you to support a different position.
When do I elaborate on my ideas?
There is no magical point at which one is ready to write. As you consider whether you are ready, it may be
useful to ask yourself these questions:

• How will my literature review be organized?

• What section headings will I be using?
• How do the various studies relate to each other?
• What contributions do they make to the field?
• Where are the gaps or limitations in existing research?
• And finally, but most importantly, how does my own research fit into what has already been done?
 Step 2 :
When you are ready to begin writing, refer back to your synthesis notes.
Look at the first point and write a short paragraph about that thought or observation.
If your synthesis notes are in complete sentences, you may cut and paste those sentences into
your new paragraphs or revise and build from them to reflect how your thinking has changed and
grown.
Then move to the next note and, again, write a short paragraph about that observation.
These sections of writing do not need to be connected; that will come later. Do not worry about
writing a coherent paper; just focus on one idea or observation at a time.
If you get stuck and/or cannot figure out how a particular note fits into your argument or if it no
longer fits, skip that note and move to the next one.

• You can return to these unused notes later when you may find that you now have something to say about them or that they simply are not
part of your argument.
• You may find it helpful to color-code your synthesis notes to remind yourself of what material you have and have not used.
• Remember, too, to include in-text citations to your original source material as you write.
• When you reach the end of your notes, you should have a list of short paragraphs constituting much of your argument.
• In general, a review of the literature should neitherbe a publicrelations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial.
• If you, the reviewer, are up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides services to
the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one’s own relevant findings.

Note:
In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a co-author to different co-authors.
What is the essence or “meat and
potatoes” of my argument?

Step 3:

Read back through your short paragraphs and, in a separate document or on a separate sheet of paper,
summarize each paragraph in a single phrase or sentence.
If you cannot summarize a paragraph with a single phrase, try to revise the paragraph so that it focuses on
just one idea.
Give each paragraph and its corresponding summary phrase a number so that you can match the paragraph
to its summary phrase.
How to organize your ideas
Step 4:

Now we will organize the writing we did in the previous step 2 section.
Looking only at the list of summary phrases, rearrange them until they can be
read as a logical, coherent paragraph from top to bottom.
This paragraph should summarize your argument.

• If you find that a phrase fails to fit, set it aside.

• If you find a gap where you need an additional sentence to provide a
logical connection between two of your phrases, write in that sentence.
How to organize your writing
Step 5:

Return to your short paragraphs and rearrange them so that they match the order of the summary
phrases that you have just organized.

If you set aside any phrases, set aside their corresponding paragraphs.
• You may not end up using those paragraphs.

If you had to write any new phrases, add those phrases in their place in-between paragraphs.

• You can expand these phrases into full paragraphs in the next step.
Organize your review by argument
Instead, use your outlines and notes as a guide what you have to say about the important topics you need to cover.
Literature reviews are written from the perspective of an expert in that field.
After an exhaustive literature review, you should feel as though you are able to make strong claims about what is true,
so make them!

There is no need to hide behind “I believe” or “I think.”

• Put your voice out in front, loud and proud!
• But make sure you have facts and sources that back up your claims.

I’ve used the term “argument” here in a specific way.

An argument in writing means more than simply disagreeing with what someone else said or didn’t say.
Toulman, Rieke, and Janik (1984) identify six elements of an argument:

• Claim: the thesis statement—what you are trying to prove

• Grounds: theoretical or empirical evidence that supports your claim
• Warrant: your reasoning (rule or principle) connecting the claim and its grounds
• Backing: further facts used to support or legitimize the warrant
• Qualifier: acknowledging that the argument may not be true for all cases
• Rebuttal: considering both sides (as cited in Burnette, 2012)
Step 6 :
Now, take these organized paragraphs and bring them together into a coherent argument.
When you read your organized paragraphs, the ideas from each paragraph should flow logically into the next.

• Add transitions to make those connections explicit.

Revise your paragraphs to make the logic of your argument more clear.
• Delete sentences that are no longer relevant in their new context or add sentences if you need to more fully
explain an idea.
• Expand any added phrases into more complete connecting paragraphs.
• At this stage, you may need to refer back to your source material to flesh out any gaps in your argument, or you
may find that you need to consult new source material for the same purpose, but your draft should make clear
what additional information you need and where it goes.

You will also want to add an introduction and conclusion summarizing and drawing out the main points of your
argument.
Nevertheless, you have produced a first draft from your reading notes without ever going through the painful steps
of wondering where and how to begin writing.
STRUCTURE OF YOUR
ARGUMENT
Let’s shape the structure of your argument

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it?

Layout and Format:

The actual review generally has 5 components:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Body
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Regarding the literature review for this course, I do not require an abstract for your paper. So, your paper will consist of sections 2-5, with section 5 being
your references.

Your literature review paper should include:

• Introduction of the topic and definition of its key terms.

• Establishment of the importance of the topic.
• An overview of the important literature related to the concepts found in the research question.
• Identified gaps or controversies in the literature.
• Point out consistent findings across studies.
• Synthesize that which is known about a topic, rather than just provide a summary of the articles you read.
• Discussion of possible implications and directions for future research.
THE STRUCTURE OF A
LITERATURE REVIEW
The structure of a literature review
In general, the problem statement belongs at the beginning of the literature review.
Typically, it is advised to spend no more than a paragraph or two for a problem statement.
For the rest of your literature review, there is no set formula by which it needs to be organized.
However, a literature review generally follows the format of any other essay Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Introduction
The introduction to the literature review contains a statement or statements about the overall topic.
At a minimum, the introduction should define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern.
Consider presenting historical background, mentioning the results of a seminal study, and providing definitions of important terms.
The introduction may also point to overall trends in what has been previously published on the topic or on conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, conclusions, or
gaps in research and scholarship.
Suggestion: Put in a few sentences that walk the reader through the rest of the literature review.
·Highlight your main arguments from the body of the literature review and preview your conclusion.
·An introduction should let the reader know what to expect from the rest of your review.

Body
The body of your literature review is where you demonstrate your synthesis and analysis of the literature.
Again, do not just summarize the literature!!
There is usually great caution against organizing your literature review by source, that is, one paragraph for source A, one paragraph for source B, etc.
·That structure will likely provide an adequate summary of the literature you’ve found, but it would give you almost no synthesis of the literature.
That approach doesn’t tell your reader how to put those facts together, it doesn’t highlight points of agreement or contention, or how each study builds on the work of
others.
·In short, it does not demonstrate critical thinking.
SIGNPOSTS
Signposts
Signposting refers to the words used to identify the organization and structure of your
literature review to your reader.
The most basic form of signposting is using a topic sentence at the beginning of each
paragraph.
A topic sentence introduces the argument you plan to make in that paragraph.
For example, you might start a paragraph stating, “There is strong disagreement in the
literature as to whether psychedelic drugs cause people to develop psychotic disorders, or
whether psychotic disorders cause people to use psychedelic drugs.”
•Within that paragraph, your reader would likely assume you will present evidence for both
arguments

The concluding sentence of your paragraph should address the topic sentence, discussing
how the facts and arguments from the paragraph you’ve written support a specific
conclusion.
To continue with that same example, you might say, “There is likely a reciprocal effect in
which both the use of psychedelic drugs worsens pre-psychotic symptoms and worsening
psychosis increases the desire to use psychedelic drugs.”.
Headings and Subheadings

Signposting also involves using headings and subheadings, which help your reader understand the structure of your literature review.

They can also help if the reader gets lost and needs to re-orient themselves within the document.
When writing your literature review, assume the reader knows nothing (they don’t mind) and need to be shown exactly where they are addressing
each part of the literature review.

·It’s like walking a small child around, telling them “First we’ll do this, then we’ll do that, and when we’re done, we’ll know this!”
Your literature review will use APA formatting, which means you need to follow their rules for bolding, capitalization, italicization, and indentation
of headings.
Sentence Linking
Another way to use signposting is to open each paragraph with a sentence that links the topic of the paragraph with the one before it.
• Alternatively, one could end each paragraph with a sentence that links it with the next paragraph.
For example, imagine we wanted to link a paragraph about barriers to accessing healthcare with one about the relationship between the patient and
physician.

We could use a transition sentence like this: “Even if patients overcome these barriers to accessing care, the physician-patient relationship can create
new barriers to positive health outcomes.”

• A transition sentence like this builds a connection between two distinct topics.
• Transition sentences are also useful within paragraphs.
• They tell the reader how to consider one piece of information in light of previous information. Even simple transitional words like ‘however’ and
‘similarly’ can help demonstrate critical thinking and link each building block of your argument together.

Where does a signpost go?

Now that we know to use signposts, the natural question is “What goes on the signposts?”
First, it is important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order you want to make them.
The basic structure of your argument should then be apparent from the outline itself.
TIPS FOR WRITING THE
BODY OF YOUR
LITERATURE REVIEW
 Additional tips for writing the body of your literature review
• Start broad and then narrow down to more specific information.
• When appropriate, cite two or more sources for a single point, but avoid long strings of references for a single idea.
• Use quotes sparingly.
o Quotations for definitions are okay, but reserve quotes for when something is said so well you couldn’t possibly phrase it differently.
o Never use quotes for statistics.
• Paraphrase when you need to relay the specific details within an article
• Include only the aspects of the study that are relevant to your literature review.
o Don’t insert extra facts about a study just to take up space.
• Avoid reflective, personal writing. It is traditional to avoid using first-person language (I, we, us, etc.).
• Avoid informal language like contractions, idioms, and rhetorical questions.
• Note any sections of your review that lack citations from the literature.
o Your arguments need to be based in empirical or theoretical facts.
o Do not approach this like a reflective journal entry.
• Point out consistent findings and emphasize stronger studies over weaker ones
• Point out important strengths and weaknesses of research studies, as well as contradictions and inconsistent findings.
• Implications and suggestions for further research (where there are gaps in the current literature) should be specific.

Discussion/Conclusion
• The conclusion should summarize your literature review, discuss implications, and create a space for further research needed in this area.
• Your conclusion, like the rest of your literature review, should make a point.
• What are the important implications of your literature review?
• How do they inform the question you are trying to answer?
MAKE USE OF FEEDBACK
MAKE USE OF FEEDBACK
Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so.
As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft.
Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by
the writers due to re-reading the typescript too many times.
It is however advisable to re-read the draft one more time before submission,

• As a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the
content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the
draft.
This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than
the absence of feedback.
A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the
current scientific understanding of an issue.
COMMON ERRORS TO
AVOID
Beginning your literature review: Common Errors
to Avoid:
• Accepting a researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data

• Ignoring contrary findings and alternative interpretations

• Using findings that are not clearly related to your own study or using findings that are too general

• Dedicating insufficient time to literature searching

• Reporting statistical results from a single study, rather than synthesizing the results of multiple studies to provide a comprehensive view of the
literature on a topic

• Relying too heavily on secondary sources

• Overusing quotations

• Not justifying arguments using specific facts or theories from the literature
AS YOU ARE EDITING, KEEP IN MIND THESE
QUESTIONS ADAPTED FROM GREEN (2012)
Content:
• Have I clearly stated the main idea or purpose of the paper?
• Is the thesis or focus clearly presented and appropriate for the reader?

Organization:
• How well is it structured?
• Is the organization spelled out and easy to follow for the reader ?

Flow:
• Is there a logical flow from section to section, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence?
• Are there transitions between and within paragraphs that link ideas together?

Development:
• Have I validated the main idea with supporting material?
• Are supporting data sufficient? Does the conclusion match the introduction?

Form:
• Are there any APA style issues, redundancy, problematic wording and terminology?
o (Always know the definition of any word you use!)
• flawed sentence constructions and selection, spelling, and punctuation?
Green, W. Writing strategies for academic papers. In W. Green & B. L. Simon (Eds.), The Columbia guide to social work writing
(pp. 25-47). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

For your literature review, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for the importance of your research question.

As you start editing your literature review, make sure it is balanced.

• Accurately report common findings, areas where studies contradict each other, new theories or perspectives, and how
studies cause us to reaffirm or challenge our understanding of your topic.

It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory
(and that is usually the best that researchers in social work can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory
evidence. A large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer (University of Minnesota,
2016).

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). This is a derivative of Research Methods in Psychology by a publisher
who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution, which was originally released and is used under CC
BY-NC-SA.
REMEMBER:
A good literature review shows signs of synthesis and understanding of the topic.

There should be strong evidence of analytical thinking as illustrated through the connections you make between the literature being reviewed. Think of

it this way- a literature review is much more than a book review.

It is a document where you present your sources and their overall relationship to your thesis statement.

Conversely, a poor literature review will simply list and identify the sources. In essence, it will appear to be a glorified annotated bibliography.

Unfortunately, there is no formula we can give you that will work for everyone, but we can provide some general pointers on structuring your literature

review.

The literature review tends to move from general to more specific ideas.

You can build a review by identifying areas of consensus and areas of disagreement.

You may choose to present historical studies, preferably seminal studies that are of significant importance, and close with the most recent research.

Another approach is to start with the most distantly related facts and literature and then report on those most closely related to your research question.

You could also compare and contrast valid approaches, features, characteristics, theories, that is, one approach, then a second approach, followed by a

third approach.
ANY
QUESTIONS?