17 Synthesis

A synthesis will need to:

• Summarize and analyze.
• Show relationships and make connections.
• Make argumentative points with research.

What do we mean by synthesis? Where analysis calls on us to break an artifact  down into individual parts, synthesis requires us to make connections between those parts or—in most academic writing—among sources, topics, or events (just to name a few possibilities). A common type of synthesis in academic writing, for example, is a literature review in which the researcher-writer collects, compares, and shows connections or differences among different scholarly sources as well as gaps in the research. With academic writing foremost in mind, Lumen Learning defines synthesis as “analysis across sources,” adding that “what you write in reaction to the work of others should use synthesis to create new meaning or to show a deeper understanding of what you learned.” The idea is not just to summarize but to make connections. That feature is what makes synthesis so important: it’s critical thinking in action.

For example, in a movie review, you might first identify, summarize, and analyze key parts of the film, such as genre, plot, and specific techniques like suspense, background music, or humor. You might also find, summarize, and evaluate other critiques of the film. Synthesis relies on these skills, asking you to point out relationships between film elements, compare other critiques, note what’s missing or unexamined, then draw new, hopefully insightful conclusions of your own. Lumen Learning suggests, “… look for connections and patterns …[and] themes among your sources.” The idea is to connect ideas and show relationships from source to source. sources.” In other words, look for similarities, differences, and gaps. What did other critics or scholars say about a particular topic? On what points do they differ? Where do they agree? What have they missed?

In fact, we synthesize all the time but may not realize we’re gathering, comparing, and evaluating sources in this way. For example, imagine this scenario: You and a group of friends want to attend a movie together but cannot decide which one. Each of you makes a recommendation, summarizing key details about your choices (genre, good reviews, compelling plots, and so forth). Together, you and your friends compare the films, discuss each other’s assessments of the options available, and reach a conclusion: you’ll go see the sci-fi flick! That’s synthesis (or “analysis across sources”). In this case, your friends’ individual analyses are your sources; your discussion and conclusion is the synthesis.

For a more academic project, imagine that you need to gather sources, annotate them, then report what connections, differences, gaps, and other relationships you found. That’s one approach to writing a literature review, a common academic genre that synthesizes available research to position the writer to come to a conclusion or a recommendation on a topic. Here’s synthesis in action—in an academic literature review written in APA style:

The emergence of [open educational resources or OER] goes back to 1985, when the Free Software Foundation was founded by Richard Stallman to support the free software movement and to grant a certain freedom to software users (Caswell et al., 2008). In 1994, the term learning objects was introduced by Wayne Hodgins to refer to digital educational resources that could be shared via the World Wide Web (Wiley, 2006). In 1998, the term open content was coined by David Wiley and introduced to the educational community, specifically to the creators of learning objects. (Wiley, 2006)

Did you notice how the authors summarize each source and relate the sources  to one another? Richard Stallman “supported the free software movement.” Wayne Hodgins “introduced” a key concept that was widely shared and evolved into “open content” — the foundational idea for OER. The authors of this paragraph quickly summarize OER history but also show the relationship from one stage to another, and from one person to the next. By the way, analysis lies in the background here; to arrive at this synthesis, the authors had to gather sources, study them, summarize them, then analyze them before arriving at this brief synthesis.

Here’s a less academic example of synthesis that also begins to make an argument:

“While both Jones and Smith question the use of popular music in key scenes, I argue that the background tunes in Movie Z enhance suspense by using the dark sounds of a minor key and a fast, heart-like rhythmic beat.”

In this example, the writer refers briefly to the findings of other critics, demonstrates how or where they depart from those critics, identifies key elements of music in the film (a minor key, a fast beat), and offers an insight or interpretation (“the background tunes … enhances the suspense”). These moves represent a short synthesis. The writer packs a lot of information into this statement. Did you also notice how different it is from the academic synthesis? Like other genres, synthesis varies depending on purpose, audience, and other aspects of the situation.

Here’s another real-world example. Let’s say your chosen topic is “Background Music in the Horror Films Directed by Jordan Peele.” You gather reviews and scholarly articles on Peele, on music in films, on horror films, and so forth. Your goal as a researcher-writer is to summarize those sources for readers, study or analyze them so that you understand them, but primarily to put those sources in relation to each other. That is, you will compare sources, state where you disagree or agree (and why), and possibly point out gaps in the arguments or information supplied by these other sources. Individually, you analyze each source; but cumulatively, you’re using them to move toward your own conclusions.

What are some examples of this genre? 

• Synthesis