My professor wrote on my draft: "This is a list, not a synthesis." I don't even know what "synthesis" means in this context. I thought a literature review WAS summarizing sources.
A writing guide explained the difference:
The guide also mentioned that you need to "relate to existing theory and literature in any particular research field" . That means not just citing papers, but actually engaging with them — agreeing, disagreeing, noting limitations, identifying gaps.
I also might be making the mistake of using the wrong sources. The guide warns against "news and magazine articles and consultancy literature" instead of scientific literature . I definitely used some news articles because they were easier to understand. Is that a problem?
For students who've written good lit reviews: how do you find the "conversation" between sources? How do you know which papers are actually important?
A writing guide explained the difference:
- Summary: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Brown (2022) found Z."
- Synthesis: "Several researchers have examined X. Smith (2020) and Jones (2021) found evidence supporting Y. However, Brown (2022) challenged this view, arguing that..."
The guide also mentioned that you need to "relate to existing theory and literature in any particular research field" . That means not just citing papers, but actually engaging with them — agreeing, disagreeing, noting limitations, identifying gaps.
I also might be making the mistake of using the wrong sources. The guide warns against "news and magazine articles and consultancy literature" instead of scientific literature . I definitely used some news articles because they were easier to understand. Is that a problem?
For students who've written good lit reviews: how do you find the "conversation" between sources? How do you know which papers are actually important?