I thought I knew how to write a research paper. I was wrong.
My first year of grad school, I wrote a 30-page literature review. I was proud of it. I had read 80 articles. I summarized each one carefully. My advisor read it. She said: "This is a summary. Where's the synthesis?" I didn't know what she meant. She explained: "Summary is telling me what each author said. Synthesis is telling me how the conversation evolved. Where do authors agree? Where do they disagree? What questions are still unanswered?" Oh. I went back to my draft. I had written things like: "Smith argues X. Jones argues Y. Williams argues Z." That's a list. Not a conversation.
I rewrote the entire thing. Instead of organizing by author, I organized by theme. I grouped authors who agreed. I highlighted disagreements. I identified gaps. The new version was shorter — 22 pages instead of 30. But it was better. Much better.
Your literature review should tell a story.
The story of a scholarly conversation. Who said what first? Who disagreed? Who changed the terms of the debate? What's left to say? That's synthesis. Not summary. I wish someone had explained this to me in undergrad. Would have saved me so much time
My first year of grad school, I wrote a 30-page literature review. I was proud of it. I had read 80 articles. I summarized each one carefully. My advisor read it. She said: "This is a summary. Where's the synthesis?" I didn't know what she meant. She explained: "Summary is telling me what each author said. Synthesis is telling me how the conversation evolved. Where do authors agree? Where do they disagree? What questions are still unanswered?" Oh. I went back to my draft. I had written things like: "Smith argues X. Jones argues Y. Williams argues Z." That's a list. Not a conversation.
I rewrote the entire thing. Instead of organizing by author, I organized by theme. I grouped authors who agreed. I highlighted disagreements. I identified gaps. The new version was shorter — 22 pages instead of 30. But it was better. Much better.
Your literature review should tell a story.
The story of a scholarly conversation. Who said what first? Who disagreed? Who changed the terms of the debate? What's left to say? That's synthesis. Not summary. I wish someone had explained this to me in undergrad. Would have saved me so much time
