critical analysis and synthesis

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking.

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at something to understand what it really means.

Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers do not simply accept all ideas, theories, and conclusions as facts. They have a mindset of questioning ideas and conclusions. They make reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out by assessing the evidence that supports a specific theory or conclusion.

When presented with a new piece of new information, critical thinkers may ask questions such as;

“What information supports that?”

“How was this information obtained?”

“Who obtained the information?”

“How do we know the information is valid?”

“Why is it that way?”

“What makes it do that?”

“How do we know that?”

“Are there other possibilities?”

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Many people perceive critical thinking just as analytical thinking. However, critical thinking incorporates both analytical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking does involve breaking down information into parts and analyzing the parts in a logical, step-by-step manner. However, it also involves challenging consensus to formulate new creative ideas and generate innovative solutions. It is critical thinking that helps to evaluate and improve your creative ideas.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves:

• Gathering relevant information
• Evaluating information
• Asking questions
• Assessing bias or unsubstantiated assumptions
• Making inferences from the information and filling in gaps
• Using abstract ideas to interpret information
• Formulating ideas
• Weighing opinions
• Reaching well-reasoned conclusions
• Considering alternative possibilities
• Testing conclusions
• Verifying if evidence/argument support the conclusions

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, inference, reason, and evaluation. In order to demonstrate critical thinking, you would need to develop skills in;

Interpreting : understanding the significance or meaning of information

Analyzing : breaking information down into its parts

Connecting : making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating : connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Evaluating : judging the value, credibility, or strength of something

Reasoning : creating an argument through logical steps

Deducing : forming a logical opinion about something based on the information or evidence that is available

Inferring : figuring something out through reasoning based on assumptions and ideas

Generating : producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

• Privacy Policy

Home » Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Critical Analysis

Definition:

Critical analysis is a process of examining a piece of work or an idea in a systematic, objective, and analytical way. It involves breaking down complex ideas, concepts, or arguments into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better.

Types of Critical Analysis

Types of Critical Analysis are as follows:

Literary Analysis

This type of analysis focuses on analyzing and interpreting works of literature , such as novels, poetry, plays, etc. The analysis involves examining the literary devices used in the work, such as symbolism, imagery, and metaphor, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Film Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting films, including their themes, cinematography, editing, and sound. Film analysis can also include evaluating the director’s style and how it contributes to the overall message of the film.

Art Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting works of art , such as paintings, sculptures, and installations. The analysis involves examining the elements of the artwork, such as color, composition, and technique, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Cultural Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting cultural artifacts , such as advertisements, popular music, and social media posts. The analysis involves examining the cultural context of the artifact and how it reflects and shapes cultural values, beliefs, and norms.

Historical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting historical documents , such as diaries, letters, and government records. The analysis involves examining the historical context of the document and how it reflects the social, political, and cultural attitudes of the time.

Philosophical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting philosophical texts and ideas, such as the works of philosophers and their arguments. The analysis involves evaluating the logical consistency of the arguments and assessing the validity and soundness of the conclusions.

Scientific Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting scientific research studies and their findings. The analysis involves evaluating the methods used in the study, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn, and assessing their reliability and validity.

Critical Discourse Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting language use in social and political contexts. The analysis involves evaluating the power dynamics and social relationships conveyed through language use and how they shape discourse and social reality.

Comparative Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting multiple texts or works of art and comparing them to each other. The analysis involves evaluating the similarities and differences between the texts and how they contribute to understanding the themes and meanings conveyed.

Critical Analysis Format

Critical Analysis Format is as follows:

I. Introduction

• Provide a brief overview of the text, object, or event being analyzed
• Explain the purpose of the analysis and its significance
• Provide background information on the context and relevant historical or cultural factors

II. Description

• Provide a detailed description of the text, object, or event being analyzed
• Identify key themes, ideas, and arguments presented
• Describe the author or creator’s style, tone, and use of language or visual elements

III. Analysis

• Analyze the text, object, or event using critical thinking skills
• Identify the main strengths and weaknesses of the argument or presentation
• Evaluate the reliability and validity of the evidence presented
• Assess any assumptions or biases that may be present in the text, object, or event
• Consider the implications of the argument or presentation for different audiences and contexts

IV. Evaluation

• Provide an overall evaluation of the text, object, or event based on the analysis
• Assess the effectiveness of the argument or presentation in achieving its intended purpose
• Identify any limitations or gaps in the argument or presentation
• Consider any alternative viewpoints or interpretations that could be presented
• Summarize the main points of the analysis and evaluation
• Reiterate the significance of the text, object, or event and its relevance to broader issues or debates
• Provide any recommendations for further research or future developments in the field.

VI. Example

• Provide an example or two to support your analysis and evaluation
• Use quotes or specific details from the text, object, or event to support your claims
• Analyze the example(s) using critical thinking skills and explain how they relate to your overall argument

VII. Conclusion

• Reiterate your thesis statement and summarize your main points
• Provide a final evaluation of the text, object, or event based on your analysis
• Offer recommendations for future research or further developments in the field
• End with a thought-provoking statement or question that encourages the reader to think more deeply about the topic

How to Write Critical Analysis

Writing a critical analysis involves evaluating and interpreting a text, such as a book, article, or film, and expressing your opinion about its quality and significance. Here are some steps you can follow to write a critical analysis:

• Read and re-read the text: Before you begin writing, make sure you have a good understanding of the text. Read it several times and take notes on the key points, themes, and arguments.
• Identify the author’s purpose and audience: Consider why the author wrote the text and who the intended audience is. This can help you evaluate whether the author achieved their goals and whether the text is effective in reaching its audience.
• Analyze the structure and style: Look at the organization of the text and the author’s writing style. Consider how these elements contribute to the overall meaning of the text.
• Evaluate the content : Analyze the author’s arguments, evidence, and conclusions. Consider whether they are logical, convincing, and supported by the evidence presented in the text.
• Consider the context: Think about the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This can help you understand the author’s perspective and the significance of the text.
• Develop your thesis statement : Based on your analysis, develop a clear and concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation of the text.
• Support your thesis: Use evidence from the text to support your thesis statement. This can include direct quotes, paraphrases, and examples from the text.
• Write the introduction, body, and conclusion : Organize your analysis into an introduction that provides context and presents your thesis, a body that presents your evidence and analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis.
• Revise and edit: After you have written your analysis, revise and edit it to ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and well-organized. Check for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure that your analysis is logically sound and supported by evidence.

When to Write Critical Analysis

You may want to write a critical analysis in the following situations:

• Academic Assignments: If you are a student, you may be assigned to write a critical analysis as a part of your coursework. This could include analyzing a piece of literature, a historical event, or a scientific paper.
• Journalism and Media: As a journalist or media person, you may need to write a critical analysis of current events, political speeches, or media coverage.
• Personal Interest: If you are interested in a particular topic, you may want to write a critical analysis to gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, you may want to analyze the themes and motifs in a novel or film that you enjoyed.
• Professional Development : Professionals such as writers, scholars, and researchers often write critical analyses to gain insights into their field of study or work.

Critical Analysis Example

An Example of Critical Analysis Could be as follow:

Research Topic:

The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance

Introduction:

The introduction of the research topic is clear and provides an overview of the issue. However, it could benefit from providing more background information on the prevalence of online learning and its potential impact on student performance.

Literature Review:

The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured. It covers a broad range of studies that have examined the relationship between online learning and student performance. However, it could benefit from including more recent studies and providing a more critical analysis of the existing literature.

Research Methods:

The research methods are clearly described and appropriate for the research question. The study uses a quasi-experimental design to compare the performance of students who took an online course with those who took the same course in a traditional classroom setting. However, the study may benefit from using a randomized controlled trial design to reduce potential confounding factors.

The results are presented in a clear and concise manner. The study finds that students who took the online course performed similarly to those who took the traditional course. However, the study only measures performance on one course and may not be generalizable to other courses or contexts.

Discussion :

The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the study’s findings. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study and provide suggestions for future research. However, they could benefit from discussing potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between online learning and student performance.

Conclusion :

The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and provides some implications for future research and practice. However, it could benefit from providing more specific recommendations for implementing online learning programs in educational settings.

Purpose of Critical Analysis

There are several purposes of critical analysis, including:

• To identify and evaluate arguments : Critical analysis helps to identify the main arguments in a piece of writing or speech and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. This enables the reader to form their own opinion and make informed decisions.
• To assess evidence : Critical analysis involves examining the evidence presented in a text or speech and evaluating its quality and relevance to the argument. This helps to determine the credibility of the claims being made.
• To recognize biases and assumptions : Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument.
• To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make reasoned judgments based on evidence.
• To improve communication skills: Critical analysis involves carefully reading and listening to information, evaluating it, and expressing one’s own opinion in a clear and concise manner. This helps to improve communication skills and the ability to express ideas effectively.

Importance of Critical Analysis

Here are some specific reasons why critical analysis is important:

• Helps to identify biases: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases and assumptions, as well as the biases of others. By being aware of biases, individuals can better evaluate the credibility and reliability of information.
• Enhances problem-solving skills : Critical analysis encourages individuals to question assumptions and consider multiple perspectives, which can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation.
• Promotes better decision-making: By carefully evaluating evidence and arguments, critical analysis can help individuals make more informed and effective decisions.
• Facilitates understanding: Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues and ideas by breaking them down into smaller parts and evaluating them separately.
• Fosters intellectual growth : Engaging in critical analysis challenges individuals to think deeply and critically, which can lead to intellectual growth and development.

Advantages of Critical Analysis

Some advantages of critical analysis include:

• Improved decision-making: Critical analysis helps individuals make informed decisions by evaluating all available information and considering various perspectives.
• Enhanced problem-solving skills : Critical analysis requires individuals to identify and analyze the root cause of a problem, which can help develop effective solutions.
• Increased creativity : Critical analysis encourages individuals to think outside the box and consider alternative solutions to problems, which can lead to more creative and innovative ideas.
• Improved communication : Critical analysis helps individuals communicate their ideas and opinions more effectively by providing logical and coherent arguments.
• Reduced bias: Critical analysis requires individuals to evaluate information objectively, which can help reduce personal biases and subjective opinions.
• Better understanding of complex issues : Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues by breaking them down into smaller parts, examining each part and understanding how they fit together.
• Greater self-awareness: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases, assumptions, and limitations, which can lead to personal growth and development.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Substantive Framework – Types, Methods and...

Bimodal Histogram – Definition, Examples

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Framework Analysis – Method, Types and Examples

• Forgot your Password?

First, please create an account

Critical thinking: analysis and synthesis.

• History and Mystery with Harriet Tubman

before you start How do you think learning more about context can help you better understand immigration issues?

1. Critical Thinking: Analysis and Synthesis

In the past two challenges, we’ve been working with a critical thinking process to investigate historical questions. In the Knowledge step, we break a research question down to help focus the investigation. In the Comprehension and Application steps, we examined sources and then put them into conversation with one another to identify connections and corroborate facts. In this challenge, we’re going to finish the critical thinking process by going through the Analysis and Synthesis steps.

• take a position that answers your research question,
• include evidence (from both primary and secondary sources) that backs up your answer, and
• tell your reader why or how your evidence supports your argument.

Argument A set of reasons that support or oppose an idea or action. 1a. Analysis In the Analysis step, you’re going to take a fresh look at the sources you’ve chosen. You probably have an idea by now about how you want to answer your research question. Think about which pieces of evidence will provide the strongest support for the position you’re taking. Consider how you might use details from your sources to illustrate your main points.

As you think about your sources one more time, you’re really planning out your argument. This is when you’ll want to figure out where you’re having difficulties connecting your evidence with your research question. If your analysis shows that you can’t support your argument with the sources you have, now is the time to either keep investigating or revise your answer to the research question.

1b. Synthesis The word synthesis means to form something new out of different parts. That’s what you’re doing in the last step of the critical thinking process: creating an argument out of evidence from your sources and your own analysis of what you’ve read. Remember, a historical argument needs not only a position that answers your research question, but also evidence from your sources and your own explanation of how that evidence supports your position.

hint It’s a great idea to draft your argument before a final project is due.

2. History and Mystery with Harriet Tubman

Have you ever been confronted with two versions of the same story? It can be hard to know which to believe, right? Historians and students of history often face the same challenge. In this Sophia Story , biographer and historian Kate Clifford Larson walks us through important moments in Harriet Tubman’s life and reveals the critical thinking steps she took to determine their historical accuracy.

Video Transcription

[MUSIC PLAYING] [VOCALIZATION]

Harriet Tubman is an American hero. She holds a unique place in the history of the Underground Railroad, and she is the first American woman to lead an armed raid during battle.

But until recently, her past was shrouded in mystery.

We didn't know much about what went into creating that human being that risked her life to fight for freedom.

This determined biographer use critical thinking steps to crack the case.

My name is Kate Clifford Larson, and I'm an historian, author, and consultant. I wrote a book called Bound for the Promised Land-- Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero.

Kate also served as the historical consultant on the 2019 film, Harriet.

The story of Harriet Tubman first captured Kate's imagination years ago, when she was still a University student.

I wanted to know more about her. I decided to go to the library. And all I could find were two 19th century biographies, and then one written in 1943. I said, is this possible? She's so famous. Someone must have written about her since the 1940s. And in fact, no one had.

That's when Kate decided she would write a modern biography of Harriet Tubman.

The old biographies focused on Tubman's escape from slavery and work as a conductor on the Underground Railroad.

Once she achieved her own freedom, Tubman returned south about 13 times and rescued 70 family and friends.

During the Civil War, Tubman led an armed raid up the Combahee River. They routed out rebel forces. They burned down plantations, and they liberated 750 people.

But not all of Tubman's story had been chronicled.

Most of her early life was missing from the historical record-- where she was raised, who raised her, who influenced her. Those are important questions.

So Kate set out to uncover Harriet's mysterious past. She would need to use key steps of critical thinking to do it. First, she had to gather knowledge. She started by forming a question.

The overarching main question is how Tubman became this extraordinary human being. I needed to know where she acquired the abilities that she had. They had to come from things that she had learned from her family and the community that she was raised in.

Kate's next step was to increase her comprehension. She began searching for information about Harriet's family.

I traveled to Maryland, where she was born and raised. And I found records in the courthouse. Enslaved people were passed down as property in wills, in probate records, estate records. So those records are part of courthouse documentation.

Kate's diligence paid off. She began uncovering details of Tubman's early life that had never been explored.

I discovered that Harriet Tubman's parents were enslaved by different masters. When Harriet was a small child, her enslaver took her mother and her siblings away from their father. So the family was separated.

When Harriet was a teenager, her enslaver hired her out to a family that lived in Madison, Maryland. But I had no idea who the family was, or where Madison was.

Again, Kate turned to the court records.

They lived in a maritime community, on the water, in a small bay. They had shipbuilding business. They had thousands of acres of forest that needed to be cut.

For her next step, Kate took to the land to analyze how Harriet's move and her relationship to her father might have impacted her.

Going to Madison was really important, so that I could walk that landscape and see where this family lived. It turned out that Tubman's enslavers lived not too far from where Harriet Tubman's father lived. He was a lumberjack, a timber foreman, a leader in the community. He had many, many survival abilities. And in Madison, Harriet and her father were able to spend time together. She worked on a timber gang with him.

Next, Kate began to synthesize what she'd learned.

Being near her father afforded her the opportunity to learn how to survive in the woods, how to read that landscape, how to travel through it and negotiate it, how to feed yourself and keep yourself warm or cool, protect yourself from predators and disease.

Kate now understood the role of Harriet's father. Continuing to synthesize, she realized something else. Right on the Madison waterways, where Harriet had moved, a well-known Underground Railroad network was known to have operated.

Black mariners that came in and out of the docks carried messages secretly back and forth from disparate African-American communities around the Atlantic seaboard, about freedom, what was going on, who was fighting for the end of slavery. And I realized the Black mariners, they could teach her how to read that night sky, and follow the North Star and many other constellations.

Kate's critical thinking steps had led to a breakthrough about the forces that shaped Harriet Tubman.

Moving to Madison that changed her life. In Madison, she learned the abilities that she used on the Underground Railroad and in the Civil War. Those abilities were crucial to her survival and her success. That's what she gained from living there and learning from her father and the black mariners.

With this new understanding of Harriet's origins, Kate was ready for her last step-- to take action and write her book.

The information that came out of court records, and then the history of the time period, the landscape of her life-- I put that all together to develop a narrative of her life.

Published in 2003, Kate's book is considered by many to be the definitive biography of Harriet Tubman.

When we look at historical figures, it's important to know where they came from. Discovering Harriet Tubman's family and community, I was able to understand her and how she became this extraordinary human being.

Gather knowledge, increase comprehension, analyze, synthesize, and take action. These critical thinking steps led to success. You, too, can use them in school, work, or even to solve one of history's mysteries.

think about it How will these same steps strengthen your problem solving skill and help you think critically in your own life?

Let’s start our examination of immigration in the present and throughout U.S. history to understand what lessons we can apply to the future.

summary In this lesson, you learned about the final steps of the critical thinking process: analysis and synthesis . In the analysis step, you will review your sources once again while thinking about how your evidence may or may not support the argument you’re beginning to formulate. In the synthesis step, you will put it all together and create an evidence-based argument. You also learned about the history and mystery with Harriet Tubman where Harriet Tubman’s biographer used the six steps of critical thinking to discover the real story of this fascinating American hero. Best of luck in your learning!

Source: Strategic Education, Inc. 2020. Learn from the Past, Prepare for the Future.

A set of reasons that support or oppose an idea or action.

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Terms of Use

© 2024 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC.

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Thinking strategies and writing patterns, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing

One of the basic academic writing activities is researching your topic and what others have said about it. Your goal should be to draw thoughts, observations, and claims about your topic from your research. We call this process of drawing from multiple sources “ synthesis .” Click on the accordion items below for more information.

Definition, Use, and Sample Synthesis

Synthesis defined.

Synthesis Emerges from Analysis

Synthesis emerges from analytical activities we discussed on the previous page: comparative analysis and analysis for cause and effect . For example, to communicate where scholars agree and where they disagree, one must analyze their work for similarities and differences. Also crucial for understanding scholarly discourse is understanding how a particular work of scholarship shapes the scholarship of others, causing them to head in new directions.

When Should Synthesis Be Used?

When to Use Synthesis

Many college assignments require synthesis. A literature review, for example, requires that you make explanatory claims regarding a body of research. These should go beyond summary (mere description) to provide helpful characterizations that aid in understanding. Literature reviews can stand on their own, but often they are a part of a research paper, and research papers are where you will probably use synthesis most often.

The purpose of a research paper is to derive meaning from a body of information collected through research. It is your job, as the writer, to communicate that meaning to your readers. Doing this requires that you develop an informed and educated opinion of what your research suggests about your subject. Communicating this opinion requires synthesis.

Sample Synthesis

In 1655, an embassy of Dutch Jews led by Rabbi Menassah ben Israel traveled to London to meet with the Commonwealth’s new Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. The informal “Readmission” of Jews—who had been expelled from England by royal edict in 1290—resulting from the Whitehall conference was once hailed as a high point in the history of toleration. Yet in recent years, scholars have increasingly challenged the progressive nature of this event, both in its substance and its motivation (Kaplan 2007; Katznelson 2010; Walsham 2006) . “Toleration” in this case, as in many others, did not entail religious freedom or civic equality; Jews in England were granted legal residency and permitted to worship privately, but citizenship, public worship, and the printing of anything that “opposeth the Christian religion” remained off the cards. As for its motivation, Edward Whalley’s twofold argument was representative: the Jews “will bring in much wealth into this Commonwealth: and where wee both pray for theyre conversion and beleeve it shal be, I knowe not why wee shold deny the means” (Marshall 2006, 381–82) 

(Bejan, 2015, p. 1103).

The author of the above passage, Teresa Bejan, has synthesized the work of a number of other scholars (Kaplan, Katznelson, Walsham, and Marshall) to situate her argument.  Note how not all of these scholars are directly quoted, but they are cited because their work forms the basis of Bejan's work.

Key Takeaways

• Synthesizing allows you to carry an argument or stance you adopt within a paper in your own words, based on conclusions you have come to about the topic.
• Synthesizing contributes to confidence about your stance and topic.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

Literature Reviews

• Introduction
• Tutorials and resources
• Step 1: Literature search
• Step 2: Analysis, synthesis, critique
• Step 3: Writing the review

If you need any assistance, please contact the library staff at the Georgia Tech Library Help website . 

Analysis, synthesis, critique

Literature reviews build a story. You are telling the story about what you are researching. Therefore, a literature review is a handy way to show that you know what you are talking about. To do this, here are a few important skills you will need.

Skill #1: Analysis

Analysis means that you have carefully read a wide range of the literature on your topic and have understood the main themes, and identified how the literature relates to your own topic. Carefully read and analyze the articles you find in your search, and take notes. Notice the main point of the article, the methodologies used, what conclusions are reached, and what the main themes are. Most bibliographic management tools have capability to keep notes on each article you find, tag them with keywords, and organize into groups.

Skill #2: Synthesis

After you’ve read the literature, you will start to see some themes and categories emerge, some research trends to emerge, to see where scholars agree or disagree, and how works in your chosen field or discipline are related. One way to keep track of this is by using a Synthesis Matrix .

Skill #3: Critique

As you are writing your literature review, you will want to apply a critical eye to the literature you have evaluated and synthesized. Consider the strong arguments you will make contrasted with the potential gaps in previous research. The words that you choose to report your critiques of the literature will be non-neutral. For instance, using a word like “attempted” suggests that a researcher tried something but was not successful. For example: 

There were some attempts by Smith (2012) and Jones (2013) to integrate a new methodology in this process.

On the other hand, using a word like “proved” or a phrase like “produced results” evokes a more positive argument. For example:

The new methodologies employed by Blake (2014) produced results that provided further evidence of X.

In your critique, you can point out where you believe there is room for more coverage in a topic, or further exploration in in a sub-topic.

Need more help?

If you are looking for more detailed guidance about writing your dissertation, please contact the folks in the Georgia Tech Communication Center .

• << Previous: Step 1: Literature search
• Next: Step 3: Writing the review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:21 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.gatech.edu/litreview

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Using Evidence: Synthesis

Synthesis video playlist.

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

Basics of Synthesis

As you incorporate published writing into your own writing, you should aim for synthesis of the material.

Synthesizing requires critical reading and thinking in order to compare different material, highlighting similarities, differences, and connections. When writers synthesize successfully, they present new ideas based on interpretations of other evidence or arguments. You can also think of synthesis as an extension of—or a more complicated form of—analysis. One main difference is that synthesis involves multiple sources, while analysis often focuses on one source.

Conceptually, it can be helpful to think about synthesis existing at both the local (or paragraph) level and the global (or paper) level.

Local Synthesis

Local synthesis occurs at the paragraph level when writers connect individual pieces of evidence from multiple sources to support a paragraph’s main idea and advance a paper’s thesis statement. A common example in academic writing is a scholarly paragraph that includes a main idea, evidence from multiple sources, and analysis of those multiple sources together.

Global Synthesis

Global synthesis occurs at the paper (or, sometimes, section) level when writers connect ideas across paragraphs or sections to create a new narrative whole. A literature review , which can either stand alone or be a section/chapter within a capstone, is a common example of a place where global synthesis is necessary. However, in almost all academic writing, global synthesis is created by and sometimes referred to as good cohesion and flow.

Synthesis in Literature Reviews

While any types of scholarly writing can include synthesis, it is most often discussed in the context of literature reviews. Visit our literature review pages for more information about synthesis in literature reviews.

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Analysis
• Next Page: Citing Sources Properly
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

We’re reviewing our resources this spring (May-August 2024). We will do our best to minimize disruption, but you might notice changes over the next few months as we correct errors & delete redundant resources. 

Critical Analysis and Evaluation

Many assignments ask you to   critique   and   evaluate   a source. Sources might include journal articles, books, websites, government documents, portfolios, podcasts, or presentations.

When you   critique,   you offer both negative and positive analysis of the content, writing, and structure of a source.

When   you   evaluate , you assess how successful a source is at presenting information, measured against a standard or certain criteria.

Elements of a critical analysis:

opinion + evidence from the article + justification

Your   opinion   is your thoughtful reaction to the piece.

Evidence from the article  offers some proof to back up your opinion.

The   justification   is an explanation of how you arrived at your opinion or why you think it’s true.

How do you critique and evaluate?

When critiquing and evaluating someone else’s writing/research, your purpose is to reach an   informed opinion   about a source. In order to do that, try these three steps:

• How do you feel?
• What surprised you?
• What left you confused?
• What pleased or annoyed you?
• What was interesting?
• What is the purpose of this text?
• Who is the intended audience?
• What kind of bias is there?
• What was missing?
• See our resource on analysis and synthesis ( Move From Research to Writing: How to Think ) for other examples of questions to ask.
• sophisticated
• interesting
• undocumented
• disorganized
• superficial
• unconventional
• inappropriate interpretation of evidence
• unsound or discredited methodology
• traditional
• unsubstantiated
• unsupported
• well-researched
• easy to understand
• Opinion : This article’s assessment of the power balance in cities is   confusing.
• Evidence:   It first says that the power to shape policy is evenly distributed among citizens, local government, and business (Rajal, 232).
• Justification :  but then it goes on to focus almost exclusively on business. Next, in a much shorter section, it combines the idea of citizens and local government into a single point of evidence. This leaves the reader with the impression that the citizens have no voice at all. It is   not helpful   in trying to determine the role of the common voter in shaping public policy.  

Sample criteria for critical analysis

Sometimes the assignment will specify what criteria to use when critiquing and evaluating a source. If not, consider the following prompts to approach your analysis. Choose the questions that are most suitable for your source.

• What do you think about the quality of the research? Is it significant?
• Did the author answer the question they set out to? Did the author prove their thesis?
• Did you find contradictions to other things you know?
• What new insight or connections did the author make?
• How does this piece fit within the context of your course, or the larger body of research in the field?
• The structure of an article or book is often dictated by standards of the discipline or a theoretical model. Did the piece meet those standards?
• Did the piece meet the needs of the intended audience?
• Was the material presented in an organized and logical fashion?
• Is the argument cohesive and convincing? Is the reasoning sound? Is there enough evidence?
• Is it easy to read? Is it clear and easy to understand, even if the concepts are sophisticated?

Library Guides

Critical thinking and writing: presenting your sources.

• Critical Thinking
• Problem Solving
• Critical Reading
• Critical Writing and Argumentation
• Presenting your Sources

An important element of critical writing is how you integrate, synthesise, evaluate and use supporting evidence. It is easy to fall into the trap of allowing your sources to stand alone in making a point for you or simply speaking for you. This guide, therefore, highlights some useful techniques for integrating sources in order to strengthen your criticality, ensuring that your voice is leading the argument and the evidence is back in its place of supporting you.

Using your Sources

One of the most important aspects of academic writing is making use of the ideas of other people. Those ideas offer the foundations and evidence for your writing.

There are several ways to report sources:

Quote if you want to use the author’s words;

Paraphrase if you want to keep similar length;

Summarise if you want to make the text shorter;

Synthesise if you need to use information from several sources.  Synthesis  is generally the preferable way to report sources, as it shows your authorship in creating a logical text, organised by topic, referring to the relevant sources, with a commentary on them.

In all cases you need to acknowledge the author’s work with references , or you will be plagiarising.   

How to Introduce Evidence

To properly introduce a source, follow those tips:

1) When quoting someone for the first time, remember to use their full name. After this, you can refer to them by their surname.

2) Express your voice by indicating to the reader whether you agree or disagree with a source, or are simply stating the evidence. You can for example vary the conjunction (as; although; despite...), preposition (according to; in line with; counter to...), reporting verb (states; claims; maintains; suggests; proposes; discusses...).

Look at the examples below and consider the words used. As a reader, would you think the writer is agreeing, disagreeing or simply neutral and stating what Smith says?

According to Smith "..."

As Smith points out "..."

Smith suggests that "..."

Although Smith claims that "..."

Direct Quotes

Quotations can be powerful and compelling, but should be sparse and careful lest making your writing fragmented and difficult to follow (unless you are undertaking textual analysis and need to directly cite a piece of writing). It is important to use quotations correctly, and the following tips can help you:   

• Before inserting a quote, make sure you understand what the quote means, the context in which it is said, and how it will apply to your own text.
• Always remember to introduce the quotation. Providing information, such as the author's name, the source of the quote, or a short summary, will help signpost the quotation and give a clearer indication of how the quote will be used in supporting your argument. 
• Use a variety of reporting verbs when introducing quotations. The way you introduce the quote will help orientate the reader to how you are interpreting and perceiving the quote. 
• As a rule of thumb, for quotations longer than three lines, separate these from the text, indent the whole quotation, remove quotation marks and make it single spaced. Anything shorter than this can remain within the text. 
• Make sure to discuss the quotation afterwards. The quote should never (or almost) stand alone as self-explanatory. Question what the quote means, what your view of it is and how it helps move your argument forward. 
• You can condense a quote by missing out words if it is not all relevant. Add [...] to indicate where the missing text of the quote should be. 
• Keep in mind that quotations are never meant to replace your own argument; they are merely there to support your argument. Do not allow them to stand in for your own voice. 

The marketing of luxury products is quite different to that of mass products. To begin with, the time frame is longer. As Kapferer and Bastien (2009, p. 313) aptly suggest, "one does not launch a luxury brand; one builds it progressively by managing the allocation of resources in a very specific way". For example, for luxury brands, advertising does not aim at immediate increases in sales; rather, it aims at fostering people's dreams, and the dreams can take years to turn into effective purchases of the advertised products. Therefore, luxury brands need a marketing strategy that considers the long term, rather than short-term gains. 

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing is an effective way of using supporting evidence when we want to express the meaning of someone's work through our own words to achieve greater clarity. It is a useful way of demonstrating to your reader that you have understood the content of your supporting evidence and are able to translate another person's ideas into your own words. 

How to paraphrase

• Read and understand the section you wish to paraphrase.
•  Cover it up.
• Express verbally what you remember from the text. 
• Write down with your own words what you remember of the text. 
• Check the text to ensure you have reported the same meaning.
• If you need to add or amend anything, make sure you change the sentence structure and vocabulary of the original text (do not change specific, technical terminology).
• Make sure you reference the passage. 

Original text:

“But the sensation of roughness had almost entirely been ignored by scientists. Euclid, the Greek geometer whose Elements is the world’s oldest treatise with near-modern mathematical reasoning, focused on its opposite, smoothness. He and innumerable followers studied smoothness in exquisite detail. Lines, planes, and spheres are the matter of Euclidean geometry, as we are all taught in grade school. I love them; but they are concepts in men’s minds and works, not in the irregularity and complexity of nature” (Mandelbrot, 2008, pp. 123-124).

Paraphrase: 

Mandelbrot (2008, pp. 123-124) points out that the perception of roughness has generally been overlooked by scientists. Starting with the Greek Euclid, a pioneer of mathematical reasoning, for centuries geometry has been focusing on smooth and neatly drawn figures. This is the geometry we still study at school and are all familiar with. However, those smooth, perfect figures hardly exist in nature, which instead is pervaded by rough, irregular shapes.

Summarising

Summarising text provides an abridged, shorter version of the original text.  

“But the sensation of roughness had almost entirely been ignored by scientists. Euclid, the Greek geometer whose  Elements  is the world’s oldest treatise with near-modern mathematical reasoning, focused on its opposite, smoothness. He and innumerable followers studied smoothness in exquisite detail. Lines, planes, and spheres are the matter of Euclidean geometry, as we are all taught in grade school. I love them; but they are concepts in men’s minds and works, not in the irregularity and complexity of nature” (Mandelbrot, 2008, p. 123-124).

Mandelbrot (2008, pp. 123-124) points out that Euclidean geometry studies extensively the concept of smooth and smooth shapes, but does not deal with roughness, which is in fact most common in nature.

Video on Summarising and Paraphrasing

Video on summary and paraphrase by Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication.

Comparing Sources

Comparing and contrasting is an effective way to show critical thinking and analysis of supporting evidence, particularly when you then continue by drawing your own conclusions from the evidence.

Ball (2005) argues that TV of a violent nature can influence children’s behaviour. However, Smart (2006) states that behaviour improves when parents watch too.  It is possible to argue, therefore that...

Note that the writer proves her critical analysis by suggesting a conclusion. Alternatively, the writer could bring in a third comparison that perhaps suggests another possible outcome or piece of evidence that supports Smart or Ball.

To strengthen the writing further, the writer could relate the comparison back to the topic sentence of the paragraph, demonstrating to the reader why this evidence is relevant in relation to what they are trying to argue in this paragraph, or throughout the essay as a whole.

Synthesising

Synthesis is an important element of academic writing, demonstrating comprehension, analysis, evaluation and original creation. 

• With synthesis you extract content from different sources to create an original text. While paraphrase and summary maintain the structure of the given source(s), with synthesis you create a new structure. 
• The sources will provide different perspectives and evidence on a topic. They will be put together when agreeing, contrasted when disagreeing. The sources must be referenced. 
• Perfect your synthesis showing the flow of your reasoning, expressing critical evaluation of the sources and drawing conclusions. 
• When you synthesise think of "using strategic thinking to resolve a problem requiring the integration of diverse pieces of information around a structuring theme" (Mateos and Sole 2009, p. 448).
• Synthesis is a complex activity, which requires an high degree of comprehension and active engagement with the subject. As you progress in higher education, so increase the expectations on your abilities to  synthesise .

How to synthesise:

• Identify themes/issues you'd like to discuss. These ideas can come from the texts you are reading.
• Read each text and look for information on the themes/issues you'd like to discuss. 
• Ask:  how does this text relate to others? Is it in agreement with other sources? Does it differ in its perspective? Is its supporting evidence holding up? 
• Write your synthesis with your own flow. 
• Put together sources stating the same point; distinguish sources presenting counter-arguments or different points. 
• Always provide the references.

The best synthesis require a "recursive process" whereby you read the source texts, identify relevant parts, take notes, produce drafts, re-read the source texts, revise your text, re-write... (Mateos and Sole, 2009)

What is good synthesis? 

The quality of your synthesis can be assessed considering the following (Mateos and Sole, 2009, p. 439): 

• Integration and connection of the information from the source texts around a structuring theme.
• Selection of ideas necessary for producing the synthesis.
• Appropriateness of the interpretation, e.g. absence of incorrect content. 
• Elaboration of the content. 

Original texts (fictitious):

Animal experimentation is a subject of heated debate. Some argue that painful experiments should be banned. Indeed it has been demonstrated that such experiments make animals suffer physically and psychologically (Chowdhury, 2012; Panatta and Hudson, 2016). On the other hand, it has been argued that animal experimentation can save human lives and reduce harm on humans (Smith, 2008). This argument is only valid for toxicological testing, not for tests that, for example, merely improve the efficacy of a cosmetic (Turner, 2015). It can be suggested that animal experimentation should be regulated to only allow toxicological risk assessment, and the suffering to the animals should be minimised.  

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains synthesis for us in the following video. 

Evaluating Evidence

An essential element of critical thinking, reading and writing is to evaluate the evidence you encounter. The basis of the evaluation can be, for example, the validity, reliability, methodology, date of the study in question. 

Smith and Fry (2020) label online learning at the University of Ketchup as a success. However, their conclusions are based on interviews with teaching staff and the University management. The authors failed to investigate the students' views on online learning at the University. Therefore, a major measure of such purported success was not considered by Smith and Fry's study. 

In this example, the writer has considered the study carried out by Smith and Fry and suggests a limitation to the study's methodology that may have caused biased results. By suggesting a limitation, the writer has not taken the study for granted, accepting the results without critically analysing and questioning the validity of the study. 

Bibliography

Bottomley, J. 2015. Academic Writing for International  Students of Science , London: Routledge.

Kapferer, J. and Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing upside down.  Journal of Brand Management , 16(5-6), pp.311-322.

Mandelbrot, B. and Hudson, R. (2008).  The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets . London: Profile Books.

Mateos, M. and Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels.  European Journal of Psychology of Education , 24(4), pp.435-451.

Workshop Slides

• Referencing, Paraphrasing, and Synthesising
• << Previous: Critical Writing and Argumentation
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 11:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/critical-thinking-and-writing

CONNECT WITH US

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Published on July 4, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Synthesizing sources involves combining the work of other scholars to provide new insights. It’s a way of integrating sources that helps situate your work in relation to existing research.

Synthesizing sources involves more than just summarizing . You must emphasize how each source contributes to current debates, highlighting points of (dis)agreement and putting the sources in conversation with each other.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field or throughout your research paper when you want to position your work in relation to existing research.

Table of contents

Example of synthesizing sources, how to synthesize sources, synthesis matrix, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about synthesizing sources.

Let’s take a look at an example where sources are not properly synthesized, and then see what can be done to improve it.

This paragraph provides no context for the information and does not explain the relationships between the sources described. It also doesn’t analyze the sources or consider gaps in existing research.

Research on the barriers to second language acquisition has primarily focused on age-related difficulties. Building on Lenneberg’s (1967) theory of a critical period of language acquisition, Johnson and Newport (1988) tested Lenneberg’s idea in the context of second language acquisition. Their research seemed to confirm that young learners acquire a second language more easily than older learners. Recent research has considered other potential barriers to language acquisition. Schepens, van Hout, and van der Slik (2022) have revealed that the difficulties of learning a second language at an older age are compounded by dissimilarity between a learner’s first language and the language they aim to acquire. Further research needs to be carried out to determine whether the difficulty faced by adult monoglot speakers is also faced by adults who acquired a second language during the “critical period.”

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

To synthesize sources, group them around a specific theme or point of contention.

As you read sources, ask:

• What questions or ideas recur? Do the sources focus on the same points, or do they look at the issue from different angles?
• How does each source relate to others? Does it confirm or challenge the findings of past research?
• Where do the sources agree or disagree?

Once you have a clear idea of how each source positions itself, put them in conversation with each other. Analyze and interpret their points of agreement and disagreement. This displays the relationships among sources and creates a sense of coherence.

Consider both implicit and explicit (dis)agreements. Whether one source specifically refutes another or just happens to come to different conclusions without specifically engaging with it, you can mention it in your synthesis either way.

Synthesize your sources using:

• Topic sentences to introduce the relationship between the sources
• Signal phrases to attribute ideas to their authors
• Transition words and phrases to link together different ideas

To more easily determine the similarities and dissimilarities among your sources, you can create a visual representation of their main ideas with a synthesis matrix . This is a tool that you can use when researching and writing your paper, not a part of the final text.

In a synthesis matrix, each column represents one source, and each row represents a common theme or idea among the sources. In the relevant rows, fill in a short summary of how the source treats each theme or topic.

This helps you to clearly see the commonalities or points of divergence among your sources. You can then synthesize these sources in your work by explaining their relationship.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Synthesizing sources means comparing and contrasting the work of other scholars to provide new insights.

It involves analyzing and interpreting the points of agreement and disagreement among sources.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field of research or throughout your paper when you want to contribute something new to existing research.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Topic sentences help keep your writing focused and guide the reader through your argument.

In an essay or paper , each paragraph should focus on a single idea. By stating the main idea in the topic sentence, you clarify what the paragraph is about for both yourself and your reader.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/synthesizing-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, signal phrases | definition, explanation & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to find sources | scholarly articles, books, etc., "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Analysis vs. Synthesis

What's the difference.

Analysis and synthesis are two fundamental processes in problem-solving and decision-making. Analysis involves breaking down a complex problem or situation into its constituent parts, examining each part individually, and understanding their relationships and interactions. It focuses on understanding the components and their characteristics, identifying patterns and trends, and drawing conclusions based on evidence and data. On the other hand, synthesis involves combining different elements or ideas to create a new whole or solution. It involves integrating information from various sources, identifying commonalities and differences, and generating new insights or solutions. While analysis is more focused on understanding and deconstructing a problem, synthesis is about creating something new by combining different elements. Both processes are essential for effective problem-solving and decision-making, as they complement each other and provide a holistic approach to understanding and solving complex problems.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Analysis and synthesis are two fundamental processes in various fields of study, including science, philosophy, and problem-solving. While they are distinct approaches, they are often interconnected and complementary. Analysis involves breaking down complex ideas or systems into smaller components to understand their individual parts and relationships. On the other hand, synthesis involves combining separate elements or ideas to create a new whole or understanding. In this article, we will explore the attributes of analysis and synthesis, highlighting their differences and similarities.

Attributes of Analysis

1. Focus on details: Analysis involves a meticulous examination of individual components, details, or aspects of a subject. It aims to understand the specific characteristics, functions, and relationships of these elements. By breaking down complex ideas into smaller parts, analysis provides a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

2. Objective approach: Analysis is often driven by objectivity and relies on empirical evidence, data, or logical reasoning. It aims to uncover patterns, trends, or underlying principles through systematic observation and investigation. By employing a structured and logical approach, analysis helps in drawing accurate conclusions and making informed decisions.

3. Critical thinking: Analysis requires critical thinking skills to evaluate and interpret information. It involves questioning assumptions, identifying biases, and considering multiple perspectives. Through critical thinking, analysis helps in identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

4. Reductionist approach: Analysis often adopts a reductionist approach, breaking down complex systems into simpler components. This reductionist perspective allows for a detailed examination of each part, facilitating a more in-depth understanding of the subject matter. However, it may sometimes overlook the holistic view or emergent properties of the system.

5. Diagnostic tool: Analysis is commonly used as a diagnostic tool to identify problems, errors, or inefficiencies within a system. By examining individual components and their interactions, analysis helps in pinpointing the root causes of issues, enabling effective problem-solving and optimization.

Attributes of Synthesis

1. Integration of ideas: Synthesis involves combining separate ideas, concepts, or elements to create a new whole or understanding. It aims to generate novel insights, solutions, or perspectives by integrating diverse information or viewpoints. Through synthesis, complex systems or ideas can be approached holistically, considering the interconnections and interdependencies between various components.

2. Creative thinking: Synthesis requires creative thinking skills to generate new ideas, concepts, or solutions. It involves making connections, recognizing patterns, and thinking beyond traditional boundaries. By embracing divergent thinking, synthesis enables innovation and the development of unique perspectives.

3. Systems thinking: Synthesis often adopts a systems thinking approach, considering the interactions and interdependencies between various components. It recognizes that the whole is more than the sum of its parts and aims to understand emergent properties or behaviors that arise from the integration of these parts. Systems thinking allows for a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena.

4. Constructive approach: Synthesis is a constructive process that builds upon existing knowledge or ideas. It involves organizing, reorganizing, or restructuring information to create a new framework or understanding. By integrating diverse perspectives or concepts, synthesis helps in generating comprehensive and innovative solutions.

5. Design tool: Synthesis is often used as a design tool to create new products, systems, or theories. By combining different elements or ideas, synthesis enables the development of innovative and functional solutions. It allows for the exploration of multiple possibilities and the creation of something new and valuable.

Interplay between Analysis and Synthesis

While analysis and synthesis are distinct processes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often complement each other and are interconnected in various ways. Analysis provides the foundation for synthesis by breaking down complex ideas or systems into manageable components. It helps in understanding the individual parts and their relationships, which is essential for effective synthesis.

On the other hand, synthesis builds upon the insights gained from analysis by integrating separate elements or ideas to create a new whole. It allows for a holistic understanding of complex phenomena, considering the interconnections and emergent properties that analysis alone may overlook. Synthesis also helps in identifying gaps or limitations in existing knowledge, which can then be further analyzed to gain a deeper understanding.

Furthermore, analysis and synthesis often involve an iterative process. Initial analysis may lead to the identification of patterns or relationships that can inform the synthesis process. Synthesis, in turn, may generate new insights or questions that require further analysis. This iterative cycle allows for continuous refinement and improvement of understanding.

Analysis and synthesis are two essential processes that play a crucial role in various fields of study. While analysis focuses on breaking down complex ideas into smaller components to understand their individual parts and relationships, synthesis involves integrating separate elements or ideas to create a new whole or understanding. Both approaches have their unique attributes and strengths, and they often complement each other in a cyclical and iterative process. By employing analysis and synthesis effectively, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena, generate innovative solutions, and make informed decisions.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Asking the right questions : a guide to critical thinking

Browne, M. Neil, 1944- author.

Book source

Critical thinking.; Criticism.

• Technical advance
• Open access
• Published: 26 July 2006

Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

• Mary Dixon-Woods 1 ,
• Debbie Cavers 2 ,
• Shona Agarwal 3 ,
• Ellen Annandale 4 ,
• Antony Arthur 5 ,
• Janet Harvey 6 ,
• Ron Hsu 1 ,
• Savita Katbamna 7 ,
• Richard Olsen 7 ,
• Lucy Smith 1 ,
• Richard Riley 1 &
• Alex J Sutton 1  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  6 , Article number:  35 ( 2006 ) Cite this article

110k Accesses

1053 Citations

51 Altmetric

Metrics details

Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK

This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis.

Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research.

By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.

Peer Review reports

Like many areas of healthcare practice and policy, the literature on access to healthcare is large, diverse, and complex. It includes empirical work using both qualitative and quantitative methods; editorial comment and theoretical work; case studies; evaluative, epidemiological, trial, descriptive, sociological, psychological, management, and economics papers, as well as policy documents and political statements. "Access" itself has not been consistently defined or operationalised across the field. There are substantial adjunct literatures, including those on quality in healthcare, priority-setting, and patient satisfaction. A review of the area would be of most benefit if it were to produce a "mid-range" theoretical account of the evidence and existing theory that is neither so abstract that it lacks empirical applicability nor so specific that its explanatory scope is limited.

In this paper, we suggest that conventional systematic review methodology is ill-suited to the challenges that conducting such a review would pose, and describe the development of a new form of review which we term "Critical Interpretive Synthesis" (CIS). This approach draws is sensitised to the range of issues involved in conducting reviews that conventional systematic review methodology has identified, but draws on a distinctive tradition of qualitative inquiry, including recent interpretive approaches to review [ 1 ]. We suggest that that using CIS to synthesise a diverse body of evidence enables the generation of theory with strong explanatory power. We illustrate this briefly using an example based on synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare in the UK by socio-economically disadvantaged people.

Aggregative and interpretive reviews

Conventional systematic review developed as a specific methodology for searching for, appraising, and synthesising findings of primary studies [ 2 ]. It offers a way of systematising, rationalising, and making more explicit the processes of review, and has demonstrated considerable benefits in synthesising certain forms of evidence where the aim is to test theories, perhaps especially about "what works". It is more limited when the aim, as here, is to include many different forms of evidence with the aim of generating theory [ 3 ]. Conventional systematic review methods are thus better suited to the production of aggregative rather than interpretive syntheses.

This distinction between aggregative and interpretive syntheses, noted by Noblit and Hare in their ground-breaking book on meta-ethnography[ 1 ] allows a useful (though necessarily crude) categorisation of two principal approaches to conducting reviews [ 4 ]. Aggregative reviews are concerned with assembling and pooling data, may use techniques such as meta-analysis, and require a basic comparability between phenomena so that the data can be aggregated for analysis. Their defining characteristics are a focus on summarising data , and an assumption that the concepts (or variables) under which those data are to be summarised are largely secure and well specified. Key concepts are defined at an early stage in the review and form the categories under which the data from empirical studies are to be summarised.

Interpretive reviews, by contrast, see the essential tasks of synthesis as involving both induction and interpretation. Their primary concern is with the development of concepts and theories that integrate those concepts. An interpretive review will therefore avoid specifying concepts in advance of the synthesis. The interpretive analysis that yields the synthesis is conceptual in process and output. The product of the synthesis is not aggregations of data, but theory grounded in the studies included in the review. Although there is a tendency at present to conduct interpretive synthesis only of qualitative studies, it should in principle be possible and indeed desirable to conduct interpretive syntheses of all forms of evidence, since theory-building need not be based only on one form of evidence. Indeed, Glaser and Strauss [ 5 ] in their seminal text, included an (often forgotten) chapter on the use of quantitative data for theory-building.

Recent years have seen the emergence of a range of methods that draw on a more interpretive tradition, but these also have limitations when attempting a synthesis of a large and complex body of evidence. In general, the use to date of interpretive approaches to synthesis has been confined to the synthesis of qualitative research only [ 6 – 8 ]. Meta-ethnography, an approach in which there has been recent significant activity and innovation, has similarly been used solely to synthesise qualitative studies, and has typically been used only with small samples [ 9 – 11 ]. Few approaches have attempted to apply an interpretive approach to the whole corpus of evidence (regardless of study type) included in a review, and few have treated the literature they examine as itself an object of scrutiny, for example by questioning the ways in which the literature constructs its problematics, the nature of the assumptions on the literature draw, or what has influenced proposed solutions.

In this paper we offer a reflexive account of our attempt to conduct an interpretive synthesis of all types of evidence relevant to access to National Health Service (NHS) healthcare in the UK by potentially vulnerable groups. These groups had been defined at the outset by the funders of the project (the UK Department of Health Service Delivery and Organisation R&D Programme) as children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people. We explain in particular our development of Critical Interpretive Synthesis as a method for conducting this review.

Formulating the review question

Conventional systematic review methodology [ 12 , 13 ] emphasises the need for review questions to be precisely formulated. A tightly focused research question allows the parameters of the review to be identified and the study selection criteria to be defined in advance, and in turn limits the amount of evidence required to address the review question.

This strategy is successful where the phenomenon of interest, the populations, interventions, and outcomes are all well specified – i.e. if the aim of the review is aggregative . For our project, it was neither possible nor desirable to specify in advance the precise review question, a priori definitions, or categories under which the data could be summarised, since one of its aims was to allow the definition of the phenomenon of access to emerge from our analysis of the literature [ 14 ]. This is not to say that we did not have a review question, only that it was not a specific hypothesis. Instead it was, as Greenhalgh and colleagues [ 15 ] describe, tentative, fuzzy and contested at the outset of the project. It did include a focus on equity and on how access, particularly for potentially vulnerable groups, can best be understood in the NHS, a health care system that is, unlike most in the world, free at the point of use.

The approach we used to further specify the review question was highly iterative, modifying the question in response to search results and findings from retrieved items. It treated, as Eakin and Mykhalovskiy [ 16 ] suggest, the question as a compass rather than an anchor, and as something that would not finally be settled until the end of the review. In the process of refining the question, we benefited from the multidisciplinary nature of our review team: this allowed a range of perspectives to be incorporated into the process, something that was also helpful and important in other elements of the review.

Searching the literature

A defining characteristic of conventional systematic review methodology is its use of explicit searching strategies, and its requirement that reviewers be able to give a clear account of how they searched for relevant evidence, such that the search methods can be reproduced. [ 2 ] Searching normally involves a range of strategies, but relies heavily on electronic bibliographic databases.

We piloted the use of a highly structured search strategy using protocol-driven searches across a range of electronic databases but, like Greenhalgh and Peacock [ 17 ] found that was this unsatisfactory. In particular, it risked missing relevant materials by failing to pick up papers that, while not ostensibly about "access", were nonetheless important to the aim of the review. We then developed a more organic process that fitted better with the emergent and exploratory nature of the review questions. This combined a number of strategies, including searching of electronic databases; searching websites; reference chaining; and contacts with experts. Crucially, we also used expertise within the team to identify relevant literature from adjacent fields not immediately or obviously relevant to the question of "access".

However, searching generated thousands of potentially relevant items – at one stage over 100,000 records. A literature of this size would clearly be unmanageable, and well exceed the capacity of the review team. We therefore redefined the aim of the searching phase. Rather than aiming for comprehensive identification and inclusion of all relevant literature, as would be required under conventional systematic review methodology, we saw the purpose of the searching phase as identifying potentially relevant papers to provide a sampling frame. Our sampling frame eventually totalled approximately 1,200 records.

Conventional systematic review methodology limits the number of papers to be included in a review by having tightly specified inclusion criteria for papers. Effectively, this strategy constructs the field to be known as having specific boundaries, defined as research that has specifically addressed the review question, used particular study designs and fulfilled the procedural requirements for the proper execution of these. Interpretive reviews might construct the field to be known rather differently, seeing the boundaries as more diffuse and ill-defined, as potentially overlapping with other fields, and as shifting as the review progresses. Nonetheless, there is a need to limit the number of papers to be included in an interpretive synthesis not least for practical reasons, including the time available. Sampling is also warranted theoretically, in that the focus in interpretive synthesis is on the development of concepts and theory rather than on exhaustive summary of all data. A number of authors [ 18 – 20 ] suggest drawing on the sampling techniques of primary qualitative research, including principles of theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation, when conducting a synthesis of qualitative literature.

For purposes of our synthesis, we used purposive sampling initially to select papers that were clearly concerned with aspects of access to healthcare, partly informed by an earlier scoping study [ 21 ] and later used theoretical sampling to add, test and elaborate the emerging analysis. Sampling therefore involved a constant dialectic process conducted concurrently with theory generation.

Determination of quality

Conventional systematic review methodology uses assessment of study quality in a number of ways. First, as indicated above, studies included in a review may be limited to particular study designs, often using a "hierarchy of evidence" approach that sees some designs (e.g. randomized controlled trials) as being more robust than others (e.g. case-control studies). Second, it is usual to devise broad inclusion criteria – for example adequate randomisation for RCTs – and to exclude studies that fail to meet these. Third, an appraisal of included studies, perhaps using a structured quality checklist, may be undertaken to allow sensitivity analyses aimed at assessing the effects of weaker papers.

Using this approach when confronted with a complex literature, including qualitative research, poses several challenges. No hierarchy of study designs exists for qualitative research. How or whether to appraise papers for inclusion in an interpretive reviews has received a great deal of attention, but there is little sign of an emergent consensus [ 22 ]. Some argue that formal appraisals of quality may not be necessary, and some argue that there is a risk of discounting important studies for the sake of "surface mistakes" [ 23 ]. Others propose that weak papers should be excluded from the review altogether, and several published syntheses of qualitative research have indeed used quality criteria to make decisions about excluding papers. [ 10 , 24 ]

We aimed to prioritise papers that appeared to be relevant, rather than particular study types or papers that met particular methodological standards. We might therefore be said to be prioritising "signal" (likely relevance) over "noise" (the inverse of methodological quality) [ 25 ]. We felt it important, for purposes of an interpretive review, that a low threshold be applied to maximise the inclusion and contribution of a wide variety of papers at the level of concepts . We therefore took a two-pronged approach to quality. First, we decided that only papers that were deemed to be fatally flawed would be excluded. Second, once in the review, the synthesis itself crucially involved judgements and interpretations of credibility and contribution, as we discuss later.

To identify fatally flawed papers, we used the criteria in Table 1 , adapted from those proposed (at the time of our review) by the National Health Service (NHS) National Electronic Library for Health for the evaluation of qualitative research, to inform judgements on the quality of the papers. These criteria were used for assessing all empirical papers (but not those classified as 'reviews') regardless of study type. The final judgement about inclusion of the review rested both on an assessment of relevance as well as on the assessment of the quality of the individual papers. Decisions about relevance and quality were recorded, and a small sample of decisions about relevance and quality was reviewed. In the event, very few papers – approximately 20 – were excluded on grounds of being "fatally flawed", because even weak papers were often judged to have potentially high relevance. The value of deferring judgements of credibility and contribution until the synthesis became increasingly evident.

Most fundamentally, as the review progressed, we became increasingly convinced that the assumption that all studies deemed to have satisfactorily fulfilled criteria of execution and reporting can contribute equally to a synthesis is flawed. As we discuss further below, one of the distinctive characteristics of a critical interpretive synthesis is its emphasis not only on summary of data reported in the literature but also on a more fundamental critique, which may involve questioning taken-for-granted assumptions.

Data extraction

A data-extraction pro-forma was initially devised to assist in systematically identifying characteristics of research participants, methods of data collection, methods of data analysis and major findings of each paper. For both qualitative and quantitative papers, this involved extracting the titles of the categories and sub-categories using the terms used in the paper itself and a summary of the relevant material. Practically, however, it proved impossible to conduct this form of data extraction on all documents included in the review, including very large documents. We therefore summarised some documents more informally, for example using highlighter pen. More generally, the value of formal data extraction for purposes of this type of study will require further evaluation.

Conducting an interpretive synthesis

We had intended, at the outset of this project, to use meta-ethnography, a method for interpretive synthesis where there is currently an active programme of methodological research, [ 9 – 11 ] as our approach to synthesis. However, this had previously only been used to synthesise qualitative studies. Our experiences of working with a large sample of papers using multiple methods led us to refine and respecify some of the concepts and techniques of meta-ethnography in order to enable synthesis of a very large and methodologically diverse literature. Eventually we had made so many amendments and additions to the original methodology that we felt it was more appropriate, helpful and informative to deem it a new methodology with its own title and processes. It is this approach which we term critical interpretive synthesis (CIS). It is important to emphasise, however, that CIS is an approach to review and is not solely a method for synthesis.

Meta-ethnography, as originally proposed [ 1 ], involves three major strategies.:

1. Reciprocal translational analysis (RTA). The key metaphors, themes, or concepts in each study report are identified. An attempt is then made to translate the concepts into each other. Judgements about the ability of the concept of one study to capture concepts from others are based on attributes of the themes themselves, and the concept that is "most adequate" is chosen.

2. Refutational synthesis. Contradictions between the study reports are characterised, and an attempt made to explain them.

3. Lines-of-argument synthesis (LOA) involves building a general interpretation grounded in the findings of the separate studies. The themes or categories that are most powerful in representing the entire dataset are identified by constant comparisons between individual accounts.

Reciprocal translational analysis

Reciprocal translational analysis involves translating findings of one paper into another by systematically comparing findings from each study, using techniques such as maps. [ 9 ] We encountered considerable methodological and practical problems in trying to apply RTA across a large set of papers, in part because of the kinds of iterations we were conducting in refining the sample. These meant that there were difficulties in identifying a stable "set" of papers on which an RTA could be conducted. RTA appears to be most suitable for a well-defined, relatively small (fewer than 50) and complete set of papers, because substitution or deletion of papers causes problems with both identifying index concepts and showing which concepts from other papers translate into these. A further problem is that, when confronted with a very large and diverse literature such as ours, RTA tends to provide only a summary in terms that have already been used in the literature. Although this may be a useful strategy as a stage on the way to a more interpretive synthesis, its value may be more limited than is the case for smaller samples of qualitative study reports where its benefits have been more evident.

Before our review, RTA had previously only been used for synthesising interpretive research, not a large and diverse body of literature, so this may be one reason why it was unsuccessful for our purposes. It is important to distinguish between the doubtful value of RTA in our synthesis (particularly because of the size and diversity of the literature), and the doubtful use of RTA in general. The diversity of the literature would also have prevented us from undertaking an aggregative synthesis using meta-analysis, but this clearly could not be read as a criticism of meta-analysis itself, but of its limitations when applying it to a diverse literature.

Lines of argument synthesis

Recent work [ 9 – 11 ] has innovated in the methodology of lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis originally proposed by Noblit and Hare by building on Schutz's [ 26 ] notions of "orders" of constructs Schutz used the idea of "first order construct" to refer to the everyday understandings of ordinary people and "second order construct" to refer to the constructs of the social sciences. The explanations and theories used by authors in primary study reports could therefore be seen as second order interpretations. This recent work uses LOA synthesis to develop what are referred to as "third order" interpretations, which build on the explanations and interpretations of the constituent studies, and are simultaneously consistent with the original results while extending beyond them. Our experiences have led us to respecify some of this approach.

We suggest that the appropriate way of conceptualising the output of an LOA synthesis is as a synthesising argument . This argument integrates evidence from across the studies in the review into a coherent theoretical framework comprising a network of constructs and the relationships between them. Its function is to provide more insightful, formalised, and generalisable ways of understanding a phenomenon. A synthesising argument can be generated through detailed analysis of the evidence included in a review, analogous to the analysis undertaken in primary qualitative research. It may require the generation of what we call synthetic constructs , which are the result of a transformation of the underlying evidence into a new conceptual form. Synthetic constructs are grounded in the evidence, but result from an interpretation of the whole of that evidence, and allow the possibility of several disparate aspects of a phenomenon being unified in a more useful and explanatory way.

What we have called a "synthetic construct" might also be seen as a "third order construct". We suggest that the term "synthetic construct" is a more useful term because it is more explicit, and also because we emphasise that a synthesising argument need not consist solely of synthetic constructs. Instead, synthesising arguments may explicitly link not only synthetic constructs, but also second order constructs already reported in the literature. In effect, therefore, our approach does not make this precise distinction between second and third order constructs.

Refutational syntheses

We further suggest that what Noblit and Hare [ 1 ] call "refutational syntheses" are best conducted as part of the analysis that produces the synthesising argument Few published meta-ethnographies have in fact reported a separate refutational synthesis. It is, we suggest, more productive instead to adopt a critical and reflexive approach to the literature, including consideration of contradictions and flaws in evidence and theory.

An important element of producing a synthesising argument is the need, when conducting the analysis, to consider and reflect on the credibility of the evidence, to make critical judgements about how it contributes to the development of the synthesising argument, and to root the synthesising argument appropriately in critique of existing evidence. Clearly, credibility depends on the quality of the research, its currency, and the robustness of its theoretical base. But more generally, a critical interpretive synthesis is critical in the broader sense of critique rather than this more limited sense of critical appraisal, in which each study is judged against the standards of its type. Critique may involve identification of the research traditions or meta-narratives that have guided particular fields of research [ 27 ] as well as critical analysis of particular forms of discourses. Its aim is therefore to treat the literature as warranting critical scrutiny in its own right.

Conducting the analysis

Our analysis of the evidence, in order to produce a synthesising argument, was similar to that undertaken in primary qualitative research. We began with detailed inspection of the papers, gradually identifying recurring themes and developing a critique. We then generated themes that helped to explain the phenomena being described in the literature, constantly comparing the theoretical structures we were developing against the data in the papers, and attempting to specify the categories of our analysis and the relationships between them. To facilitate the process of identifying patterns, themes, and categories across the large volumes of text-based data in our study, we used QSR N5 software. However, it is important to note that, as with any qualitative analysis, full transparency is not possible because of the creative, interpretive processes involved. Nonetheless, the large multidisciplinary team involved in the review, and the continual dialogue made necessary by this, helped to introduce "checks and balances" that guarded against framing of the analysis according to a single perspective.

A key feature of this process that distinguishes it from some other current approaches to interpretive synthesis (and indeed of much primary qualitative research) was its aim of being critical : its questioning of the ways in which the literature had constructed the problematics of access, the nature of the assumptions on which it drew, and what has influenced its choice of proposed solutions. Our critique of the literature was thus dynamic, recursive and reflexive, and, rather than being a stage in which individual papers are excluded or weighted, it formed a key part of the synthesis, informing the sampling and selection of material and playing a key role in theory generation.

Findings: access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people

Our critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people in the UK included 119 papers. Early analytic categories were tentative and contingent, but gradually became firmed up and more highly specified as our analysis continued. Our synthesis involved a critique of the tendency to use measures of utilisation as a means of assessing the extent to which access to healthcare is equitable. It further involved the generation of a synthesising argument that has the synthetic construct of candidacy at its core. For space reasons, we can report here only a brief illustrative summary.

Critique of utilisation as a measure of access

Much of the evidence on whether access to healthcare in the UK is equitable has relied on measuring utilisation of health services. This approach measures the units of healthcare (consultations, procedures, etc) that people have actually consumed. The literature suggests that different groups have identifiable patterns of use of services, but the significance of these is often difficult to interpret. General practice (GP) consultation rates among socio-economically disadvantaged people have generally been found to be higher [ 28 , 29 ] though some recent work has suggested that social class variables are generally insignificant in explaining health service use [ 30 ] Studies that have attempted to adjust for need, usually on the basis of estimates of morbidity, have generally suggested that the apparent excess of GP consultation can be explained by higher need [ 31 ].

Our critique of the literature suggests that utilisation is a generally unhelpful measure of equity of access. Not only do the logistical and practical problems of conducting utilisation studies pose substantial threats to validity and reliability, these studies are problematic for other reasons. They rely on a largely untested set of normative (i.e. ideas about how the world ought to be) and somewhat questionable assumptions about the "correct" level of utilisation, and on a difficult-to-measure (or conceputalise) estimates of "need". They often invoke normative assumptions about need relative to some apparently privileged though often ill-defined reference group (such as "affluent" people), and therefore risk failing to identify problems in access for that reference group. Misleadingly reassuring results may be produced that indicate that "need" and use or receipt are proportionate. We argue that utilisation, or, more appropriately, receipt of healthcare is the outcome of many different complex processes, which all need to be recognised if access is to be properly understood.

Our analysis suggested that a focus instead on candidacy , a synthetic construct that we generated during the course of our analysis, would demonstrate the vulnerabilities associated with socio-economic disadvantage, emphasise the highly dynamic, multi-dimensional and contingent character of access, and allow a more insightful interpretation of the evidence on receipt of healthcare.

Our synthesising argument around access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people is organised around a set of central concepts and, in particular, the core synthetic category of "candidacy". Candidacy functions as a synthetic construct because it is the product of the transformation of the evidence into a new conceptual form. It is distinct from earlier uses of the term "candidacy", including its use in the lay epidemiology of heart disease [ 32 ].

We have defined candidacy as follows: candidacy describes the ways in which people's eligibility for medical attention and intervention is jointly negotiated between individuals and health services. Our synthesising argument runs as follows: candidacy is a dynamic and contingent process, constantly being defined and redefined through interactions between individuals and professionals, including how "cases" are constructed. Accomplishing access to healthcare requires considerable work on the part of users, and the amount, difficulty, and complexity of that work may operate as barriers to receipt of care. The social patterning of perceptions of health and health services, and a lack of alignment between the priorities and competencies of disadvantaged people and the organisation of health services, conspire to create vulnerabilities. Candidacy is managed in the context of operating conditions that are influenced by individuals, the setting and environment in which care takes place, situated activity, the dynamics of face-to-face activity, and aspects of self (such as gender), the typifications staff use in categorising people and diseases, availability of economic and other resources such as time, local pressures, and policy imperatives.

Identification of candidacy

How people recognise their symptoms as needing medical attention or intervention is clearly key to understanding how they assert a claim to candidacy. Our analysis suggests that people in more deprived circumstances are likely to manage health and to recognise candidacy as a series of crises. There is significant evidence of lower use of preventive services among more deprived groups, [ 33 , 34 ] as well as evidence of higher use of accident and emergency facilities, emergency admissions and out-of-hours use [ 35 , 35 , 37 , 38 ]. Among more deprived groups, there is a tendency to seek help in response to specific events that are seen as warranting candidacy. "Warning signs" may be downgraded in importance by socio-economically disadvantaged populations because of a lack of a positive conceptualisation of health, [ 39 , 40 ] the normalisation of symptoms within deprived communities [ 41 – 43 ], and fear of being "blamed" by health professionals [ 44 ].

Using services requires considerable work on the part of people. First, people must be aware of the services on offer, and there has been persistent concern that more deprived people may lack awareness of some services [ 45 , 46 ]. Second, using health services requires the mobilisation of a range of practical resources that may be variably available in the population. A key practical resource that impacts on the ability to seek care for the socio-economically disadvantaged, for example, is transport [ 44 , 47 , 48 ]. Other practical resources that may impact on the ability of disadvantaged groups to negotiate health services include more rigid patterns of working life [ 47 ]. Goddard and Smith [ 49 ] summarise evidence suggesting that those from more deprived social groups face financial costs of attending health services which, though not sufficient to dissuade them from using services when they are ill (i.e. in response to a specific "event"), act as a barrier to attending "optional" services related to health promotion and health prevention

The permeability of services

Patterns of use of health services reflect issues in the organisation of services as much as they reflect a tendency to manage health as a series of crises on the part of disadvantaged people. We generated the synthetic construct of "permeability" to refer to the ease with which people can use services. Porous services require few qualifications of candidacy to use them, and may require the mobilisation of relatively fewer resources. Such services might include Accident and Emergency departments. Services that are less permeable demand qualifications (such as a referral), and also demand a higher degree of cultural alignment between themselves and their users, particularly in respect of the extent to which people feel comfortable with the organisational values of the service. Such services might include out-patients clinics in hospitals.

Services that are less permeable tend to have high levels of default by socio-economically disadvantaged people [ 50 – 53 ]. Appointments systems, for example, are a threat to permeability by socio-economically disadvantaged people because they require resources and competencies (including stable addresses, being able to read, and being able to present in particular places at particular times [ 33 , 50 , 54 ] In addition, the extent to which people feel alienated from the cultural values of health services and their satisfaction with services have important implications for which services they choose to use [ 41 , 55 ].

Appearances at health services

Appearing at health services involves people in asserting a claim to candidacy for medical attention or intervention. Whatever the nature of the claim, making it clearly involves work that requires a set of competencies, including the ability to formulate and articulate the issue for which help is being sought, and the ability to present credibly. More deprived people are at risk in these situations: they may be less used to or less able to provide coherent abstracted explanations of need, and may feel intimidated by their social distance from health professionals. Sword [ 56 ] points out that people with low incomes may feel alienated by the power relations that often characterise encounters with professionals. Dixon et al [ 57 ] and, in the US, Cooper and Roter [ 58 ] suggest that middle class people may be more adept at using their "voice" to demand better and extensive services: they may be more articulate, more confident, and more persistent, while people from lower class backgrounds are less verbally active. Somerset et al [ 59 ] report that in making referral decisions, patients' social status and their ability to articulate verbally act as background (and unexpressed) influences that affect the likelihood of referral.

Adjudications

Once a patient has asserted their candidacy by presenting to health services, the professional judgements made about that candidacy strongly influence subsequent access to attention and interventions. We generated the synthetic construct of "adjudication" to refer to the judgements and decisions made by professionals which allow or inhibit continued progression of candidacy. May et al's [ 60 ] analysis suggests doctors' practices are often exercised through a repertoire of routine judgements about the possibilities presented by individual patients and the routinely available means of solving these. These typifications are, we suggest, strongly influenced by local conditions, including the operating conditions in which practitioners work and sensitivity to resource constraints. Candidacy of socially disadvantaged people appears to be at risk of being judged to be less eligible, at least for some types of interventions, although the evidence that this happens is not particularly strong.

Our analysis suggests that it is likely that professionals' perceptions of patients who are likely to "do well" as a result of interventions may disadvantage people in more deprived circumstances. As Hughes and Griffiths [ 61 ] identify, clinical decisions may rest on often implicit social criteria about which patients "ought" to receive care People in disadvantaged groups are more likely to smoke, to be overweight and to have co-morbidities, and professional perceptions of the cultural and health capital required to convert a unit of health provision into a given unit of health gain may function as barriers to healthcare [ 34 ]. In addition, perceptions of social "deservingness" may play a role [ 61 , 62 ]. Goddard and Smith [ 49 ] summarise evidence suggesting that independent of the severity of the disease, some GPs are more likely to refer the economically active and those with dependants. Clearly, there is potential for socially disadvantaged people to be disfavoured in such decisions.

Offers and resistance

Much of the work on utilisation of healthcare explicitly or implicitly assumes that non-utilisation is a direct reflection of non-offer. However, this type of normative analysis fails to acknowledge that people may choose to refuse offers. There is some evidence of patterns of resistance to offers. Referral implies that a GP has identified particular features of candidacy and is seeking to match those to a service that deals with that form of candidacy, but patients can resist being referred [ 42 , 63 ] and can resist offers of medication [ 64 , 65 ].

Operating conditions and the local production of candidacy

A small body of recent research has identified what might be called local influences on the production of candidacy, and in our analysis these are hugely important. These are the contingent and locally specific influences on interactions between practitioners and patients, which may be emergent over time through repeated encounters. Crucial to the local production of candidacy is the perceived or actual availability and suitability of resources to address that candidacy [ 60 , 63 ].

Demands from health policy-makers and managers for syntheses of evidence that are useful, rigorous and relevant are fuelling interest in the development of methods that can allow the integration of diverse types of evidence [ 66 ]. With the diversity of techniques for evidence synthesis now beginning to appear, those using existing, 'new' or evolving techniques need to produce critical reflexive accounts of their experiences of using the methods [ 3 ]. Our experience of conducting a review of access to healthcare, where there is a large, amorphous and complex body of literature, and a need to assemble the findings into a form that is useful in informing policy and that is empirically and theoretically grounded [ 67 ], has led us to propose a new method – Critical Interpretive Synthesis – which is sensitised to the kinds of processes involved in conventional systematic review while drawing on a distinctively qualitative tradition of inquiry.

Conventional systematic review methodology is well-suited to aggregative syntheses, where what is required is a summary of the findings of the literature under a set of categories which are largely pre-specified, secure, and well-defined. It has been important in drawing attention to the weaknesses of informal reviews, including perceived failures in their procedural specification and the possibility that the (thus) undisciplined reviewer might be chaotic or negligent in identifying the relevant evidence, or might construct idiosyncratic theories and marshall the evidence in support of these. It has thus revealed some of the pitfalls of informal literature review. Conventional systematic review methodology has demonstrated considerable benefits in synthesising certain forms of evidence where the aim is to test theories (in the form of hypotheses), perhaps especially about "what works". However, this approach is limited when the aim, confronted with a complex body of evidence, is to generate theory [ 15 , 27 ].

Current methods for conducting an interpretive synthesis of the literature, (such as meta-ethnography) are also limited, in part because application of many interpretive methods for synthesis has remained confined to studies reporting qualitative research. Realist synthesis [ 68 ], which does include diverse forms of evidence, is oriented towards theory evaluation, in particular by focusing on theories of change. Methods for including qualitative and quantitative evidence in systematic reviews developed by the EPPI Centre at the Institute of Education, London, have involved refinements and extensions of conventional systematic review methodology [ 6 – 8 ], and have limited their application of interpretive techniques to synthesis of qualitative evidence.

More generally, many current approaches fail to be sufficiently critical , in the sense of offering a critique. There is rarely an attempt to reconceptualise the phenomenon of interest, to provide a more sweeping critique of the ways in which the literature in the area have chosen to represent it, or to question the epistemological and normative assumptions of the literature. With notable exceptions such as the recent approach of meta-narrative analysis [ 15 ], critique of papers in current approaches to review tends to be limited to appraisal of the methodological specificities of the individual papers.

Conducting an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK therefore required methodological innovation that would be alert to the issues raised by systematic review methodology but also move beyond both its limitations and those of other current interpretive methods. The methods for review that we developed in this project (Table 2 ) built on conventional systematic review methodology in their sensitivity to the need for attentiveness to a range of methodological processes. Crucially, in doing so, we drew explicitly on traditions of qualitative research inquiry, and in particular on the principles of grounded theory [ 5 ].

In addition to its explicit orientation towards theory generation, perhaps what most distinguishes CIS from conventional systematic review methods is its rejection of a "stage" approach to review. Processes of question formulation, searching, selection, data extraction, critique and synthesis are characterised as iterative, interactive, dynamic and recursive rather than as fixed procedures to be accomplished in a pre-defined sequence. CIS recognises the need for flexibility in the conduct of review, and future work would need to assess how far formal methods of critical appraisal and data extraction will be essential elements of the method. Our experience suggests that while attention to scientific quality is required, more generally the emphasis should be on critique rather than critical appraisal, and an ongoing critical orientation to the material examined and to emerging theoretical ideas. Formal data extraction may also be an unnecessarily constraining and burdensome process.

CIS emphasises the need for theoretical categories to be generated from the available evidence and for those categories to be submitted to rigorous scrutiny as the review progresses. Further, it emphasises a need for constant reflexivity to inform the emerging theoretical notions, and guides the sampling of articles. Although CIS demands attention to flaws in study design, execution and reporting in our judgements of the quality of individual papers, its critical approach goes beyond standard approaches. Thus, in our review, some methodologically weak papers were important in terms of their theoretical contribution, or in terms of demonstrating the breadth of evidence considered in the construction of particular categories, or in terms of providing a more comprehensive summary of the evidence, while a single strong paper might be pivotal in the development of the synthesis. Hughes and Griffiths' paper on micro-rationing of healthcare [ 61 ], for example, was a key paper in helping to generate the construct of candidacy that later came to unify the themes of our analysis. The critical interpretation in our analysis focused on how a synthesising argument could be fashioned from the available evidence, given the quality of the evidence and the kinds of critiques that could be offered of the theory and assumptions that lay behind particular approaches. In treating the literature as an object of scrutiny in its own right, CIS problematises the literature in ways that are quite distinctive from most current approaches to literature reviewing.

Access to healthcare

The CIS approaches we adopted deferred final definition of the phenomenon of access and the appropriate ways of conceptualising it until our analysis was complete. Our critique of the current literature focused on the inadequacies of studies of utilisation as a guide to explaining inequities in health care. The conceptual model of access that we developed emphasises candidacy as the core organising construct, and recasts access as highly dynamic and contingent, and subject to constant negotiation.

In this conceptual model of access to healthcare, health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. Candidacy is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. "Access" represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be much better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. Although our review focused on the UK, we suggest that the construct of candidacy is transferable, and has useful explanatory value in other contexts.

In addition to the core construct of candidacy, our analysis required the production of a number of other linked synthetic constructs – constructs generated through an attempt to summarise and integrate diverse concepts and data – including "adjudications" and "offers". It was also possible to link existing "second order" constructs, for example relating to help-seeking as the identification of candidacy by patients, into the synthesising argument, and making these work as synthesising constructs. We feel that this approach allows maximum benefit to be gained from previous analyses as well as the new synthesis.

Reflections on the method

Clearly, questions can be raised about the validity and credibility of the CIS analysis we have presented here. Conventional systematic review methodology sets great store by the reproducibility of its protocols and findings. It would certainly have been possible to produce an account of the evidence that was more reproducible. For example, we could have used the evidence to produce a thematic summary that stuck largely to the terms and concepts used in the evidence itself. However, we felt it important that we produced an interpretation of the evidence that could produce new insights and fresh ways of understanding the phenomenon of access, and that the "critical voice" of our interpretation was maintained throughout the analysis. Simply to have produced a thematic summary of what the literature was saying would have run the risk of accepting that the accounts offered in the evidence-base were the only valid way of understanding the phenomenon of access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. We therefore make no claim to reproducibility, but wish to address some possible concerns. First, it could be argued that a different team using the same set of papers would have produced a different theoretical model. However, the same would be true for qualitative researchers working with primary qualitative data, who accept that other possible interpretations might be given to, say, the same set of transcripts. Clearly, the production of a synthesizing argument, as an interpretive process, produces one privileged reading of the evidence, and, as the product of an authorial voice, it cannot be defended as an inherently reproducible process or product. We would suggest, however, that our analysis can be defended on the grounds that it is demonstrably grounded in the evidence; that it is plausible; that it offers insights that are consistent with the available evidence; and that it can generate testable hypotheses and empirically valuable questions for future research.

Second, subjecting a question to continual review and refinement, as we did, may make it more difficult for those conducting critical interpretive reviews to demonstrate, as required by conventional systematic review methodology, the "transparency", comprehensiveness, and reproducibility of search strategies. This dilemma between the "answerable" question and the "meaningful" question has received little attention, but it underpins key tensions between the two ends of the academic/pragmatic systematic review spectrum. On balance, faced with a large and amorphous body of evidence in an area such as access to healthcare, and given the aims of an interpretive synthesis, we feel that our decision not to limit the focus of the review at the outset, and our subsequent sampling strategies, were well justified. Our decision not to commit to a particular view of what access might be and how it should be assessed at the outset of the project was critical to our subsequent development of a more satisfactory understanding of access.

Third, it could be argued that we have synthesized too small a sample of the available papers, or that the processes used to select the papers are not transparent. We recognize that we have analyzed and synthesized only a fraction of all relevant papers in the area of access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. However, a common strategy in conventional systematic review is to limit the study types to be included; this strategy also might result in only a proportion of the potentially relevant literature being synthesised. While we have described our methods for sampling as purposive, it is possible that another team using the same approach could have come up with a different sample, because, particularly in the later stages of our review, our sampling was highly intuitive and guided by the emerging theory.

The final version of the conceptual model of access to healthcare that we eventually developed did not emerge until quite late in the review process, and much of the later sampling was directed at testing and purposively challenging the theory as we began to develop it. Again, such forms of searching and sampling do not lend themselves easily to reproducibility or indeed auditability. Testing whether the interpretations change in response to different findings will be an important focus for future research, which will also need to evaluate whether apparently disconfirming evidence is the result of methodological flaws or poses a genuine challenge to theory.

Conducting interpretive reviews in challenging areas where there is a large body of diverse evidence demands an approach that can draw on the strengths of conventional systematic review methodology and on the recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. We have termed the approach we developed to this review "critical interpretive synthesis". We believe that this methodology offers the potential for insight, vividness, illumination, and reconceptualisation of research questions, particularly in challenging areas such as access to healthcare, and look forward to further evaluations of its application.

Noblit G, Hare R: Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies. 1988, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Phillips A: Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997, 315: 1533-1537.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research. 2006, 6: 27-44. 10.1177/1468794106058867.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Glaser B, Strauss A: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. 1967, New York: Aldine de Gruyter

Google Scholar  

Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Garcia J, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res. 2006, 21: 239-257. 10.1093/her/cyh060.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A: Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 794-800. 10.1136/jech.2003.014829.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1010-1012. 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010.

Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R: Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 133-155. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063.

Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, et al: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 56: 671-684. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3.

Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7: 209-215. 10.1258/135581902320432732.

NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2001, York: NHS CRD

Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JP: Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2. 2004, The Cochrane Library, 2

Jensen L, Allen M: Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res. 1996, 6: 553-560.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R: Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 417-430. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001.

Eakin JM, Mykhalovskiy E: Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003, 9: 187-194. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x.

Greenhalgh T, Peacock R: Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005, 331: 1064-1065. 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68.

Schreiber RCD, Stern P: Qualitative meta-analysis. In: Completing a qualitative project: details and dialogue. Edited by: Morse JM. 1997, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Booth A: Cochrane or cock-eyed? How shoul we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research?. Proceedings of the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance. 2001, Coventry University, May 14 2001

Paterson B, Thorne S, C C, Jillings C: Meta-study of qualitative health research. 2001, Thousand Oaks: Sage

Gulliford M, Hughes D, Figeroa-Munoz J, Hudson M, Connell P, Morgan M, Beech R, Gibson B, Arumugam C, Mohiddin A, Sedgwick J: Access to health care: Report of a scoping exercise for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation Research. 2001

Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004, 13: 223-225. 10.1136/qshc.2003.008714.

Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C: Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative meta-synthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997, 20: 365-371. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E.

Paterson B, Thorne S, Dewis M: Adapting to and managing diabetes. Image. 1998, 30: 57-62.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, Rollnick S: Judging the 'weighting of evidence' in systematic reviews: introducing rigour into the qualitative overview stage by assessing Signal and Noise. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000, 6: 177-184. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00212.x.

Schutz A: Collected Papers. 1962, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1:

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Macfarlane F, Peacock R: A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery. 2004, London: NHS SDO Programme

Carr-Hill R, Rice N, Roland M: Socioeconomic determinants of rates of consultation in general practice based on fourth national morbidity survey of general practices. BMJ. 1996, 312: 1008-1012.

Carlisle R, Johnstone S: The relationship between census-derived socio-economic variables and general practice consultation rates in three town centre practices. Br J Gen Pract. 1998, 48: 1675-1678.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sutton M, Gravelle H, Leyland A, Morris S, Muirhead M, Noble M, Parkin D, Windmeijer F: Small area study of supply and demand determinants of healthcare resource use and estimation of relative needs for primary care trusts in England. English Department of Health/Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. 2002

Wyke S, Hunt K, Walker J, Wilson P: Frequent attendance, socio-economic status and burden of ill health: an investigation in the West of Scotland. Eur J Gen Pract. 2003, 9: 48-

Davison C, Davey Smith G, Frankel S: Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociol Health Illn. 1991, 13: 1-19. 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11340301.

Martin R, Sterne J: Social and economic variation in general practice consultation rates amongst men aged 16–39. Health Statistics Quarterly. 2001, 09: 29-36.

Watt G: The inverse care law today. Lancet. 2002, 360: 252-254. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09466-7.

Majeed F, Cook D, Hilton S, Poloniecki J, Hagen A: Annual night visiting rates in 129 general practices in one family health services authority: Association with patient and general practice characteristics. Br J Gen Pract. 1995, 45: 531-535.

Reid F, Cook D, Majeed A: Explaining variation in hospital admission rates between general practices: cross sectional study. BMJ. 1999, 319: 98-103.

Blatchford O, Capewell S, Murray S, Blatchford M: Emergency medical admissions in Glasgow: general practices vary despite adjustment for age, sex, and deprivation. Br J Gen Pract. 1999, 49: 551-554.

Carlisle R, Groom L, Avery A, Boot D, Earwicker S: Relation of out-of-hours activity by general practice and accident and emergency services with deprivation in Nottingham: longitudinal survey. BMJ. 1998, 316: 520-523.

Cornwell J: Hard Earned Lives. 1984, London: Tavistock

Calnan M: Health and Illness: the lay perspective. Tavistock. 1987

Richards H, Reid M, Watt C: Socioeconomic variations in responses to chest pain: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 1308-1310. 10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1308.

Gardner K, Chapple A: Barriers to referral in patients with angina: qualitative study. BMJ. 1999, 319: 418-421.

Hunt K, Emslie C, Watt G: Lay constructions of a family history of heart disease: potential for misunderstandings in the clinical encounter?. Lancet. 2001, 357: 1168-1171. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04334-8.

Tod A, Read C, Lacey A, Abbott J: Barriers to uptake of services for coronary heart disease: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001, 323: 214-217. 10.1136/bmj.323.7306.214.

Anderson E, Petersen S, Wailoo M: Health concerns and needs of traveller families. Health Visitor. 1997, 70: 148-150.

House of Commons Health Committee: Inequalities in access to maternity services. Eighth report of session 2002–2003. 2003, London: Stationery Office

Field K, Briggs D: Socio-economic and locational determinants of accessibility and utilization of primary health-care. Health Soc Care Community. 2001, 9: 294-308. 10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00303.x.

Shipman C, Payne F, Dale J, Jessopp L: Patient-perceived benefits of and barriers to using out-of-hours primary care centres. Fam Pract. 2001, 18: 149-155. 10.1093/fampra/18.2.149.

Goddard M, Smith P: Equity of access to health care. 1998, York: University of York

George A, Rubin G: Non-attendance in general practice: A systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 178-184. 10.1093/fampra/20.2.178.

McClure R, Newell S, Edwards S: Patient characteristics affecting attendance at general outpatient clinics. Arch Dis Child. 1996, 74: 121-125.

Macleod U, Ross S, Twelves C, George W, Gillis C, Watt G: Primary and secondary care management of women with early breast cancer from affluent and deprived areas: retrospective review of hospital and general practice records. BMJ. 2000, 320: 1442-1445. 10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1442.

Sharp D, Hamilton W: Non-attendance at general practices and outpatient clinics. BMJ. 2002, 323: 1081-1082. 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1081.

van Cleemput P: Health care needs of travellers. Arch Dis Child. 2000, 82: 32-37. 10.1136/adc.82.1.32.

Rogers A, Hassell K, Nicolas G: Demanding patients? Analysing the use of primary care. 1999, Buckingham: Open University Press

Sword W: A socio-ecological approach to understanding barriers to prenatal care for women of low income. J Adv Nurs. 1999, 29: 1170-1177. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00986.x.

Dixon A, Le Grand J, Henderson J, Murray R, Poteliakhoff E: Is the NHS equitable? A review of the evidence. London. LSE Health and Social Care. 2003

Cooper L, Roter D: Patient-provider communication: the effect of race and ethnicity on process and outcomes of healthcare. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Edited by: Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. 2003, Washington DC: National Academies Press

Somerset M, Faulkner A, Shaw A, Dunn L, Sharp D: Obstacles on the path to a primary-care led National Health Service: complexities of outpatient care. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48: 213-225. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00338-4.

May C, Allison G, Chapple A, Chew-Graham C, Dixon C, Gask L, Graham R, Rogers A, Roland M: Framing the doctor-patient relationship in chronic illness: a comparative study of general practitioners' accounts. Sociol Health Illn. 2004, 26: 135-158. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00384.x.

Hughes D, Griffiths L: Ruling in and Ruling out: two approaches to the micro-rationing of health care. Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44: 589-599. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00207-9.

Dodier N, Camus A: Openness and specialisation: dealing with patients in a hospital emergency service. Sociol Health Illn. 1998, 20: 413-444. 10.1111/1467-9566.00109.

Fuat A, Hungin A, Murphy J: Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure in primary care: qualitative study. BMJ. 2003, 326: 196-200. 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.196.

Britten N, Stevenson F, Gafaranga J, Barry C, Bradley C: The expression of aversion to medicines in general practice consultations. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 59: 1495-1503. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.019.

Scahfheutle E, Hassell K, Noyce P, Weiss M: Access to medicines: cost as an influence on the views and behaviour of patients. Health Soc Care Community. 2002, 10: 187-195. 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00356.x.

Sheldon TA: Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 1-5. 10.1258/1355819054308521.

Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: problems and opportunities. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001, 7: 125-133. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 21-34. 10.1258/1355819054308530.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/35/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) Research Programme.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK

Mary Dixon-Woods, Ron Hsu, Lucy Smith, Richard Riley & Alex J Sutton

Division of Oncology/General Practice, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Centre for Neuro-Oncology, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK

Debbie Cavers

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK

Shona Agarwal

Department of Sociology, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

Ellen Annandale

School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK

Antony Arthur

Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

Janet Harvey

Nuffield Research Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK

Savita Katbamna & Richard Olsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Dixon-Woods .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

MDW designed the project, led and supervised its execution, and drafted the manuscript. EA, AA, JH, RH, SK, RO, LS, RR and AJS participated in the design of the study. All authors engaged in searching, screening, sampling, data extraction, and critical appraisal/critique activities, and contributed to the thematic analysis. DC and SA managed the searching, maintained the databases and coded material using N6 software. All authors contributed to the draft of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S. et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 , 35 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

Download citation

Received : 19 April 2006

Accepted : 26 July 2006

Published : 26 July 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• National Health Service
• Review Question
• Disadvantaged People
• Order Construct
• Diverse Literature

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

A critical analysis of emerging trends in borophene synthesis

• Published: 02 September 2024
• Volume 26 , article number  207 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Sania Zarkar 1 ,
• Shruti Gupta 2 &
• Balasubramanian Kandasubramanian 2  

Borophene, as a 2D rising eulogizing star, is garnering increasing attention and recognition due to its venerated properties including anisotropic plasmonics, exemplary in-plane elasticity, superconductivity, massless Dirac fermions, high electron mobility, exceptional flexibility, exquisite tunability, and metallic properties across the majority of its structural models. These characteristics make borophene a promising material with diverse implementations like quantum electronics, high-speed low-dissipation devices, gas sensors, and energy storage. Following the landmark synthesis of borophene in 2015, a multitude of scientific endeavors have explored diverse synthesis approaches for producing borophene on a range of substrates. Within, this comprehensive review, we endeavor to present a succinct yet thorough examination of the myriad synthesis approaches employed for borophene fabrication on various substrates. In tandem, we meticulously delineate the merits and demerits inherent to each of these elucidated synthesis techniques. Furthermore, the review encompasses a summary of applications of borophene. Simultaneously, we proffer suggestions, address existing challenges, and discern novel prospects, thus extending an invitation for future exploration in this promising domain of scientific inquiry.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Copyright 2022, Nature Materials

Copyright 2023, Elsevier

Copyright 2023, MDPI

Copyright 2023, Royal Society of Chemistry

Copyright 2023, Nature Materials

Similar content being viewed by others

Borophene as a prototype for synthetic 2D materials development

Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials as Technology Marvels

Borophene synthesis beyond the single-atomic-layer limit

Data availability.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Progress, challenges, and opportunities in two-dimensional materials beyond graphene - PubMed, (n.d.). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23464873/ . Accessed 7 September 2023

Dean CR, Young AF, Meric I, Lee C, Wang L, Sorgenfrei S, Watanabe K, Taniguchi T, Kim P, Shepard KL, Hone J (2010) Boron nitride substrates for high-quality graphene electronics. Nat Nanotechnol 5:722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.172

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos SV, Grigorieva IV, Firsov AA (2004) Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 306:666–669. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102896

Shanmughan B, Nighojkar A, Kandasubramanian B (2023) Exploring the future of 2D catalysts for clean and sustainable hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 48:28679–28693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.04.053

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mayilswamy N, Krishnan A, Mundhada M, Deodhar H, Joshi G, Kandasubramanian B (2023) Shock wave-assisted exfoliation of 2D-material-based polymer nanocomposites: a breakthrough in nanotechnology. Ind Eng Chem Res 62:6584–6598. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c00837

Hemanth NR, Kandasubramanian B (2020) Recent advances in 2D MXenes for enhanced cation intercalation in energy harvesting applications: a review. Chem Eng J 392:123678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123678

K RK, S VA, Kandasubramanian B (2024) Effective CO 2 adsorption in hybrid 2D material with cellulose and its derivatives. Polym-Plast Technol Mater 63(2):134–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2023.2278068

Prakash NJ, Kandasubramanian B (2022) Industrial applications of MXene nanocomposites, in: Nanoparticle-Based Polym. Compos., Elsevier, pp. 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824272-8.00010-5

Das S, Robinson JA, Dubey M, Terrones H, Terrones M (2015) Beyond graphene: progress in novel two-dimensional materials and van der Waals solids. Annu Rev Mater Res 45:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070214-021034

Gibney E (2015) The super materials that could trump graphene. Nature 522:274–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/522274a

Hersam MC (2015) The reemergence of chemistry for post-graphene two-dimensional nanomaterials. ACS Publ. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b02806

Article   Google Scholar  

Tao L, Cinquanta E, Chiappe D, Grazianetti C, Fanciulli M, Dubey M, Molle A, Akinwande D (2015) Silicene field-effect transistors operating at room temperature. Nat Nanotechnol 10:227–231. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.325

Prakash NJ, Kandasubramanian B (2021) Nanocomposites of MXene for industrial applications. J Alloys Compd 862:158547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.158547

Sawant KK, Satapathy A, Mahimkar K, Krishnamurthy S, Kaur A, Kandasubramanian B, Raj AAB (2023) Recent advances in MXene nanocomposites as electromagnetic radiation absorbing materials. J Electron Mater 52:3576–3590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-023-10325-w

Anirudh S, Krishnamurthy S, Kandasubramanian B, Kumar PB (2023) Probing into atomically thin layered nano-materials protective coating for aerospace and strategic defence application – a review. J Alloys Compd 968:172203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.172203

Lipscomb WN (1977) the boranes and their relatives. Science 196:1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.196.4294.1047

Zhai H-J, Kiran B, Li J, Wang L-S (2003) Hydrocarbon analogues of boron clusters — planarity, aromaticity and antiaromaticity. Nat Mater 2:827–833. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1012

Hepta‐ and Octacoordinate Boron in Molecular Wheels of Eight‐ and Nine‐Atom Boron Clusters: Observation and Confirmation - Zhai - 2003 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition - Wiley Online Library, (n.d.). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200351874 (accessed September 7, 2023).

Ogitsu T, Schwegler E, Galli G (2013) β-Rhombohedral boron: at the crossroads of the chemistry of boron and the physics of frustration. Chem Rev 113:3425–3449. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr300356t

Ogitsu T, Gygi F, Reed J, Motome Y, Schwegler E, Galli G (2009) Imperfect crystal and unusual semiconductor: boron, a frustrated element. J Am Chem Soc 131:1903–1909. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja807622w

Feng B, Zhang J, Zhong Q, Li W, Li S, Li H, Cheng P, Meng S, Chen L, Wu K (2016) Experimental realization of two-dimensional boron sheets. Nat Chem 8:563–568. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2491

Tai G, Hu T, Zhou Y, Wang X, Kong J, Zeng T, You Y, Wang Q (2015) Synthesis of atomically thin boron films on copper foils. Angew Chem Int Ed 54:15473–15477. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201509285

Liu X, Li Q, Ruan Q, Rahn MS, Yakobson BI, Hersam MC (2022) Borophene synthesis beyond the single-atomic-layer limit. Nat Mater 21:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-021-01084-2

Liu X, Wang L, Li S, Rahn MS, Yakobson BI, Hersam MC (2019) Geometric imaging of borophene polymorphs with functionalized probes. Nat Commun 10:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09686-w

Pham V-T, Fang T-H (2020) Anisotropic mechanical strength, negative Poisson’s ratio and fracture mechanism of borophene with defects. Thin Solid Films 709:138197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2020.138197

Blue light emitting piezoelectric few-layered borophene nanosheets for flexible nanogenerators | Communications Materials, (n.d.). https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-023-00375-2 . Accessed 13 September 13 2023

Mannix AJ, Zhou X-F, Kiraly B, Wood JD, Alducin D, Myers BD, Liu X, Fisher BL, Santiago U, Guest JR, Yacaman MJ, Ponce A, Oganov AR, Hersam MC, Guisinger NP (2015) Synthesis of borophenes: anisotropic, two-dimensional boron polymorphs. Science 350:1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1080

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Penev ES, Bhowmick S, Sadrzadeh A, Yakobson BI (2012) Polymorphism of two-dimensional boron. Nano Lett 12:2441–2445. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl3004754

Can Two-Dimensional Boron Superconduct? | Nano Letters, (n.d.). https://pubs.acs.org https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b00070 (accessed September 8, 2023).

Feng B, Sugino O, Liu R-Y, Zhang J, Yukawa R, Kawamura M, Iimori T, Kim H, Hasegawa Y, Li H, Chen L, Wu K, Kumigashira H, Komori F, Chiang T-C, Meng S, Matsuda I (2017) Dirac fermions in borophene. Phys Rev Lett 118:096401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.096401

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kaneti YV, Benu DP, Xu X, Yuliarto B, Yamauchi Y, Golberg D (2022) Borophene: two-dimensional boron monolayer: synthesis, properties, and potential applications. Chem Rev 122:1000–1051. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00233

Huang Y, Shirodkar SN, Yakobson BI (2017) Two-dimensional boron polymorphs for visible range plasmonics: a first-principles exploration. J Am Chem Soc 139:17181–17185. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b10329

Shukla V, Wärnå J, Jena NK, Grigoriev A, Ahuja R (2017) Toward the realization of 2D borophene based gas sensor. J Phys Chem C 121:26869–26876. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b09552

Zhang X, Hu J, Cheng Y, Yang HY, Yao Y, Yang SA (2016) Borophene as an extremely high capacity electrode material for Li-ion and Na-ion batteries. Nanoscale 8:15340–15347. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6NR04186H

Oganov AR, Chen J, Gatti C, Ma Y, Ma Y, Glass CW, Liu Z, Yu T, Kurakevych OO, Solozhenko VL (2009) Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron. Nature 460:292–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08164

Jiang J, Wang X, Song Y (2018) Tunable magnetic and electronic properties in 3d transition-metal adsorbed β12 and χ3 borophene. Comput. Mater. Sci. 153:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.06.010

Li L, Schultz JF, Mahapatra S, Lu Z, Zhang X, Jiang N (2022) Chemically identifying single adatoms with single-bond sensitivity during oxidation reactions of borophene. Nat Commun 13:1796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29445-8

Synthesis of bilayer borophene | Nature Chemistry, (n.d.). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-021-00813-z (accessed September 8, 2023).

From planar boron clusters to borophenes and metalloborophenes | Nature Reviews Chemistry, (n.d.). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-017-0071 (accessed September 28, 2023).

Niu L, Coleman JN, Zhang H, Shin H, Chhowalla M, Zheng Z (2016) Production of two-dimensional nanomaterials via liquid-based direct exfoliation. Small 12:272–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201502207

Alzakia FI, Tan SC (2021) Liquid-exfoliated 2D materials for optoelectronic applications. Adv Sci 8:2003864. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202003864

Xie Z, Duo Y, Fan T, Zhu Y, Feng S, Li C, Guo H, Ge Y, Ahmed S, Huang W, Liu H, Qi L, Guo R, Li D, Prasad PN, Zhang H (2022) Light-induced tumor theranostics based on chemical-exfoliated borophene. Light Sci Appl 11:324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-022-00980-9

Ji X, Kong N, Wang J, Li W, Xiao Y, Gan ST, Zhang Y, Li Y, Song X, Xiong Q, Shi S, Li Z, Tao W, Zhang H, Mei L, Shi J (2018) A novel top-down synthesis of ultrathin 2D boron nanosheets for multimodal imaging-guided cancer therapy. Adv Mater 30:1803031. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201803031

Qi P, Chen Q, Tu D, Yao S, Zhang Y, Wang J, Xie C, Pan C, Peng H (2020) The potential role of borophene as a radiosensitizer in boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) and particle therapy (PT). Biomater Sci 8:2778–2785. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0BM00318B

Chowdhury MA, Uddin MM, Rana M, Hossain N, Shohan AF, Islam M, Kumar S (2023) Synthesis and characterization of borophene for future applications. Results Chem 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rechem.2023.101071

Ranjan P, Sahu TK, Bhushan R, Yamijala SS, Late DJ, Kumar P, Vinu A (2019) Freestanding borophene and its hybrids. Adv Mater 31:1900353. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201900353

Wang S, Xue J, Xu D, He J, Dai Y, Xia T, Huang Y, He Q, Duan X, Lin Z (2023) Electrochemical molecular intercalation and exfoliation of solution-processable two-dimensional crystals. Nat Protoc 18:2814–2837. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-023-00865-0

Molecules | Free Full-Text | Accelerated Synthesis of Borophane (HB) Sheets through HCl-Assisted Ion-Exchange Reaction with YCrB4, (n.d.). https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/7/2985 (accessed September 19, 2023).

Nishino H, Fujita T, Cuong NT, Tominaka S, Miyauchi M, Iimura S, Hirata A, Umezawa N, Okada S, Nishibori E, Fujino A, Fujimori T, Ito S, Nakamura J, Hosono H, Kondo T (2017) Formation and characterization of hydrogen boride sheets derived from MgB2 by cation exchange. J Am Chem Soc 139:13761–13769. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b06153

Zhang X, Hikichi M, Iimori T, Tsujikawa Y, Yuan M, Horio M, Yubuta K, Komori F, Miyauchi M, Kondo T, Matsuda I (2023) Accelerated synthesis of borophane (HB) sheets through HCl-assisted ion-exchange reaction with YCrB4. Molecules 28:2985. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28072985

Chowdhury MA, Uddin MMK, Shuvho MdBA, Rana M, Hossain N (2022) A novel temperature dependent method for borophene synthesis. Appl Surf Sci Adv 11:100308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsadv.2022.100308

Sielicki K, Maślana K, Chen X, Mijowska E (2022) Bottom up approach of metal assisted electrochemical exfoliation of boron towards borophene. Sci Rep 12:15683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20130-w

Ball milling induced borophene flakes fabrication - RSC Advances (RSC Publishing), (n.d.). https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/ra/d3ra02400h# ! (accessed September 14, 2023).

Tsai H-S, Hsiao C-H, Lin Y-P, Chen C-W, Ouyang H, Liang J-H (2016) Fabrication of multilayer borophene on insulator structure. Small 12:5251–5255. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201601915

Ultrastable Crystalline Semiconducting Hydrogenated Borophene - Hou - 2020 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition - Wiley Online Library, (n.d.). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202001045 (accessed September 13, 2023).

Synthesis of borophane polymorphs through hydrogenation of borophene | Science, (n.d.). https://www.science.org https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1874 (accessed July 25, 2024).

Jugovac M, Cojocariu I, Brondin CA, Crotti A, Petrović M, Bonetti S, Locatelli A, Menteş TO (2023) Coupling borophene to graphene in air-stable heterostructures. Adv Electron Mater 9:2300136. https://doi.org/10.1002/aelm.202300136

Wu R, Gozar A, Božović I (2019) Large-area borophene sheets on sacrificial Cu(111) films promoted by recrystallization from subsurface boron. Npj Quantum Mater 4:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-019-0181-0

Guo Z, Lin H, Zhang H, Tian Y, Chen Y, Chen J, Deng S, Liu F (2023) Low-pressure CVD synthesis of tetragonal borophene single-crystalline sheets with high ambient stability. Cryst Growth Des 23:4506–4513. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00265

Wu Z, Tai G, Liu R, Shao W, Hou C, Liang X (2022) Synthesis of borophene on quartz towards hydroelectric generators. J Mater Chem A 10:8218–8226. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1TA10855G

Cuxart MG, Seufert K, Chesnyak V, Waqas WA, Robert A, Bocquet ML, Duesberg GS, Sachdev H, Auwärter W (2021) Borophenes made easy. Sci Adv 7:1490. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abk1490

Sutter P, Sutter E (2021) Large-scale layer-by-layer synthesis of borophene on Ru(0001). Chem Mater 33:8838–8843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c03061

Wu R, Eltinge S, Drozdov IK, Gozar A, Zahl P, Sadowski JT, Ismail-Beigi S, Božović I (2022) Micrometre-scale single-crystalline borophene on a square-lattice Cu(100) surface. Nat Chem 14:377–383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-021-00879-9

Zhong C, Wu W, He J, Ding G, Liu Y, Li D, Yang SA, Zhang G (2019) Two-dimensional honeycomb borophene oxide: strong anisotropy and nodal loop transformation. Nanoscale 11:2468–2475. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8nr08729f

Tai G, Xu M, Hou C, Liu R, Liang X, Wu Z (2021) Borophene nanosheets as high-efficiency catalysts for the hydrogen evolution reaction. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c15953

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Geerlings P, De Proft F, Langenaeker W (2003) Conceptual density functional theory. Chem Rev 103:1793–1874. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr990029p

Hohenberg P, Kohn W (1964) Inhomogeneous electron gas. Phys Rev 136:B864–B871. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864

Kiraly B, Liu X, Wang L, Zhang Z, Mannix AJ, Fisher BL, Yakobson BI, Hersam MC, Guisinger NP (2019) Borophene synthesis on Au(111). ACS Nano 13:3816–3822. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.8b09339

Abasi T, Boochani A, Masharian SR (2020) Metallic and intra-band investigation of optical properties for borophene nano-sheet: a DFT study. Int Nano Lett 10:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40089-019-00288-4

Liu Y, Penev ES, Yakobson BI (2013) Probing the synthesis of two-dimensional boron by first-principles computations. Angew Chem Int Ed 52:3156–3159. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201207972

Li L, Schultz JF, Mahapatra S, Liu X, Shaw C, Zhang X, Hersam MC, Jiang N (2021) Angstrom-scale spectroscopic visualization of interfacial interactions in an organic/borophene vertical heterostructure. J Am Chem Soc 143:15624–15634. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c04380

Rahman A, Rahman T, Chowdhury MA, Ekram SB, Uddin K, Islam R, Dong L (2023) Emerging 2D borophene: synthesis, characterization, and sensing applications. Sens. Actuators Phys 359:114468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2023.114468

Zhang H, Li Y, Hou J, Du A, Chen Z (2016) Dirac state in the FeB2 monolayer with graphene-like boron sheet. Nano Lett 16:6124–6129. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b02335

Zhang Z, Yang Y, Penev ES, Yakobson BI (2017) Elasticity, flexibility, and ideal strength of borophenes. Adv Funct Mater 27:1605059. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201605059

Liu X, Wei Z, Balla I, Mannix AJ, Guisinger NP, Luijten E, Hersam MC (2017) Self-assembly of electronically abrupt borophene/organic lateral heterostructures. Sci Adv 3:e1602356. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602356

Borophene-graphene heterostructures | Science Advances, (n.d.). https://www.science.org https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax6444 (accessed July 25, 2024).

Curvature and ionization-induced reversible hydrogen storage in metalized hexagonal B36 | The Journal of Chemical Physics | AIP Publishing, (n.d.). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-abstract/141/19/194306/152538/Curvature-and-ionization-induced-reversible?redirectedFrom=fulltext (accessed September 29, 2023).

Zhang Y, Wu Z-F, Gao P-F, Zhang S-L, Wen Y-H (2016) Could borophene be used as a promising anode material for high-performance lithium ion battery? ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:22175–22181. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b05747

Duinslaeger N, Doni A, Radjenovic J (2023) Impact of supporting electrolyte on electrochemical performance of borophene-functionalized graphene sponge anode and degradation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Water Res 242:120232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120232

Guan X, Kumar P, Li Z, Tran TKA, Chahal S, Lei Z, Huang C-Y, Lin C-H, Huang J-K, Hu L, Chang Y-C, Wang L, Britto JSJ, Panneerselvan L, Chu D, Wu T, Karakoti A, Yi J, Vinu A (2023) Borophene embedded cellulose paper for enhanced photothermal water evaporation and prompt bacterial killing. Adv Sci 10:2205809. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202205809

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. C.P. Ramanarayanan, Vice-Chancellor, DIAT (Pune), for the support. The first author acknowledges, Prof. (Dr.) Uday Annapure, Director, ICT Mumbai Marathwada Campus, Jalna, Maharashtra. The authors are also thoughtful to Ms. Niranjana J.P., Mr. Jigar Patadiya, Ms. Alsha Subash, Ms. Neelaambhigai Mayilswamy and Ms. Mrunal Nannaware for their unwavering technical support throughout this review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Jalna, 431213, Maharashtra, India

Sania Zarkar

Nano Surface Texturing Lab, Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DU), Pune, India

Shruti Gupta & Balasubramanian Kandasubramanian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Sania Zarkar contributed to material preparation, data collection analysis, and article writing. Shruti Gupta contributed to the reviewing and article writing. Balasubramanian Kandasubramanian contributed substantially to conceptualization and discussion and reviewed the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balasubramanian Kandasubramanian .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The submitted article complies with the journal’s ethical guidelines and does not contain the results of studies involving humans and/or animals.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication.

The authors consent to publish the article on acceptance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 187 KB)

Supplementary file2 (pdf 187 kb), supplementary file3 (pdf 193 kb), supplementary file4 (pdf 215 kb), rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zarkar, S., Gupta, S. & Kandasubramanian, B. A critical analysis of emerging trends in borophene synthesis. J Nanopart Res 26 , 207 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-024-06110-3

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2023

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-024-06110-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Borophene synthesis
• 2D materials
• Chemical vapor deposition
• Molecular beam epitaxy
• Exfoliation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Conceptual Theory Art as a Method for Interdisciplinary Research, Hypothesis, and Critical Analysis Both Within and Beyond Traditional Western Social Sciences

10 Pages Posted: 6 Sep 2024

Adam Daley Wilson

Stanford Law School

Date Written: August 01, 2024

This paper researches whether and how Theory Art, an emergent conceptual art form across visual art, music, literature, and other artistic disciplines, might serve as a method for integrating existing methodologies of interdisciplinary research, hypothesis-making, and critical analysis, both in and beyond the traditional social sciences of the West, by creatively blending elements of artistic and philosophical traditions across cultures, thought systems, and time periods, to observe, propose, critique, and preserve human theories, arguments, and narratives, including theories conveyed through spoken-word storytelling. The paper first provides an academic research survey as a foundation to measure the intellectual rigor of Theory Art's emphasis on construction of meaning by the audience-viewer-listener-reader, rather than by the artist-creator alone. The paper then evaluates Theory Art relative to other artistic movements to date. The paper then measures Theory Art in relation to traditional Western social sciences, including economics and other quantitative social sciences, to measure the potential degree and scope of Theory Art's interdisciplinary nature and theoretical foundations. The paper then proposes several observable standards and elements that appear to indicate that Theory Art is a new form of Conceptual Art, including in relation to, and distinct from, traditional Conceptual Art as well as Post-conceptual Art, Post-minimalism, Postmodernism, and Neo-conceptual Art. By integrating a wide survey of relevant cross-cultural researchers and theorists, from multiple societies and time periods, this research paper is a first attempt to analyze Theory Art's substantive elements as an artistic movement. This paper is also a first attempt to measure Theory Art's intellectual and methodological rigor, in order to assess Theory Art as a method for interdisciplinary research, hypothesis-making, and critical analysis of human theories both within and beyond traditional Western social sciences. The paper concludes that Theory Art offers new theory-communication methodologies that have new implications for art, and cultural discourse, not only in Western cultures but all cultures worldwide. Finally, this research paper is intended as a foundation allowing future researchers and scholars to develop hypotheses by which to test not only the rigor of Theory Art itself as an art movement related to Conceptual Art, but also the rigor of any given work that may be made by an artist-creator.

Keywords: Theory Art, Conceptual Art, Art Theory, Art History, Social Sciences, Post-Theory Art, Post-Contemporary Art

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Adam Daley Wilson (Contact Author)

Stanford law school ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, aesthetics & philosophy of art ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Art & Science eJournal

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Visual, Performing & Fine Arts Education eJournal

Art history ejournal.