Synthesis of Empirical Research
In this section you present a synthesis of the existing empirical literature on the topic. “Empirical” refers to research studies based on data. A synthesis is much more than a narrative listing and explanation of a set of disparate studies. It is a coherent statement about the state of empirical knowledge on the topic. Stated differently, a narrative listing (bad) answers the question “What have some studies about this topic found?” while a synthesis (good) explains “What do we know about this topic based on the existing research? A synthesis includes what we know, but also how we know it, how well we know it, what we don’t know, and how we know what we know. In order to write a successful synthesis, you must become an expert before you begin writing in order to have full intellectual mastery and narrative command of the of the topic.
A synthesis is closer to a story (of meaning and significance) than a report (on some past studies). The cardinal sin of writing a literature review is to produce something that reads like a laundry list of past work with no organization or logical coherence. One way to avoid this laundry list is to structure your synthesis around ideas, not the sources themselves. Once you are an expert that is fully conversant in the topic, draft a “proto-synthesis” about the state of knowledge on the topic as if you were explaining it in conversation with a friend or colleague. In this first iteration, don’t worry about who said what in which study, and avoid using quotations from the sources. Just tell the story so that someone who knows little about the topic would understand.
Only after you can “tell the story” in a coherent and convincing manner should you go back and add in all the relevant details about past research findings, etc. So, for instance, you wouldn’t want structure this section with a paragraph for each source. Instead, you would present the meaning of the literature in a logically coherent manner, and use the sources to support your story. Some sources may require several sentences or even a short paragraph, other may just receive a parenthetical citation. Another way to ensure that you are structuring your synthesis around ideas (not just sources) is to analyze how often you are starting paragraphs/sections with statements about specific studies (“Researcher X found…”) versus statements about the meaning and significance (“Past research suggests that….”). Of course, we want to start with latter, cite some sources supporting that statement, and only then get into the details of some specific studies to justify and validate the statement.
Synthesis of Theoretical Research
This section is very similar in form and approach to the Synthesis of Empirical Research described above. However, theoretical literature is less about “what the research shows” and more about “how we can understand what research has found.” In that sense, it is more subjective because what past research means will depend on the positionality of the author…their beliefs, experiences, ideology, etc. It is still important to give the reader a synthesis of the range of different theoretical frameworks related to the topic, but it is also important to make it clear which framework (or combination of frameworks) you feel are the most valid and provide the most explanatory power. So, in this section, you might spend some time on sharing the range of ways to understand the topic, but quickly narrow in on the framework that you feel is the best, and then spend plenty of time explaining and justifying that position.
Identifying and/or recognizing the theoretical ideas behind research can be difficult. The reason for this is that academic writing does not always explicitly identify the theoretical ideas that are used to make meaning of it. Some articles and book chapters have a separate “Theoretical Framework” section where they discuss matters of perspective and interpretation, but others will not, and the reader (you!) is then required examine the narrative and/or citations in other sections of the work to establish the theoretical orientation of the author. Still others will present data and interpretation with little or no reference to the theoretical ideas framing the work (a bit more on this below.). This means that as you build your knowledge of the theoretical frameworks around your topic of interest, you will need to navigate this inconsistency in presentation. It also means that the articles you find that do explicitly identify a theoretical framework may be especially valuable in the early stages of your learning process.
The lack of clear, consistent theoretical explication in academic research is a vestige of history, of what is sometimes called “logical positivism.” There was a time when academics, researchers, and scientists believed that they could present the products of research (data and interpretation) such that the research would “speak for itself” (by abandoning preconceived notions, eliminating personal bias, being as objective as possible, etc.). But, for a variety of reasons that cannot be adequately addressed here, we know that this is not possible. Nevertheless, we often encounter research, even in a decidedly social science like education, that aspires to this goal of (impossible) objectivity in which data or theory speak for themselves. Unfortunately, when academics pretend that they have no ideological framing, the consequence is not what was intended (i.e. objective fact, etc.) but rather the reader’s inability to ascribe any meaning to the authors’ work. This, of course, is why it is necessary (and required) for you to analyze and position yourself within a theoretical orientation for this assignment.
Although theoretical frameworks are wrapped up in the identity of the author, it is not necessary (or artful) to be pedantic about is. That is, you don’t need to say things like “I ascribe to this theoretical framework because I am like this or believe that.” As outlined above, it is preferable to 1) provide some brief, initial context around the different ways to frame knowledge around your topic and 2) then spend most of your effort in this section justifying and validating the framework that you might use and why this is the best framework that provides the most explanatory power. It will be understood that the framework you present in the most detail is your primary reference point.
Sources to be synthesized:
1) Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2004). Research-Based Character Education. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 72–85.
2) McGrath, R. E. (2022). Some Key Issues in the Evaluation of Character Education. Journal of Education (Boston, Mass.), 202(2), 181–184.
3) Lewis, S. V., Robinson, E. H., III, & Grant Hayes, B. (2011). Implementing an Authentic Character Education Curriculum. Childhood Education,
