Analyzing and Synthesizing Findings

1
Analyzing and Synthesizing Findings

• Prof. Dr. Khalid Mahmood
• Department of Library Information Science
• University of the Punjab

2
Read the articles

• completely in each topic together
• Take notes in an organized manner computer
  files, note cards, etc.
• Include all bibliographic info, especially page
  number when quoting!
• Flag like information with same color post-its
  across articles.

3
Summarize

• main purpose (research questions)
• methodology
• qualitative/quantitative
• subjects, controls, treatments
• findings
• relevant details

4
Analyze

• varying definitions of key terms
• methodology used
• size generalizability of subject pool
• innovative methodology
• enough evidence?
• findings consistent with those of similar
  studies?

5
Analyze

• currency lit review shows the latest work done
  in subject area. (last 5 years on average)
• Include older articles if
• landmark study
• only evidence on a topic
• helps explain the evolution of the research

6
Synthesize the Literature

• How does each article relate to your topic and
  purpose?
• Define your argument/thesis.
• Identify major trends or patterns emerging from
  your reading.

7
Synthesize

• Reassemble your notes based on results of
  reading, using organizational aids such as
  post-its, flags, etc.
• Revise original outline of categories
• Create a detailed topic outline
• begin with your argument or claim
• present evidence from articles researched that
  proves your claim
• Do not string together a summary of articles. The
  outline is topic driven.

8
Sample topic outlinePsychological Aspects of
Organ Donation Individual and Next-of-Kin
Donation Decisions

• IV. Methodological issues and directions for
  future research
• A. Improvement in attitude measures and
  measurement strategy.
• B. Greater differentiation by type of
  donation.
• C. Stronger theoretical emphasis.
• D. Greater interdisciplinary focus.
• V. Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
• A. Summary of points I-IV.
• B. Need well-developed theoretical models
  of attitudes and decision making.
• C. Current survey data limited in scope and
  application points to need for more
  sophisticated research in the future.
• D. Need more use of sophisticated data
  analytic techniques.
• E. Conclusion Psychology can draw from
  various subdisciplines for an understanding of
  donation decisions so intervention strategies can
  be identifiable. Desperately need to increase the
  available supply of donor organs.

• I. Introduction
• A. Establish importance of topic (cite
  statistics on scarcity of organs).
• B. Delimit the review to psychological
  components of decisions.
• C. Describe organization of the paper,
  indicating that the remaining topics in the
  outline will be discussed.
• II. Individual decisions regarding posthumous
  organ donation
• A. Beliefs about organ donation
• B. Attitudes toward donating
• C. Stated willingness to donate
• D. Summary of research on individual
  decisions
• III. Next-of-kin consent decisions
• A. Beliefs about donating others organs.
• B. Attitudes toward next-of-kin donations.
• C. Summary of research on next-of-kin
  consent decisions

9
Synthesize

• Note on your topic outline relationships among
  studies which researchers, what page, etc.
  support each point?
• Note consistency of results from study to study.
• Note discrepancies among studies and provide
  possible explanations such as dates of studies,
  different methodologies.

10
Synthesize

• Note landmark studies and if replicated.
• Note how individual studies help illustrate or
  advance theoretical notions.
• Note gaps or areas needing more research.
• Make sure your detailed outline follows a logical
  sequence of topics and subtopics. This will give
  your literature review the coherence it needs.

11
Some problems could be

• Lacking organization and structure
• Lacking focus, unity and coherence
• Being repetitive and verbose
• Failing to cite influential papers
• Failing to keep up with recent developments
• Failing to critically evaluate cited papers
• Citing irrelevant or trivial references
• Depending too much on secondary sources