How do you synthesise literature with a synthesis matrix?

Direct answer: Synthesis of literature means combining ideas from several sources to make a point of your own. Sheffield treats it as sorting sources by where they match and where they part ways (University of Sheffield, n.d.), and Oregon adds that good synthesis shows how sources converse with each other (University of Oregon Libraries, n.d.).

The University of Sheffield (n.d.) states: "Synthesising involves grouping sources based on similarities and differences." The groupings can follow "theory, ideas, research design, findings, interpretations, limitations and other criteria". For each group, Sheffield suggests asking whether the authors agree, whether they disagree, whether they agree on one point but not another, and whether one author develops an idea further. Those four questions turn a pile of notes into relationships.

Webster and Watson (2002) made the same point for the information systems field in 2002. In their words, "A literature review is concept-centric. Thus, concepts determine the organizing framework of a review" (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xvi). The unit of organisation is the idea, and authors appear as evidence for it. Medaille (2026) gives the same advice to researchers today: "Authors should avoid organizing their literature review as a list of summaries (e.g., Author A found this, Author B wrote this, Author C studied this, etc.)" (Medaille, 2026, p. 2). For the wider task around this skill, our guide to how to write a literature review covers sources, structure and common mistakes.

Direct answer: A summary reports what each source says, one source after another. A synthesis organises the same sources around ideas and shows how they connect. Webster and Watson (2002, p. xvi) warn that an author-centric review "essentially present[s] a summary of the relevant articles. This method fails to synthesize the literature."

The University of Oregon Libraries (n.d.) lists what synthesis is not: critiquing a single source, simply comparing and contrasting, a series of summaries, or direct quotes without your own voice. It is also the place where readers see where you add your own new ideas. In its four student examples, only the one that used five sources, showed how they relate and made its own point counted as good synthesis.

Webster and Watson (2002, Table 1) contrast the two layouts in compact form. The concept-centric version reads "Concept X [author A, author B]", and the author-centric version reads "Author A: concept X, concept Y". If your draft paragraphs begin with author names followed by what they did, you are probably still summarising.

Direct answer: A literature review is the whole piece of writing that surveys published work on a topic. Synthesis is the thinking move inside it, the grouping and comparing that stops the review reading as a list. A review without synthesis is a set of summaries, and synthesis is what marks a review as analytical.

The two terms overlap because many assignments ask for a review but assess the synthesis. Johns Hopkins University Libraries (n.d.) describe the aim as weaving sources together "to create a narrative". The review is the narrative, and the synthesis is the technique that produces it. Our walkthrough of an annotated literature review example shows the technique paragraph by paragraph.

A related format sits close by. An annotated bibliography deliberately treats each source separately, so it is a valid place for summary. A review is where summary has to give way to comparison.

Direct answer: Build the matrix in three steps. First fill each row with one source. Then read down the columns to spot similarities, differences, gaps and themes. Then write up. The University of the Sunshine Coast Library (n.d.) uses exactly this order and tells you to mark verbatim words with quotation marks.

Rows can be sources and columns can be themes, which is the Sunshine Coast layout. Central Michigan University Libraries (n.d.) reverse it, putting main ideas in rows and sources in columns. Both work, so choose the orientation that you find easier to read. The Sunshine Coast guide suggests these column headings as a starting template:

• citation information and URL
• a place for your own analysis
• topic or keywords
• design or methodology
• participants and location
• data collection
• main findings
• limitations

Central Michigan University Libraries (n.d.) advise that once the chart is complete, you should review your notes "to identify common themes, areas of disagreement, or gaps in the literature". Webster and Watson (2002, p. xvii) recommend compiling the matrix "as you read each article", an idea they adapted from earlier work, and then synthesising "by discussing each identified concept". They also suggest an optional extra dimension for the unit of analysis, such as organisational, group or individual, because it makes it easier to notice when a concept strays outside its domain.

An outline for the written review follows from the matrix. Each theme column becomes a section or a paragraph block. Within each block, order the sources by the relationship they have: building on one another, challenging one another, identifying a gap, or filling one (University of Sheffield, n.d.). Our short guide to grey literature helps if some of your rows will hold reports and theses rather than journal articles.

Direct answer: An example is a matrix row set plus the sentence it yields. The table below uses invented sources, labelled Study A to Study C, on a made-up question about study habits, so you can see the mechanics without borrowing anyone's real findings. The synthesis column is where your interpretation sits (University of Sheffield, n.d.).

Reading down Theme 1 gives a synthesised paragraph almost directly. Two sources agree, one disagrees, and the Sample column offers a possible reason for the disagreement. The paragraph might read: "Evidence that spaced practice improves recall comes mainly from undergraduate samples (Studies A and B), while the one postgraduate study found no difference (Study C), which suggests that the effect may depend on the population studied."

Notice what the sentence does that a summary cannot. It makes a claim, uses three sources as evidence, names a pattern and offers a reason for the exception. The Sheffield checklist asks a final question worth applying here: is one source synthesised or otherwise used more than the others? If one row dominates your paragraphs, the matrix has probably become a list again.

Direct answer: In research writing, synthesis shows up as topic sentences about ideas, paragraphs that compare two or more studies, and an explicit statement of what the comparison establishes. The University of Oregon Libraries (n.d.) say the work "can be messy", so expect to reorganise themes several times before the structure settles.

The University of Oregon Libraries (n.d.) allow several sorting principles: by theme or concept, chronologically, or by methodology. The University of Sheffield (n.d.) links sources that build on one another to a chronological order, sources that challenge one another to a debate, and sources that reveal a gap to an account that ends on what is missing. Choose the order that fits your research question.

Write each paragraph from a column of the matrix. Open with the claim, bring in the sources that bear on it, mark the agreements and disagreements, and close with what your reader should take from the comparison. If you want an expert to read your matrix and flag where it still reads as a list, academic mentoring at MAAS offers that kind of feedback, while the reading and writing stay yours.