Synthesis is the combination of findings from several studies into an account none of them gives alone — not a summary of each in turn, but a claim about what they say together. The methods range widely: statistical meta-analysis, which pools effect estimates and has developed procedures for doing so; and the various interpretive approaches to combining qualitative work, which argue among themselves about whether findings from different studies can legitimately be combined at all, given that each was produced inside its own frame. Guidance from particular methodological communities applies to particular methods rather than to the word, so the difference between pooling numbers and interpreting accounts is the thing to hold on to.
Why this entry carries no source list. This lexicon cites an official primary source wherever one exists, and says so plainly where none does. No body governs this term. There is no standards organisation for it, no register, and no text whose authors could claim to have settled its meaning. Methods literature describes practice and argues about it; a citation to one author would dress a position in a live argument as a rule, which would mislead more than silence does. What follows is the convention as it is actually used, with the disagreements named rather than smoothed over.
Combining ideas from multiple sources into something new — the skill that separates an analytical literature review from a descriptive one.
Also defined as
Combining separate sources into a unified argument that reveals a pattern or position none of the sources states individually — the core move of a literature review.