this research synthesis

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

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

• Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom The Observer Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

Synthesizing Research

• Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

When combining another author’s ideas with your own, we have talked about how using the can help make sure your points are being adequately argued (if you have not read our handout on the  evidence cycle,  check it out!). Synthesis takes assertions (statements that describe your claim), evidence (facts and proof from outside sources), and commentary (your connections to why the evidence supports your claim), and blends these processes together to make a cohesive paragraph.

In other words, synthesis encompasses several aspects:

• It is the process of integrating support from more than one source for one idea/argument while also identifying how sources are related to each other and to your main idea.
• It is an acknowledgment of how the source material from several sources address the same question/research topic.
• It is the identification of how important factors (assumptions, interpretations of results, theories, hypothesis, speculations, etc.) relate between separate sources.

TIP: It’s a fruit smoothie!

Think of synthesis as a fruit smoothie that you are creating in your paper. You will have unique parts and flavors in your writing that you will need to blend together to make one tasty, unified drink!

Why Synthesis is Important

• Synthesis integrates information from multiple sources, which shows that you have done the necessary research to engage with a topic more fully.
• Research involves incorporating many sources to understand and/or answer a research question, and discovering these connections between the sources helps you better analyze and understand the conversations surrounding your topic.
• Successful synthesis creates links between your ideas helping your paper “flow” and connect better.
• Synthesis prevents your papers from looking like a list of copied and pasted sources from various authors.
• Synthesis is a higher order process in writing—this is the area where you as a writer get to shine and show your audience your reasoning.

Types of Synthesis

Demonstrates how two or more sources agree with one another.

The collaborative nature of writing tutorials has been discussed by scholars like Andrea Lunsford (1991) and Stephen North (1984). In these essays, they explore the usefulness and the complexities of collaboration between tutors and students in writing center contexts.

Demonstrates how two or more sources support a main point in different ways.

While some scholars like Berlin (1987) have primarily placed their focus on the histories of large, famous universities, other scholars like Yahner and Murdick (1991) have found value in connecting their local histories to contrast or highlight trends found in bigger-name universities.

Accumulation

Demonstrates how one source builds on the idea of another.

Although North’s (1984) essay is fundamental to many writing centers today, Lunsford (1991) takes his ideas a step further by identifying different writing center models and also expanding North’s ideas on how writing centers can help students become better writers.

Demonstrates how one source discusses the effects of another source’s ideas.

While Healy (2001) notes the concerns of having primarily email appointments in writing centers, he also notes that constraints like funding, resources, and time affect how online resources are formed. For writing centers, email is the most economical and practical option for those wanting to offer online services but cannot dedicate the time or money to other online tutoring methods. As a result, in Neaderheiser and Wolfe’s (2009) reveals that of all the online options available in higher education, over 91% of institutions utilize online tutoring through email, meaning these constraints significantly affect the types of services writing centers offer.

Discussing Specific Source Ideas/Arguments

To debate with clarity and precision, you may need to incorporate a quote into your statement. Using can help you to thoroughly introduce your quotes so that they fit in to your paragraph and your argument. Remember that you need to use the to bridge between your ideas and outside source material.

Berlin, J. (1987).  Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985 . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Boquet, E.H. (2001). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre- to open admissions. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.),  The Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 42-60). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carino, P. (1995). Early writing centers: Toward a history.  The Writing Center Journal ,  15 (2), 103-15.

Healy, D. (2001). From place to space: Perceptual and administrative issues in the online writing center. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.), T he Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 541-554). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of the writing center.  The Writing Center Journal ,  12 (1), 310-75.

Neaderheiser, S. & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers.  The Writing Center Journal .  29 (1), 49-75.

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center.  College English ,  45 (5), 433-446.

Yahner, W. & Murdick, W. (1991). The evolution of a writing center: 1972-1990.  Writing Center Journal ,  11 (2), 13-28.

A Guide to Evidence Synthesis: What is Evidence Synthesis?

• Meet Our Team
• Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Develop a Protocol
• 1. Draft your Research Question
• 2. Select Databases
• 3. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 4. Write a Search Strategy
• 5. Register a Protocol
• 6. Translate Search Strategies
• 7. Citation Management
• 8. Article Screening
• 9. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 10. Data Extraction
• 11. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources

What are Evidence Syntheses?

What are evidence syntheses.

According to the Royal Society, 'evidence synthesis' refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. They generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question.  Their aim is to identify and synthesize all  of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Evidence syntheses are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making, as well as to identify gaps in the research. Evidence syntheses may also include a meta-analysis, a more quantitative process of synthesizing and visualizing data retrieved from various studies. 

Evidence syntheses are much more time-intensive than traditional literature reviews and require a multi-person research team. See this PredicTER tool to get a sense of a systematic review timeline (one type of evidence synthesis). Before embarking on an evidence synthesis, it's important to clearly identify your reasons for conducting one. For a list of types of evidence synthesis projects, see the next tab.

How Does a Traditional Literature Review Differ From an Evidence Synthesis?

How does a systematic review differ from a traditional literature review.

One commonly used form of evidence synthesis is a systematic review.  This table compares a traditional literature review with a systematic review.

Video: Reproducibility and transparent methods (Video 3:25)

Reporting Standards

There are some reporting standards for evidence syntheses. These can serve as guidelines for protocol and manuscript preparation and journals may require that these standards are followed for the review type that is being employed (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, etc). ​

• PRISMA checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• PRISMA-P Standards An updated version of the original PRISMA standards for protocol development.
• PRISMA - ScR Reporting guidelines for scoping reviews and evidence maps
• PRISMA-IPD Standards Extension of the original PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data.
• EQUATOR Network The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. They provide a list of various standards for reporting in systematic reviews.

Video: Guidelines and reporting standards

PRISMA Flow Diagram

The  PRISMA  flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of an evidence synthesis. It maps the search (number of records identified), screening (number of records included and excluded), and selection (reasons for exclusion).  Many evidence syntheses include a PRISMA flow diagram in the published manuscript.

See below for resources to help you generate your own PRISMA flow diagram.

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Tool
• PRISMA Flow Diagram Word Template
• << Previous: Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• Next: Types of Evidence Synthesis >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 2:56 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Systematic reviews & evidence synthesis methods.

• Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 1. Develop a Protocol
• 2. Draft your Research Question
• 3. Select Databases
• 4. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 5. Write a Search Strategy
• 6. Register a Protocol
• 7. Translate Search Strategies
• 8. Citation Management
• 9. Article Screening
• 10. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 11. Data Extraction
• 12. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources

What are Evidence Syntheses?

According to the Royal Society, 'evidence synthesis' refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. They generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question. Their aim is to identify and synthesize all of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Evidence syntheses are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making, as well as to identify gaps in the research. Evidence syntheses may also include a meta-analysis, a more quantitative process of synthesizing and visualizing data retrieved from various studies.

Evidence syntheses are much more time-intensive than traditional literature reviews and require a multi-person research team. See this PredicTER tool to get a sense of a systematic review timeline (one type of evidence synthesis). Before embarking on an evidence synthesis, it's important to clearly identify your reasons for conducting one. For a list of types of evidence synthesis projects, see the Types of Evidence Synthesis tab.

How Does a Traditional Literature Review Differ From an Evidence Synthesis?

One commonly used form of evidence synthesis is a systematic review. This table compares a traditional literature review with a systematic review.

Video: Reproducibility and transparent methods (Video 3:25)

Reporting Standards

There are some reporting standards for evidence syntheses. These can serve as guidelines for protocol and manuscript preparation and journals may require that these standards are followed for the review type that is being employed (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, etc).​

• PRISMA checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• PRISMA-P Standards An updated version of the original PRISMA standards for protocol development.
• PRISMA - ScR Reporting guidelines for scoping reviews and evidence maps
• PRISMA-IPD Standards Extension of the original PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data.
• EQUATOR Network The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. They provide a list of various standards for reporting in systematic reviews.

Video: Guidelines and reporting standards

PRISMA Flow Diagram

The PRISMA flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of an evidence synthesis. It maps the search (number of records identified), screening (number of records included and excluded), and selection (reasons for exclusion). Many evidence syntheses include a PRISMA flow diagram in the published manuscript.

See below for resources to help you generate your own PRISMA flow diagram.

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Tool
• PRISMA Flow Diagram Word Template
• << Previous: Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• Next: Types of Evidence Synthesis >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 7:04 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/evidence-synthesis

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

• The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis

In this Book

• Jeffrey C. Valentine, Larry V. Hedges, Harris Cooper
• Published by: Russell Sage Foundation

Table of Contents

• Title Page, Copyright
• About the Authors
• PART I. Introduction
• Research Synthesis as a Scientific Process
• Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine
• PART II. Formulating a Problem
• Hypotheses and Problems in Research Synthesis
• Harris Cooper
• Statistical Considerations
• Larry V. Hedges
• PART III. Searching The Literature
• Scientific Communication and Literature Retrieval
• Howard D. White
• Searching Bibliographic Databases
• Julie Glanville
• Retrieving Grey Literature, Information, and Data in the Digital Age
• Dean Giustini
• pp. 101-126
• PART IV. Coding The Literature
• Incorporating Judgments About Study Quality into Research Syntheses
• Jeffrey C. Valentine
• pp. 129-140
• Identifying Potentially Interesting Variables and Analysis Opportunities
• Mark W. Lipsey
• pp. 141-152
• Systematic Coding for Research Synthesis
• David B. Wilson
• pp. 153-172
• Evaluating Coding Decisions
• Jack L. Vevea, Nicole A. M. Zelinsky, and Robert G. Orwin
• pp. 173-204
• PART V. Statistically Describing and Combining Study Outcomes
• Effect Sizes for Meta-Analysis
• Michael Borenstein and Larry V. Hedges
• pp. 207-244
• Statistically Analyzing Effect Sizes: Fixed- and Random-Effects Models
• Spyros Konstantopoulos and Larry V. Hedges
• pp. 245-280
• Stochastically Dependent Effect Sizes
• pp. 281-298
• Bayesian Meta-Analysis
• Rebecca M. Turner and Julian P. T. Higgins
• pp. 299-314
• Correcting for the Distorting Effects of Study Artifacts in Meta-Analysis and Second Order Meta-Analysis
• Frank L. Schmidt, Huy Le, and In-Sue Oh
• pp. 315-338
• Model-Based Meta-Analysis and Related Approaches
• Betsy Jane Becker and Ariel M. Aloe
• pp. 339-364
• PART VI. Data Diagnostics
• Missing Data in Meta-Analysis
• Terri D. Pigott
• pp. 367-382
• Publication Bias
• Jack L. Vevea, Kathleen Coburn, and Alexander Sutton
• pp. 383-430
• PART VII. Data Interpretation
• Interpreting Effect Sizes
• Jeffrey C. Valentine, Ariel M. Aloe, and Sandra Jo Wilson
• pp. 433-452
• Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis
• Michael Borenstein
• pp. 453-468
• PART VIII. Summary
• Transparent Reporting: Registrations, Protocols, and Final Reports
• Evan Mayo-Wilson and Sean Grant
• pp. 471-488
• Threats to the Validity of Generalized Inferences from Research Syntheses
• Georg E. Matt and Thomas D. Cook
• pp. 489-516
• Potentials and Limitations of Research Synthesis
• pp. 517-526
• pp. 527-538
• pp. 539-556

Additional Information

Project muse mission.

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Open access

BMC Biology

4655 Accesses

3 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

ISSN: 1741-7007

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Synthesizing Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

When you look for areas where your sources agree or disagree and try to draw broader conclusions about your topic based on what your sources say, you are engaging in synthesis. Writing a research paper usually requires synthesizing the available sources in order to provide new insight or a different perspective into your particular topic (as opposed to simply restating what each individual source says about your research topic).

Note that synthesizing is not the same as summarizing.  

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.

There are two types of syntheses: explanatory syntheses and argumentative syntheses . Explanatory syntheses seek to bring sources together to explain a perspective and the reasoning behind it. Argumentative syntheses seek to bring sources together to make an argument. Both types of synthesis involve looking for relationships between sources and drawing conclusions.

In order to successfully synthesize your sources, you might begin by grouping your sources by topic and looking for connections. For example, if you were researching the pros and cons of encouraging healthy eating in children, you would want to separate your sources to find which ones agree with each other and which ones disagree.

After you have a good idea of what your sources are saying, you want to construct your body paragraphs in a way that acknowledges different sources and highlights where you can draw new conclusions.

As you continue synthesizing, here are a few points to remember:

• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Example Syntheses

Below are two examples of synthesis: one where synthesis is NOT utilized well, and one where it is.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for KidsHealth , encourages parents to be role models for their children by not dieting or vocalizing concerns about their body image. The first popular diet began in 1863. William Banting named it the “Banting” diet after himself, and it consisted of eating fruits, vegetables, meat, and dry wine. Despite the fact that dieting has been around for over a hundred and fifty years, parents should not diet because it hinders children’s understanding of healthy eating.

In this sample paragraph, the paragraph begins with one idea then drastically shifts to another. Rather than comparing the sources, the author simply describes their content. This leads the paragraph to veer in an different direction at the end, and it prevents the paragraph from expressing any strong arguments or conclusions.

An example of a stronger synthesis can be found below.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Different scientists and educators have different strategies for promoting a well-rounded diet while still encouraging body positivity in children. David R. Just and Joseph Price suggest in their article “Using Incentives to Encourage Healthy Eating in Children” that children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables if they are given a reward (855-856). Similarly, Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for Kids Health , encourages parents to be role models for their children. She states that “parents who are always dieting or complaining about their bodies may foster these same negative feelings in their kids. Try to keep a positive approach about food” (Ben-Joseph). Martha J. Nepper and Weiwen Chai support Ben-Joseph’s suggestions in their article “Parents’ Barriers and Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating among School-age Children.” Nepper and Chai note, “Parents felt that patience, consistency, educating themselves on proper nutrition, and having more healthy foods available in the home were important strategies when developing healthy eating habits for their children.” By following some of these ideas, parents can help their children develop healthy eating habits while still maintaining body positivity.

In this example, the author puts different sources in conversation with one another. Rather than simply describing the content of the sources in order, the author uses transitions (like "similarly") and makes the relationship between the sources evident.

Literature Review Basics

• What is a Literature Review?
• Synthesizing Research
• Using Research & Synthesis Tables
• Additional Resources

Synthesis: What is it?

First, let's be perfectly clear about what synthesizing your research isn't :

• - It isn't  just summarizing the material you read
• - It isn't  generating a collection of annotations or comments (like an annotated bibliography)
• - It isn't  compiling a report on every single thing ever written in relation to your topic

When you  synthesize  your research, your job is to help your reader understand the current state of the conversation on your topic, relative to your research question.  That may include doing the following:

• - Selecting and using representative work on the topic
• - Identifying and discussing trends in published data or results
• - Identifying and explaining the impact of common features (study populations, interventions, etc.) that appear frequently in the literature
• - Explaining controversies, disputes, or central issues in the literature that are relevant to your research question
• - Identifying gaps in the literature, where more research is needed
• - Establishing the discussion to which your own research contributes and demonstrating the value of your contribution

Essentially, you're telling your reader where they are (and where you are) in the scholarly conversation about your project.

Synthesis: How do I do it?

Synthesis, step by step.

This is what you need to do  before  you write your review.

• Identify and clearly describe your research question (you may find the Formulating PICOT Questions table at  the Additional Resources tab helpful).
• Collect sources relevant to your research question.
• Organize and describe the sources you've found -- your job is to identify what  types  of sources you've collected (reviews, clinical trials, etc.), identify their  purpose  (what are they measuring, testing, or trying to discover?), determine the  level of evidence  they represent (see the Levels of Evidence table at the Additional Resources tab ), and briefly explain their  major findings . Use a Research Table to document this step.
• Study the information you've put in your Research Table and examine your collected sources, looking for  similarities  and  differences . Pay particular attention to  populations ,   methods  (especially relative to levels of evidence), and  findings .
• Analyze what you learn in (4) using a tool like a Synthesis Table. Your goal is to identify relevant themes, trends, gaps, and issues in the research.  Your literature review will collect the results of this analysis and explain them in relation to your research question.

Analysis tips

• - Sometimes, what you  don't  find in the literature is as important as what you do find -- look for questions that the existing research hasn't answered yet.
• - If any of the sources you've collected refer to or respond to each other, keep an eye on how they're related -- it may provide a clue as to whether or not study results have been successfully replicated.
• - Sorting your collected sources by level of evidence can provide valuable insight into how a particular topic has been covered, and it may help you to identify gaps worth addressing in your own work.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Using Research & Synthesis Tables >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:06 PM
• URL: https://usi.libguides.com/literature-review-basics

Synthesis and Making Connections for Strong Analysis

by acburton | Apr 25, 2024 | Resources for Students , Writing Resources

If Russian Dolls Aren’t For You, Here Are a Few Other Ways to Think About Synthesis

‘Joining the Conversation’: When we perform synthesis in our writing and engage with making connections, we are joining a wider conversation. We are seeing what has already been said about the topic, seeking out what these many perspectives and viewpoints have in common and/or how they differ, and then interpreting these relationships to form our own input to the conversation. We must directly engage with our sources to draw insightful conclusions and share what we think as a result. ‘Building the Bridge’: Synthesis is building the bridge between your sources for the reader. To synthesize or make connections, we must figure out how we get from one source to the other. In other words, we cannot present our sources in isolation (this wouldn’t help create any new meaning). Instead, we need to build the bridge between source A and source B so that our readers can understand what the two, together, suggest about our understanding of a topic. Then, we build a bridge from this new understanding to source C and source D, and so on.

Start Synthesizing

So you want to synthesize information? To start, review the existing literature on your selected topic. When searching for resources, aim to collect a number from various authors, subjects, and settings to broaden your understanding of the material – giving yourself more information to consider in the next stage. Ultimately, you’ll want to find the main idea presented in each source, as well as how the author supports or argues against it, as well as why.

• Compare and Contrast

Compare and contrast the main idea found in each source reviewed. What does each perspective have in common? What are their differences? Begin to consider how these sources  ‘fit together’ (or, in other words, build the bridge!). During this stage, you may find that some of your collected resources don’t have as much depth or go into as much detail as you’d like. That’s okay, but you’ll want to consider what effect this might have on your ability to draw a meaningful conclusion once synthesized with other source material.

• Ask, What’s the Significance?

By evaluating the quality and significance of each source, you can begin to consider its relevance within the context of your research or in relation to your topic. How does the relationship of one source to another further your understanding of the topic you are focusing on? What is the larger impact of what is being said or argued?

• Infer the Relationship and Draw Conclusions

By this point, you have gone through the existing literature surrounding your subject and compared/contrasted it, finding the main idea of each, as well as their intended purpose, possible criticisms, strengths, and weaknesses. Finally, you have related these ideas to your own research. Although you may have found that your sources agree or disagree on minor (or major) key details, it is the writer’s job to seek the relationship between these sources, put them in conversation together, and draw meaning through analysis. In some cases, you’ll be asked to offer your own perspective or argumentation. Consider, how might you add to the existing conversation?

Synthesis is all about meaningful connections, it is not summarizing sources side by side. Before you make larger claims about a topic, make sure you build those bridges between the sources you found through research. Nestle them together. Move beyond summary. Then, you can create an interesting and compelling argument. For additional help, make an appointment with the Writing Center!

Works Cited

Kourakos, Evanthia J. “The Matryoshka-Doll Effect.”  Medium , Azure’s Whereabouts, 22 Apr. 2016,  medium.com/azure-s- whereabouts/the-matryoshka- doll-effect-be9d2760d2e2 .Acces sed 25 Apr. 2024.

“Libguides: English Research: Synthesizing Information.”  Synthesizing Information – English Research – LibGuides at Aultman Health Sciences Library ,  aultman.libguides.com/c.php?g= 545558&p=7711993 . Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.

• Borrow, Renew, Request How to borrow materials, request pdf scans, and interlibrary loans .
• Study Spaces Areas for individual and group study and how to reserve them.
• Course Reserves How to access course-related materials reserved by faculty for their students.
• Services for Faculty and Instructors A list of services offered to faculty and instructors at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
• Library Instruction Request library instruction for your course or register for a workshop.
• Suggest a Purchase Suggest new materials that support teaching, study, or research.
• Other Services Apply for a research carrel or reserve our lactation room.
• Loanable Technology Cables, adaptors, audio and video equipment, and other devices
• Collections An overview of the various library collections.
• Online Databases Search across 100s of library databases.
• Journals Search journals by title or subject.
• Research Guides Guides for subjects, select courses, and general information.
• OneSearch Finds books and other materials in the UH Manoa Library's collection.
• Scholarly Communication Learn about scholarly communication, open access, and our institutional repositories ScholarSpace , eVols , and the UH System Repository .
• Ask a Librarian Get help by email, online form, or phone.
• FAQ Frequently asked questions.
• Accessibility and Disability Information about accessibility and disability.
• Subject Librarians Find a librarian for a specific subject.
• Copyright Help Links to resources about copyright.
• Technology in the Library Wireless access, scanning, printing.
• English 100 Students The starting point for English 100 research.
• Request a Research Appointment Contact us to schedule an in-person appointment.
• Office and Department Contacts View a list of the departments at the library.
• Jobs at the Library Faculty, staff, and student job opportunities.
• Staff Directory Contact information for staff at the library.
• Exhibits Current and past exhibits at the library.
• Support the Library Find out how you can support the library.
• Our Library Annual reports, mission, values, history, and policies.
• Visiting Hours, directions, floor plans
• News, Blogs & Events News, blogs & events from the library.

Evidence Synthesis

• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Develop a Protocol
• 1. Draft your Research Question
• 2. Select Databases
• 3. Select Gray Literature Sources
• 4. Write a Search Strategy
• 5. Register a Protocol
• 6. Translating Search Strategies
• 7. Citation Management
• 8. Article Screening
• 9. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 10. Data Extraction
• 11. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources
• Schedule a Consultation
• Continuing Education

Professional Development

• Free Training
• Fee-Based Courses
• Evidence Synthesis Institute (ESI) Fully funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), this institute is at no cost for accepted applicants. The Institute is aimed at library staff supporting evidence syntheses in topics outside of the health sciences.
• Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis A free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) offered by John Hopkins designed to introduce methods to perform systematic reviews and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
• The Art and Science of Searching in Systematic Reviews The free self-paced course by the National University of Singapore which consists of pre-recorded lecture and demonstration videos with accompanying training materials.
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Campbell Collaboration Online Course The course provides an introduction to the methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. It is appropriate for graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, faculty, and senior researchers in institutions of higher education. It is geared for participants who have already completed introductory graduate level training in research methodology and statistics.
• The Pieces of Systematic Review with Margaret Foster Webinar Series An archived collection of 6 recorded webinars in which Margaret Foster draws from her expertise to discuss issues, provide examples, and demonstrate the steps of her Pieces process, as described in her book Assembling the Pieces of Systematic Review: A Guide for Librarians.
• Systematic review searching: an overview of best practices & real world experiences In this recorded webinar, the presenter provided a comprehensive overview of the systematic review search process. Including best practices in systematic searching, translating clinical questions into PICO search statements, database selection, PRESS peer review, PRISMA-S search reporting, and citation management. A brief overview of available text-mining tools designed to help with the systematic review search process were also provided.
• Evidence Synthesis Institute (ESI) Pressbook Open resource materials used during The Evidence Synthesis Institute training that is funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
• Systematic Review Services Specialization Certificate from MLA The Medical Library Association (MLA) offers a Level 1 and Level II Systematic Review Services Specialization Series.
• Systematic Reviews Workshop A systematic reviews workshop offered by the University of Michigan Library that is designed to teach librarians how to plan, conduct, and communicate the results of a systematic review.
• << Previous: Schedule a Consultation
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 12:54 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/es

An equal opportunity/affirmative action institution . Use of this site implies consent with our Usage Policy .

Terms of Use | UH System | UH Mānoa

• Research Guides
• Learning Skills
• Teaching Resources
• Study Spaces
• Ask A Librarian
• Interlibrary Loan
• Library Faculty/Staff (Internal)

2550 McCarthy Mall Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA 808-956-7214 (Reference) 808-956-7203 (Circulation)

Library Digital Collections Disclaimer and Copyright information

© University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Library

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access

Nature Synthesis

5040 Accesses

1672 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computational chemistry
• Computational methods
• Materials chemistry
• Molecular capsules
• Self-assembly

Similar content being viewed by others

A class of organic cages featuring twin cavities

Self-assembled conjoined-cages

Non-statistical assembly of multicomponent [Pd2ABCD] cages

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

New approach in the synthesis of complex natural substances

They are found as fragrances in cosmetics or as flavorings in food, and form the basis of new medications: Terpenes are natural substances that occur in plants, insects and sea sponges. They are difficult to produce synthetically. However, chemists at the University of Basel are now introducing a new method of synthesis.

Many natural substances possess interesting characteristics, and can form the basis of new active compounds in medicine. Terpenes, for example, are a group of substances, some of which are already used in therapies against cancer, malaria or epilepsy.

There is an important prerequisite for their development into drugs, however: these terpenes should be produced synthetically from simple starting materials. This allows their exact molecular structure to be controlled, and targeted changes to be made to improve their properties.

New approach for total synthesis

Professor Olivier Baudoin and his doctoral student Oleksandr Vyhivskyi have now developed a new approach to the total synthesis of these substances and have used it to artificially produce two diterpenes -- a subclass of terpenes: randainin D and barekoxide. Their report appears in the Journal of the American Chemical Society .

Randainin D, originally extracted from plants, inhibits production of an enzyme that plays a role in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It might therefore be considered as a potential candidate for the development of new therapeutic agents.

The chemists have managed to synthesize randainin D in 17 steps. To this purpose, they employed both a chemical reaction called ring-closing metathesis and photocatalysis -- a process in which chemical reactions are promoted by light energy.

Construction of complex structures

In this way, they succeeded in creating the complex ring structure of the molecule, as well as inserting a chemical building block called an allyl group, made up of three carbon atoms. An allyl group is a useful component in the synthesis of various organic substances, as it serves as a reaction partner during the construction of the desired structure.

Finally, the same synthesis method was used by the researchers to produce barekoxide. Although barekoxide had already been produced synthetically by another research group in 2010, Baudoin and Vyhivskyi's approach has reduced the number of steps from ten to seven, thus significantly simplifying the total synthesis of this compound.

"Our results show the potential of photocatalysis for the total synthesis of complex terpenes. This could pave the way for the development of new medications," concludes Baudoin.

• Biotechnology
• Pests and Parasites
• Biochemistry Research
• Organic Chemistry
• Biochemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Phytoplankton
• Chinese food therapy

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Basel . Original written by Angelika Jacobs. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Oleksandr Vyhivskyi, Olivier Baudoin. Total Synthesis of the Diterpenes (+)-Randainin D and ( )-Barekoxide via Photoredox-Catalyzed Deoxygenative Allylation . Journal of the American Chemical Society , 2024; DOI: 10.1021/jacs.4c02224

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• 'Doubling' in Origin of Cancer Cells
• New Catalyst for Using Captured Carbon
• Random Robots Are More Reliable
• Significant Discovery in Teleportation Research
• Orangutan Treats Wound With Pain-Relieving Plant
• 75,000-Year-Old Neanderthal from Burial Cave
• Anticoagulant With an On-Off Switch
• Sleep Resets Brain Connections -- At First
• Far-Reaching Effects of Exercise
• Hidden Connections Between Brain and Body

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

In Tight Presidential Race, Voters Are Broadly Critical of Both Biden and Trump

About half of voters say that, if given the chance, they would replace both candidates on the ballot, table of contents.

• The state of the 2024 presidential race
• Other findings: Biden’s job approval ticks up, Trump’s election-related criminal charges
• Educational differences in candidate support
• What are 2020 voters’ preferences today?
• How Biden’s supporters view his personal traits
• How Trump’s supporters view his personal traits
• Views of Biden’s presidency and retrospective evaluations of Trump’s time in office
• Attention to the candidates
• Does it matter who wins?
• What if voters could change the presidential ballot?
• How important is it for the losing candidate to publicly acknowledge the winner?
• 4. Joe Biden’s approval ratings
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Validated voters

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand voters’ views on the 2024 presidential election, as well how the public views President Joe Biden. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,709 adults – including 7,166 registered voters – from April 8 to April 14, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

As the 2024 presidential race heats up, American voters face a similar set of choices as they did four years ago – and many are not happy about it.

With the election still more than six months away, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that the presidential race is virtually tied : 49% of registered voters favor Donald Trump or lean toward voting for him, while 48% support or lean toward Joe Biden.

A defining characteristic of the contest is that voters overall have little confidence in either candidate across a range of key traits, including fitness for office, personal ethics and respect for democratic values.

Where Trump has the advantage: More than a third of voters say they are extremely or very confident that Trump has the physical fitness (36%) and mental fitness (38%) needed to do the job of president.

Far fewer say the same of Biden (15% are at least very confident in his physical fitness; 21% are extremely or very confident in his mental fitness). Majorities say they are not too or not at all confident in Biden’s physical and mental fitness.

Where Biden has the advantage: More voters are extremely or very confident in Biden (34%) than in Trump (26%) to act ethically in office. And while 38% say they are at least very confident in Biden to respect the country’s democratic values, fewer (34%) express that level of confidence in Trump. The survey was conducted before the start of Trump’s “hush money” trial in New York City .

( Read more about voters’ views of Biden and Trump in Chapter 2. )

The new Center survey of 8,709 adults – including 7,166 registered voters – conducted April 8-14, 2024, finds large divides in voters’ candidate preference by age, education, and race and ethnicity. As was the case in 2020, younger voters and those with a four-year college degree are more likely to favor Biden than Trump.

Older voters and those with no college degree favor Trump by large margins.

Among racial and ethnic groups:

• White voters favor Trump (56%) over Biden (42%) by a wide margin.
• Roughly three-quarters of Black voters (77%) support Biden, while 18% back Trump.
• Hispanic voters are more evenly divided – 52% favor Biden, while 44% back Trump.
• Asian voters favor Biden (59%) over Trump (36%).

( Read more about voters’ candidate preferences in Chapter 1. )

Most voters who turned out in 2020 favor the same candidate in 2024. Among validated 2020 voters, overwhelming majorities of those who cast ballots for Biden (91%) and Trump (94%) support the same candidate this year. Registered voters who did not vote in 2020 are about evenly divided: 48% back Trump, while 46% support Biden.

A majority of voters say “it really matters who wins” the 2024 race. Today, 69% of voters say it really matters which candidate wins the presidential contest this November. This is somewhat smaller than the share who said this in April 2020 about that year’s election (74%). Nearly identical shares of Biden’s and Trump’s supporters say the outcome of the presidential race really matters.

About half of voters would replace both Biden and Trump on the 2024 ballot

Reflecting their dissatisfaction with the Biden-Trump matchup, nearly half of registered voters (49%) say that, if they had the ability to decide the major party candidates for the 2024 election, they would replace both Biden and Trump on the ballot .

Biden’s supporters are especially likely to say they would replace both candidates if they had the chance. Roughly six-in-ten (62%) express this view, compared with 35% of Trump supporters.

There also are stark age differences in these views: 66% of voters under 30 say they would replace both candidates if they had the chance, compared with 54% of those ages 30 to 49 and fewer than half (43%) of those 50 and older.

( Read more about voters’ feelings toward the upcoming election in Chapter 3. )

Evaluations of the Biden and Trump presidencies

• 42% of voters overall say Trump was a good or great president, while 11% say he was average. This is a modest improvement since March 2021, two months after he left office.
• 28% of voters say Biden is a good or great president, while 21% say he is average. These views are mostly on par with June 2020 assessments of the kind of president Biden would be – but today, a smaller share of voters say he is average.

( Read more about ratings of Biden’s and Trump’s presidencies in Chapter 1. )

• Biden’s approval among the general public: Today, Biden’s approval rating sits at 35% – roughly on par with his rating in January (33%). His job rating has climbed slightly among Democrats over that period, however. Today, 65% of Democrats approve of him – up 4 percentage points since January. ( Read more about Biden’s approval rating in Chapter 4. )
• Conceding the presidential election: A majority of voters say it is important that the losing candidate in November publicly acknowledge the winner as the legitimate president. But Trump’s supporters are far less likely than Biden’s to say it is very important (44% vs. 77%).  ( Read more about voters’ views on election concession in Chapter 3. )

Trump’s criminal charges related to the 2020 election

As Trump faces charges that he sought to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election, 45% of Americans say they think Trump’s actions broke the law. This compares with 38% who say his actions did not break the law – including 15% who say his actions were wrong but not illegal, and 23% who say he did nothing wrong. Nearly two-in-ten are not sure.

Democrats mostly say Trump broke the law; Republicans are more divided. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78%) say Trump’s actions in seeking to change the outcome of the 2020 election broke the law. 

Among Republicans and Republican leaners:

• 49% say Trump did nothing wrong.
• 21% say he did something wrong but did not break the law.
• 9% say Trump broke the law.
• 20% are not sure.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Donald Trump
• Election 2024
• Partisanship & Issues
• Presidential Approval
• Voter Demographics
• Voter Participation

Voters’ views of Trump and Biden differ sharply by religion

Changing partisan coalitions in a politically divided nation, about 1 in 4 americans have unfavorable views of both biden and trump, 2024 presidential primary season was one of the shortest in the modern political era, americans more upbeat on the economy; biden’s job rating remains very low, most popular, report materials.

• April 2024 Biden Job Approval Detailed Tables

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy