Open and Sustainable Innovation Systems (OASIS) Lab working notes

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

@strike1983types

Title: Types of synthesis and their criteria

Meta:

Year: 1983

Publication: Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation

Zotero link: Zotero Link

Content

Abstract

undefined

πŸ“‘ {{4: {"boundingRect":{"x1":21,"y1":76,"x2":360,"y2":346,"width":479.616,"height":715.008},"rects":[{"x1":21,"y1":76,"x2":360,"y2":346,"width":479.616,"height":715.008}],"pageNumber":4}}}

Authors are Known for:: influential Theory of conceptual change

Claim There are two core concepts for synthesis: 1) creating a new whole from parts, and 2) displaying at least some level of conceptual innovation (higher = clearer case of synthesis)

πŸ“‘ {{4: {"boundingRect":{"x1":21,"y1":76,"x2":360,"y2":346,"width":479.616,"height":715.008},"rects":[{"x1":21,"y1":76,"x2":360,"y2":346,"width":479.616,"height":715.008}],"pageNumber":4}}}

15 types of synthesis

Inductive (empiricist)

1: Generalizing over instances (p. 349)

2: Simple theory construction (p. 349)

3: Creating a superordinate theory (p. 349-350)

4: Creating a worldview (p. 350)

Dialectics

5: Dialectical resolution (p. 350)

Thesis --> Antithesis --> Synthesis (e.g., Marx, Dewey)

Kuhnian synthesis

6: Normal science (p. 351)

Extending a paradigm to new cases (like Piaget's assimilation)

7: Revolutionary science (p. 351)

Changing dominant assumptions in a field (like Piaget's accommodation)

8: Overcoming incommensurable points of view (p. 352)

9: Emergence of a paradigm

Interdisciplinary

10: Semantic synthesis (p. 352)

Creating a common language between disciplines that talk about the same concepts in different ways

11: Generating interdisciplines (p. 352-353)

Develop new conceptions and approaches to a problem, modified from two or more disciplines that converge on the same problem (e.g., computational linguistics) Convergence

12: Generating multidisciplinary perspectives (p. 353)

Generating a point of view that can be used to consider/weigh data from diverse sources

Quasi-syntheses

13: Assessment (p.353-354)

Weighing the bulk of the evidence (aka meta-analysis / systematic review)

Judgment

14: Application and program development (p. 354)

15: Assemblages (p. 354)

Three intellectual standards for (good) synthesis (p356 onwards)

Fleshes out

Claim There are two core concepts for synthesis: 1) creating a new whole from parts, and 2) displaying at least some level of conceptual innovation (higher = clearer case of synthesis)

Claim "A quality synthesis will clarify and resolve, rather than obscure inconsistencies or tensions between material synthesized" (p357)

Claim "A quality synthesis will result in a progressive problem shift" (p357)

Claim "A successful synthesis will satisfy the formal criteria for good theories" (p357)

Claim A useful synthesis helps to judge how "healthy" a research program is, and suggests future directions for it, often by interrogating/assessing crucial assumptions (p. 358)

CASCI reading notes

Implicit ordering of "levels" of synthesis on p1

Possible tension on p355 between idea of going beyond the sum of parts:

Good quote on how hard synthesis is (p355)

Interdisciplinarity discussion might be a bit thin (352-353)

Question about assemblage (354)

What about 2nd order effects of the synthesis process?

Maybe the output itself isn't a "synthesis", but the people participating in the project of synthesis are changed and go on to create new things that they wouldn't have

Title: Types of synthesis and their criteria

Meta

Year: 1983

Authored by:: Kenneth Strike and George Posner

Publication: Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation

Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1983). Types of synthesis and their criteria.

Content

Referenced in

Z: Synthesis is a creative act

One good source of thinking about synthesis is @strike1983types, who argue that a quality synthesis creates clarity and potential resolutions around inconsistencies and tensions in material that is synthesized, and also result in a new (or shift in) understanding of a problem.

January 31st, 2021

These axes of quality have emerged from conceptual and critical reflection on the nature of evidence/conceptual synthesis @strike1983types, as well as efforts in doctoral education to create rubrics for assessing the level of synthesis in dissertation literature reviews @granelloPromotingCognitiveComplexity2001@booteScholarsResearchersCentrality2005 and empirical analyses of dissertation examiners' comments on dissertation literature reviews @lovittsMakingImplicitExplicit2007@holbrookInvestigatingPhDThesis2004.

Z: Paths and workflows towards synthesis

Connecting these to examples from @strike1983types; notably, these all overlap quite well with the hypothesized "harder" kinds of synthesis: rmSHYzmIh

@lovittsMakingImplicitExplicit2007

Ineffective synthesis is not a reason to fail a dissertation! Qualities associated with literature reviews in "acceptable" (or even "very good") dissertations fall well short of implicit and explicit criteria for effective synthesis (e.g., @strike1983types, @booteScholarsResearchersCentrality2005

@strike1983types