Use when conducting a literature synthesis — systematic review, narrative review, scoping review, or meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.
Synthesis means more than summarizing articles: you compare, contrast, integrate, and evaluate patterns across a body of work to produce new insight—whether that is a gap map, a theory critique, or a higher-order interpretive synthesis.
Translate your question into PICOS-like elements adapted for qualitative work (population, phenomenon, context). Use controlled vocabulary + free-text; document databases, date limits, language limits, and grey literature sources. Save reproducible search strings.
PRISMA flow diagrams and checklists target systematic reviews broadly. For qualitative systematic reviews, use extensions/guidance where available (e.g., ENTREQ reporting guidance for qualitative evidence syntheses—verify current preferred reporting standards for your discipline).
Meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare):
Sandelowski & Barroso’s meta-summary (quantitative-leaning facet):
Choose a method that matches your epistemology (interpretive vs aggregative).
Build a matrix: rows as studies; columns as constructs, contexts, methods, findings, limitations. Color-code agreements, tensions, silences. Matrices reveal contradictions worth theorizing.
Structure by themes or analytic constructs, not by “Article A, Article B.” For each theme:
Distinguish empirical gaps (no studies in context X) from theoretical gaps (unexplained mechanisms) from method gaps (weak designs dominating a topic).
Classic GT delays substantive-area literature until later analytic stages. A standalone literature synthesis skill is for literature-first projects (reviews, proposals) or post-emergence integration—do not use it to smuggle forcing into early GT coding.