Homework answers / question archive / SYNTHESIS HANDOUT: How to Synthesize Sources Using the Five C’s When we SYNTHESIZE sources into our own, we are putting them into Conversation with each other

SYNTHESIS HANDOUT: How to Synthesize Sources Using the Five C’s When we SYNTHESIZE sources into our own, we are putting them into Conversation with each other

Writing

Share With

---

When we SYNTHESIZE sources into our own, we are putting them into Conversation with each other.  That means that we do NOT simply summarize a source, then another, then another.  Rather, we cite them in the same sections of our papers and explain how they work together or contradict each other. 

So, we use what I call the FIVE C’s of synthesizing sources.

The FIRST C is Conversation, the overall approach to working with sources.  As explained above, sources can help each other, make each other richer, add complexity to each other, or outright disagree with each other. Below are the others C’s, the specifics of how these sources converse with each other. I have bolded research names and signal phrases to show how these sources are interacting; you would not bold these in your research paper. (The research below is invented and merely intended for demonstration).

2. Confirm (example argument: vaping isn’t so bad)

Despite recent panic in the media and warnings from government agencies, vaping offers substantial health benefits. Smith cites the substitution of vaping for cigarettes in adult smokers, leading to lower exposure to toxins like tar (36).  Likewise, Tompkins notes that studies show significantly reduced tar loads in blood sample from former cigarette smokers who have substituted vaping at about the same level of nictotine exposure they had while smoking (428).

3. Complement (example argument: vaping is bad for various reasons)

A variety of health dangers being uncovered by recent studies suggests that vaping does more harm than good. Jenkins reports continued cardiovascular problems in those who have switched from cigarettes to vaping (98).    Also detailing the problems with vaping, Malone cites studies associating anxiety and depression among vapers who suspend vaping even for short times (118).

4. Complicate (concession, refutation) (example argument: well, maybe vaping is bad for some people, but it has some benefits)

Research indicates that vaping may have severe health consequences among those who have previously not been tobacco users (Lonnie 982) but may offer benefits as a measure to help former smokers transition to a nicotine-free lifestyle through a cessation program (Carter 54).

5. Contradict (example argument: while these writers contend x, in fact the truth is y)

Researchers are, to some extent, divided on the hazards and benefits of vaping.  Turney (41) and Harrod (283) contend that vaping has not been demonstrated through longitudinal studies to impair health in significant ways. However, Reddington cites emerging studies that have shown long-term damage from vaping (119) and other studies that demonstrate ill effects of prolonged exposure to nicotine (135).

Below is a sample from a genuine research report, taken from a section pulling together authors with similar views. Again, I have bolded signal phrases and other citations. The excerpt below discusses Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, known as “Killer Robots.”  You should note two points:

1. 1. 1. 1. In this case, the sources are Complementing each other, working together to add supporting information.
         2. This paper uses APA citation style, not MLA.  So, while the parenthetical citations in APA are to year, our MLA citations are to page number (see the examples above for MLA in-text citation examples).
         3. The blue text signifies hyperlinks. You will use only black text for body paragraphs.

In this case, the author, Umbrello, is discussing research that shows that robotic weapons will be able to distinguish between civilians (who must be protected from harm to the extent possible) and combatants (who are proper targets).

Extrapolating techno-development trends into the future, it is reasonable to expect future robotic weapons to acquire the capacity to reliably and accurately differentiate between combatants and noncombatants (Sharkey 2012; Egeland 2016); this could even occur in the near future (see Guizzo 2016). Indeed, Ronald Arkin (2008) anticipates such technologies—in particular, recognition software—to not only be developed but surpass human performance capabilities (see also O’Meara 2011; Egeland 2016). As he writes, “we must protect the innocent noncombatants in the battlespace far better than we currently do. Technology can, must, and should be used toward that end.” Like Nadeau, Arkin believes that moral LAWs would act in an ethically superior way to humans in war, saying that “The commonplace occurrence of slaughtering civilians in conflict over millennia gives rise to my pessimism in reforming human behaviour yet provides optimism for robots being able to exceed human moral performance in similar circumstances (Arkin 2015).

 

Note that Umbrello et al. cite SEVEN sources in one paragraph!! They have done the hard work of thinking, in this case, how the authors Complement each other. 

 

Source:

Umbrello, Steven et al.  “The Future of War: Could Lethal Autonomous Weapons Make Conflict More Ethical?”  AI & Society, vol. 35, 2020, pp.273-285,  doi: 10.1007/s00146-019-00879-x. Accessed 4 November 2020.

Source (lead author’s last name) (alphabetical order)	Gist[1]	Key Points	Confirms? (lead author’s last name and reason)	Complements? (lead author’s last name and reason)	Complicates? (lead author’s last name and reason)	Contradicts? (lead author’s last name and reason)