How do you choose a suitable framework for synthesizing literature?

In the field of Applied Science research that has societal impact, I found it helpful to collect information from users, policy briefs, etc. to identify the needs first. Then, frame proven scientific approaches, theories, tools, etc., that can address the identified need but with certain limitations. It helps me identify my research question that can bridge a significant gap in the approach, theory, theory or tool, and work on advancing to fulfill identified need.

If it’s different literature on a topic and you are blending them together this article should focus on one specific assessment. Research on a new insight is different than just a Frankenstein’s monster of analysis which is often what we get when “ai” enters the room…

An important step that precedes the framework analysis approach is document gathering. A specific structured example is the READ approach by Dalglish et Al (2020). READ comprises 1) Readying the materials under investigation, 2) Extracting data from the materials, 3) Analyzing the data, and 4) Distilling the findings from the data. Conducting such a structured document gathering will facilitate your framework synthesis.

In my mind, the absolute way to choose a suitable framework for synthesizing literature is to develop it. Development of a successful framework depends on 3 the important aspects: 1. The developer 2. The literature expert 3. The writer Typically a single person is not a master on all those 3 aspects so collaboration is very crucial.

In public health and many sociological research circles, frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) frameworks are widely used. Granted, one would find that while many frameworks can be used for multiple topics and themes, some are more suitable for specific topics than others. PARIHS, for instance, is more suitable for clinical studies even though it can be adapted for other non-clinical research purposes. CFIR, on the other hand, has a wider application given its nature — it was created from a review of several existing frameworks. In the end, your specific research and objectives will inform what framework you employ.

Depending on your research aims and objectives, you could find a framework by doing a quick literature scan or review and looking at what frameworks other experts and researchers with similar research goals have used. From there, you can either use the same framework(s) or create a new one that employs evidence and your stakeholders’ perspectives (study participants; community members, etc) to build on those. As organisational psychologist, Adam Grant, has shared, originality really is learning from what others pioneers have done and building further on their work.

An additional consideration is to ensure your framework aligns with stakeholder priorities, project guidelines, and your research team’s methodology.

As part of the framework reporting process, you should also highlight alternate frameworks you could have used but didn’t use. Mention why you did not use it, and how it’s use could have also helped you to navigate the limitations of the one you used in your study.

As a Research Shop Graduate Student Research Assistant for the Community Engaged Scholarship Institute (CESI) at the University of Guelph, I conducted a literature review for the Community Resource Centre of North & Centre Wellington. The deliverable for this project was a report that focused on prevention of homelessness. The framework I used only captured data relevant to strategies and methods for identifying and reaching out to homeless or at-risk youth in rural settings. My framework referenced the project goal, specified how it aligned with other approaches on the subject matter, and how the literature review could inform the stakeholder’s priorities and solutions going forward.

Synthesizing literature and preparing reports is about more than summarizing findings. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between using terminology that is relevant to your field of research and using plain, understandable language that best communicates your message effectively.