Synopsis
After reading the week’s assigned articles, write a synopsis for ONE of them. Your synopsis should succinctly address the points outlined below. You should be able to respond to most of these points using 1 sentence, though #4 and #5 may take a little more explanation). Bulleted responses are okay.
Please mark each response you give with the prompt title, e.g. with bolded text:
“Specific question: In this paper, the authors ask how…”
There are two varieties of synopsis, one for empirical papers and one for reviews—make sure you pick the right format for your paper
For empirical papers…
Citation: APA citation of the paper you are summarizing
The phenomenon: Identify the scientific issue. What is the BIG, “why-do-we-care” question the authors want to understand?
Specific question: What aspect of that BIG issue do the authors seek to address? Often this is about how they position their question in relation to prior research or theory (e.g., expanding, diving deeper, filling a gap, resolving a conflict, etc.).
Experimental hypothesis: What is the concrete hypothesis they are testing in this study?
How do they test this hypothesis? (Method): Explain the logic of the basic design and how it is implemented. Only describe those features of the design that are essential to understanding the relevant aspects of how the study tests the hypothesis.
What is the pattern of results reported? (Results): Summarize the results so that their relevance to the question is apparent.
Implications for hypotheses (Discussion): What do the authors conclude about how this pattern of results informs their experimental hypotheses and specific question of interest?
For reviews…
Citation: APA citation of the paper you are summarizing
The phenomenon: Identify the scientific issue. What is the BIG, “why-do-we-care” question the authors want to understand?
Specific question: What aspect of that BIG issue do the authors seek to address? Often this is about how they position their question in relation to prior research or theory (e.g., expanding, diving deeper, filling a gap, resolving a conflict, etc.).
Primary topics reviewed: What primary topics are covered in the review? Give a micro summary of each topic and explicitly connect each one back to the specific question and/or bigger phenomenon. If your review has titled subsections, you likely need a micro summary and connection for each subsection.
What are the major lessons from the prior findings covered?: Tell me the primary 1–2 things that the reviewed findings speak to. This should not be another summary of the findings but rather a statement that is general enough to characterize the whole set of presented findings in more abstract, theoretical terms.
Implications and future directions: What are the next steps for work, on the basis of the reviewed findings, and why?