By Howard Gardner
“Synthesis” seems to be in the atmosphere. The capacity to synthesize, the need for syntheses, and improvement of the quality of syntheses—these are seemingly of interest to many.
A preliminary working definition:
A synthesis is an attempt to bring together various ideas, strands, concepts, and materials. A good synthesis enhances one’s understanding of a question, puzzle, phenomenon (or multiples of these). Familiar examples are school term papers, doctoral dissertations, position papers, landscape analyses, executive summaries, and textbooks. But one can easily extend the list beyond the verbal—to chemical syntheses, equations in physics or mathematics, works of art (poems, paintings, dioramas)—indeed any creation or invention that brings together disparate elements in a satisfying and illuminating way.
Of course, it’s important to avoid the situation where just about everything qualifies as a synthesis. The ambition of the synthesis, its utility, its portability, and its generative potential, are reasonable criteria to keep in mind. Most dinner parties, book reports, limericks, love songs, treaties, and constitutions are not notable syntheses.
How I Think About Synthesis
I have in mind chiefly the kind of scholarly synthesis in which I (and most of my synthesizing colleagues) engage.
- You need a project. In my case, I have worked largely in areas which I am familiar with (eg., history, social science); but I’ve also examined syntheses in areas with which I have much less familiarity (eg., diplomacy, poetry, drama, painting style, financial investment).
- You need a method (or methods). Especially valuable are detailed case studies of attempts at synthesis—which succeeded and why, which failed and why, which achieved partial success, and how they might be improved. Such syntheses ought optimally to be drawn from a variety of fields.
- Taking a critical stance on one’s own efforts to effect a synthesis, you hope to ascertain which of your efforts make sense to you, and which are not convincing.
- Possessing a well-honed critical faculty is an asset, but it’s no substitute for evaluations by “critical friends.” Here, you turn to individuals who wish you well but are not reticent to indicate where you have fallen short, where you have re-invented the wheel, or where you do not make sense.
- Finally, when you have done what you feel you can do, you publish your synthesis.
Here’s my initial attempt to create a taxonomy of the kinds of investigations that are needed and desirable—if we are to enhance our understanding of synthesis. They can be roughly ordered in terms of the disciplines on which one draws; the education and training of synthesis; the use of synthesis; and the future of synthesis.
Taxonomy
The mental processes involved in synthesizing
This is routinely the work of psychologists—for example, those who study the positing and refinement of cognitive schemata—how they are created, revised, connected, communicated. There may also be personality differences that make it more likely that one can be a synthesizer.
The actual media/symbol systems that people use to aid their synthesizing efforts
When I undertake a synthesis, I typically create linguistic taxonomies and move the parts around; Anthea Roberts creates diagrams, visual images, cartoons, and manipulates those graphic entities; many of my colleagues are partial to mind-mapping.
Historical and philological studies of synthesis
Examination of synthesizing by the Greeks (Aristotle, especially); the Bible and other sacred texts; encyclopedias of the 18th and 19th Centuries; libraries, indexes; also philosophers like Hegel (and Kant and the American pragmatists) who sought to explicate synthesis. Valuable contributors here are historians of science—see, for example, Lorraine Daston, Gerald Holton, or Thomas Kuhn. Such scholars identify major shifts in thought—what they entailed, what brought them about, and how they affected future practices.
Studies of master synthesizers or examples of master syntheses
A fine example of this work can be found in the studies of Charles Darwin and of Jean Piaget carried out by psychologist Howard Gruber—historians of science examined other outstanding synthesizers (eg., studies of Robert Woodward, a master organic chemist). Decades ago, I was particularly influenced by the synthesizing capacities of writers Richard Hofstadter and Edmund Wilson.
The educating, training, development of synthesizing ability
This was a chief goal of educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom, who considered synthesis the highest of his “educational objectives.” Regrettably, for reasons I’ve not been able to determine, he dropped this objective. But there are now educational enterprises (eg., London Interdisciplinary School) that target the inculcation of synthesizing ability.
The development of synthesizing capacities in children
Such work depends on the efforts of developmental, cognitive, and educational psychologists. Those most likely to be able to discern the emergence and growth of synthesizing are keen observers of children, such as Alison Gopnik and Frank Keil, legal scholar Scott Hershovitz, or educational psychologist Susan Engel.
The biology and neurology of synthesizing
I have in mind studies of the development (and eventual consolidation) of neural connections—the field currently called connectomics. Computer design-turned neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins has developed relevant models.
Studies of educational or business centers
Looking at settings that seek to cultivate synthesizing capacities (whether or not they use that descriptor): IBM in the 1950s, Xerox PARC in the 1970s, Google’s Deep Mind today. In universities, Cambridge University—particularly physics—in the early 20th Century; Rockefeller University —particularly biology/medicine later in the 20th Century; Santa Fe Institute on complexity theory.
Professional training
The training of political and intelligence figures—Geoff Mulgan is a leader in this endeavor. The study of what people can accomplish alone (Philip Tetlock on super-forecasters), or together, in various kinds of groups (see Scott Page on the need for cognitive diversity in teams); the challenges in proceeding from information to analysis and planning to action; learning from what went well and what went badly (or was terminated, for whatever reason).
Synthesizing by algorithms, deep learning, and other kinds of computational mechanisms
Clearly this is happening every day, much of it already done much better by computers/AI/ Deep Learning/ChatGPT than by humans—but the work is only as valuable as the materials—the models—that have been presented.
In evaluating computer-generated analyses and syntheses, the deep question remains: “Who decides?” Whether the results of an analysis, or a synthesis, a set of recommendations should simply be followed—a very different kind of synthesis or “meta-synthesis” may be needed, entailing perspectives, values, ontologies, world-views, or unintended consequences.
Closing note
What I have set forth here represents some of my current thinking about the fascinating and challenging process of synthesizing—so far by human beings, but recently joined by powerful computational algorithms. More can be followed in my series of blogs, to which I contribute regularly: https://www.howardgardner.com/synthesizing
For now, I am pleased to launch the conversation and hope to keep it going. I am interested in your comments.
To find out more:
This i2Inisghts contribution is a lightly edited extract from Gardner, H. (2023). Towards a taxonomy of synthesizing, Howard’s Blogs on Synthesizing. (Online): https://www.howardgardner.com/synthesizing/kgnox8tsoo9iprz27y2422fkl2vbxi
See also:
Gardner, H. (2020). A synthesizing mind. A memoir from the creator of multiple intelligences theory. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Biography: Howard Gardner PhD is the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, he has received multiple honors. In addition to the nature of human synthesizing, his current research interests encompass the development of moral and ethical understandings and behaviors, beginning in the early years and extending through higher education and into the professions.
Hello Howard,
First, thank you for joining in the interdisciplinarity conversation on this forum. I am grateful for your thoughtful contributions and look forward to reading more here, and your next book, as well!
I agree that Bloom did not add knowledge synthesis to his “educational objectives”, however, the practice of higher-order thinking is about encouraging alternative possibilities and considering alternative explanations and solutions in a non-linear way, interweaving with interdisciplinarity and problem solving constructs. As you referenced, Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy is a classification of educational learning objectives in the cognitive, affective, and sensory domains. Anderson & Krathwohl (2001) refined Bloom’s terms as thinking progresses through remembering to evaluating knowledge: Remembering (retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory); Understanding (constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining); Applying (carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing); Analyzing (breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing); Evaluating (making judgements based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing); and Creating (putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing) (pp. 67-68). Evaluating alternatives and continuing to search for solutions means unraveling intricacies, thinking with curiosity, discussing one’s findings with other researchers or teams and refining alternative solutions. The practice of higher-order thinking involves going back and forth to clarify understanding, evaluating potential options and searching for the best solutions within the context of a problem or issue of concern. Working through these processes in collaboration with others makes for the best results and innovations.
Questions:
1). How is knowledge synthesis/integration different from these higher order processes of applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating, and secondly, how might you distinguish between these processes? and related, How would you distinguish these processes from interdisciplinarity and complex problem solving? Why do you think that problem solving has been left out from the hierarchy of higher order thinking and the dyad of creation or invention for innovation?
2). In what ways might wisdom traditions contribute to the development of a taxonomy of synthesizing, and how might we distinguish between information, knowledge, and wisdom for this purpose?
3). How do you envision teaching and learning the processes of ‘scholarly synthesizing’ and the need for improvement of the “quality of syntheses” in learning communities? and finally,
4). How are these processes different from and similar to the transformative learning paradigm?
I would be thrilled if you would entertain these questions here in this forum to extend this conversation further. Thank you again for your insights on this important work. I look forward to reading more …
Thanks, Colleen, for your very rich set of comments on my essay on synthesizing.
It may well be the case that Benjamin Bloom (and those working in his tradition) described well the skills involved in synthesizing, as I conceive of it.
But what I have in mind – as a prototype – is still quite different from the kinds of skills that he and his colleagues sought to identify some decades ago.
To be specific:
l. Synthesis, as I describe it, is not something that one can simulate in a lab or test for in a paper and pencil test. Not any more than you can simulate writing a novel or carrying out a program of research. These unfold over real time often over a period of months or years, with predictable and unpredictable zigs and zags.
2. You can’t realistically ASSIGN a task for synthesizing to an individual (or a team). The urge to synthesize comes from genuine curiosity, abundance of time, and freedom to go about it in a way that makes sense to you.
3. Also, at certain points along the way, the aspiring synthesizer needs to be frank and receive helpful feedback from others. (This was also true in my study of highly creative individuals – they needed critical friends to both support them and be honest with them.)
4. When a work of synthesis is done, another synthesizing challenge may or may not arise. You can’t force it – and you also can’t prevent it from happening.
All of this is NOT to say that you can’t help people to become better and more effective synthesizers. Indeed, that’s what I have tried to do over a half century of teaching and advising. It’s also a stated goal of the new London Interdisciplinary School, which I am following with much interest.
But in the absence of curiosity, “sitz-fleisch,” a willingness to take criticism but not being derailed by it, you won’t get better. And for many very talented friends, there are many other things that they can and should do instead.
I suspect that this is not the answer that you hoped to receive but I hope that it at least communicates to you “where I am coming from.”
Thank you, Howard, for your insights into the process of knowledge synthesis, a process wherein curiosity and feedback are indeed important contributors. Thank you also for sharing the goal of the new London Interdisciplinary School. I too will watch with much interest. I am currently working to develop a personalized teaching and learning navigation tool meant to develop Sustainable Knowledge/Future Skills/Interdisciplinary Competence. The tool designates a particular learning context with the process of knowledge synthesis as creative cognitive exploration, which as you mentioned, must be individualized to each learner and learning context. Thank you again for communicating where you are coming from, your wisdom has clarified a few things for me, and thus your thoughts are greatly appreciated! Definitely a worthy obsession!
Colleen, thank you for your thoughtfulness. I’d be happy to keep in touch.
Dear Howard
I am delighted to see your new book. A favorite book is your Five Minds for the Future (which I keep close at hand) and which includes a chapter on the synthesizing mind that notes: “accumulated knowledge is reportedly doubling every two or three years (wisdom presumably accrues more slowly!.” It seems that synthesizing implies the gathering of data and knowledge and sets it up as candidates for wisdom mining (an awkward term).
I appreciate how you highlight art as a potential form of synthesis. Similarly, and since I just finished reading a bio of Frank Lloyd Wright, I wonder if good architects are professionals synthesizers.
Thank you so much for the stimulating thoughts and for your continuing contributions to wisdom.
Jim
Thanks for your kind words about my work. I first began to think seriously about synthesizing when I wrote “Five Minds” twenty years ago—but I never anticipated that it would become an obsession.
You are right that many artists and architects are excellent synthesizers—and their work can be appreciated on many levels. But that does not mean that all artists and architects should be thought of primarily as synthesizers. In any domain or discipline, there are some individuals who excel more in analysis, while others have synthesizing as a strong suit. It may well be that synthesizers appeal more to individuals outside of the field, since there are more ways to reach those individuals…. while sometimes analytic artists are more appreciated by connoisseuers within the profession. A testable hypothesis!
Best, Howard
Dear Howard, Thank you for that insight and refinement. I would suggest we all will benefit from your “obsession.” Jim
Thanks for your initial thoughts, Howard, and, as you suggest, starting a conversation. As a systems thinking practitioner I see what you are calling synthesising as the process we use to identify emergent themes from a ‘rich picture’ – the ability to articulate an unstated link embedded in a group of contributions. I have experienced those with skill in this area are usually those who can let go of one response to a question/statement and be open to being surprised. It is not a calculation but an intuition. Not the same I agree but probably part of the conversation you seek to stimulate. Bruce
Thanks for your comment, which makes sense to me. I like to use the analogy of a supermarket. Some customers are fine so long as the goods that they want remain in the same place. But it’s better if you can let go of assigned spots for each product and instead move flexibly to the new location—in other words, separate the goods from their earlier home. Not a perfect analogy, by any means, but perhaps it gets the point across.
Best, Howard
Thanks for this Howard! How do you think that your description of “synthesizing” compares to the “integration” stressed by scholars of interdisciplinarity? They seem very similar to me. Are there advantages to having multiple terms describing something that seems similar? Rick
Moderator: a range of i2Insights contributions on integration can be seen at: https://i2insights.org/category/main-topics/integration/
Thanks, Rick, for making your way through my long article and raising an apt question. Certainly, efforts at “integration” by scholars of interdisciplinarity would qualify as attempts to synthesize. I intend a broad, less scholarly usage of the term “synthesizing.” Any individual can engage in synthesis—so long as that individual has a project and is drawing on all sorts of information and putting it together—integrating it—in a way that’s useful. Also, there can be syntheses within a discipline— there are better and worse historical syntheses, independent of whether the historian draws (consciously or unreflectively) on other disciplines. All said, though, synthesis and integration are cousins, if not siblings. Best, Howard