Literature Synthesis
You help sociologists move from a corpus of papers to a deep understanding of a field. This is the analytical bridge between finding papers (lit-search) and writing about them (lit-writeup).
The Lit Trilogy
This skill is the middle step in a three-skill workflow:
| Skill | Role | Key Output |
|---|---|---|
| lit-search | Find papers via OpenAlex | database.json, download checklist |
| lit-synthesis | Analyze & organize via Zotero | field-synthesis.md, theoretical-map.md, debate-map.md |
| lit-writeup | Draft prose | Publication-ready Theory section |
Input: Papers in Zotero (imported from lit-search or user's existing library) Output: Organized understanding of the field ready for writing
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when users:
- Have a corpus of papers (from lit-search or their own collection)
- Need to understand the theoretical landscape before writing
- Want to identify debates, tensions, and competing positions
- Need to organize papers thematically or by theoretical tradition
- Want deep reading notes, not just metadata extraction
Core Principles
- Read deeply, not widely: Better to understand 15 papers thoroughly than 50 superficially.
- Theoretical traditions matter: Papers exist within intellectual lineages. Map who cites whom and why.
- Debates are gold: Competing positions create space for contributions. Find the tensions.
- Organization serves writing: The clusters and maps you create should directly feed lit-writeup's architecture phase.
- Full text when possible: Abstracts tell you *what*; full text tells you *how* and *why*.
Zotero MCP Integration
This skill uses Zotero MCP for accessing your library:
Setup
Install the Zotero MCP server:
uv tool install "git+https://github.com/54yyyu/zotero-mcp.git"
zotero-mcp setupSee mcp/zotero-setup.md for detailed configuration.
Key Capabilities
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
zotero_search_items | Find papers by keyword, author, tag |
zotero_semantic_search | Conceptual similarity search |
zotero_get_item_metadata | Retrieve full metadata + BibTeX |
zotero_get_annotations | Extract PDF highlights and notes |
zotero_search_notes | Search your reading notes |
Workflow Integration
- From lit-search: Import the BibTeX export into Zotero
- Acquire PDFs: Use Zotero's "Find Available PDF" or manual download
- Read and annotate: Highlight key passages, add notes
- lit-synthesis reads: Access annotations via MCP for analysis
Workflow Phases
Phase 0: Corpus Audit
Goal: Assess what's in the corpus and identify gaps.
Process:
- Review the database from lit-search (or user's Zotero collection)
- Count papers by year, journal, author, theoretical tradition
- Identify potential gaps in coverage
- Prioritize which papers need deep reading vs. skimming
Output: corpus-audit.md with statistics and reading priorities.
Pause: User confirms corpus coverage and reading priorities.
Phase 1: Deep Reading
Goal: Close read priority papers and extract analytical insights.
Process:
- For each priority paper, read full text via Zotero MCP
- Extract: argument structure, theoretical framework, key concepts, methodological approach
- Note: how theory is deployed, what evidence supports claims, limitations acknowledged
- Create structured reading notes
Output: reading-notes/ directory with per-paper notes.
Pause: User reviews reading notes for key papers.
Phase 2: Theoretical Mapping
Goal: Identify intellectual traditions and lineages.
Process:
- Identify which theoretical frameworks appear across papers
- Map citation relationships (who cites whom)
- Note foundational texts and their descendants
- Identify "camps" or schools of thought
- Document key concepts and how they're used
Output: theoretical-map.md with traditions, key theorists, and concept definitions.
Pause: User reviews theoretical landscape.
Phase 3: Thematic Clustering
Goal: Organize papers by what they study and how.
Process:
- Group papers by empirical focus (population, setting, phenomenon)
- Group papers by theoretical approach
- Group papers by methodological strategy
- Identify papers that bridge multiple clusters
- Note within-cluster consensus and variation
Output: thematic-clusters.md with organized paper groupings.
Pause: User reviews clustering logic.
Phase 4: Debate Mapping
Goal: Identify tensions, disagreements, and competing positions.
Process:
- Find explicit disagreements (papers that critique each other)
- Find implicit tensions (contradictory findings or incompatible assumptions)
- Identify unresolved questions the field is grappling with
- Note where evidence is mixed or contested
- Document the "state of the debate" for each tension
Output: debate-map.md with positions, evidence, and unresolved questions.
Pause: User reviews debates and selects focus areas.
Phase 5: Field Synthesis
Goal: Create comprehensive understanding ready for writing.
Process:
- Synthesize across phases into coherent field understanding
- Identify the most productive gaps for contribution
- Recommend which lit-writeup cluster (Gap-Filler, Theory-Extender, etc.) fits
- Create the handoff document for lit-writeup
Output: field-synthesis.md with integrated understanding and writing recommendations.
Output Files
lit-synthesis/
├── corpus-audit.md # Phase 0: What's in the corpus
├── reading-notes/ # Phase 1: Per-paper notes
│ ├── author2020-title.md
│ ├── author2019-title.md
│ └── ...
├── theoretical-map.md # Phase 2: Traditions and lineages
├── thematic-clusters.md # Phase 3: Paper groupings
├── debate-map.md # Phase 4: Tensions and positions
└── field-synthesis.md # Phase 5: Integrated understandingReading Note Template
For each paper in Phase 1:
# [Author Year] - [Short Title]
## Bibliographic Info
- Full citation: [from Zotero]
- DOI: [link]
## Core Argument
[1-2 sentences: What is the paper arguing?]
## Theoretical Framework
- Tradition: [e.g., Bourdieusian, institutionalist, interactionist]
- Key concepts used: [list]
- How theory is deployed: [description vs. extension vs. critique]
## Empirical Strategy
- Data: [what kind]
- Methods: [how analyzed]
- Sample: [who/what]
## Key Findings
1. [Finding 1]
2. [Finding 2]
3. [Finding 3]
## Contribution Claim
[What does the paper claim to contribute?]
## Limitations (as noted by authors)
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]
## My Notes
[Your analytical observations, connections to other papers, questions raised]
## Key Quotes
> "[Quote 1]" (p. X)
> "[Quote 2]" (p. Y)
## Tags
[theoretical-tradition] [empirical-focus] [method] [relevant-to-my-project]Model Recommendations
| Phase | Model | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 0: Corpus Audit | Sonnet | Data processing, statistics |
| Phase 1: Deep Reading | Opus | Analytical reading, synthesis |
| Phase 2: Theoretical Mapping | Opus | Pattern recognition, intellectual history |
| Phase 3: Thematic Clustering | Sonnet | Organization, categorization |
| Phase 4: Debate Mapping | Opus | Tension identification, nuance |
| Phase 5: Field Synthesis | Opus | Integration, strategic judgment |
Starting the Synthesis
When the user is ready to begin:
- Check Zotero setup: "Do you have Zotero MCP configured? If not, let's set that up first (see
mcp/zotero-setup.md)." - Identify the corpus: "Where are your papers? A Zotero collection from lit-search? An existing library folder? How many papers total?"
- Set priorities: "Which papers are most central to your project? We'll deep-read those first and skim the rest."
- Clarify goals: "What are you trying to understand about this field? Are you looking for gaps, debates, or a specific theoretical tradition?"
- Proceed with Phase 0 to audit the corpus.
Key Reminders
- Zotero is the source of truth: All papers should be in Zotero for consistent access
- Annotations accelerate: If you've already highlighted papers, those annotations are accessible via MCP
- Quality over quantity: Deep reading 15 papers beats skimming 50
- Debates are opportunities: Every tension you find is a potential contribution space
- This feeds lit-writeup: The outputs here become inputs there—keep that handoff in mind