Where to Include No Ethical or Bias in Systematic Review

Abstract

Upstanding considerations of conducting systematic reviews in educational research are not typically discussed explicitly. However, systematic reviews are often read and cited in documents that influence educational policy and exercise. Hence, upstanding issues associated with what and how systematic reviews are produced and used have serious implications. It becomes imperative for systematic reviewers to reflexively engage with a diversity of upstanding bug associated with potential conflicts of interest and issues of voice and representation. This chapter discusses how systematic reviewers can draw upon the philosophical traditions of consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics to situate their ethical decision-making.

Upstanding considerations of conducting systematic reviews in educational enquiry are not typically discussed explicitly. As an illustration, 'ethics' is not listed as a term in the index of the second edition of 'An Introduction to Systematic Reviews' (Gough et al. 2017). This chapter draws from my before in-depth discussion of this topic in the Qualitative Research Periodical (Suri 2008) along with more recent publications by colleagues in the field of research ethics and methods of research synthesis.

Unlike primary researchers, systematic reviewers practise not collect deeply personal, sensitive or confidential data from participants. Systematic reviewers use publicly accessible documents as evidence and are seldom required to seek an institutional ethics approval before commencing a systematic review. Institutional Review Boards for ethical conduct of enquiry do non typically include guidelines for systematic reviews. Nonetheless, in the by iv decades systematic reviews have evolved to get more methodologically inclusive and play a powerful part in influencing policy, practice, further research and public perception. Hence, upstanding considerations of how interests of different stakeholders are represented in a research review have get critical (Franklin 1999; Hammersley 2003; Harlen and Crick 2004; Popkewitz 1999).

Educational researchers ofttimes draw upon the philosophical traditions of consequentialism, deontology or virtue ideals to situate their ethical decision-making. Consequentialism or utilitarianism focuses on maximising benefit and minimising damage past undertaking a cost-benefit assay of potential positive and negative impacts of inquiry on all stakeholders. Deontology or universalism stems from Immanuel Kant's logic that certain actions are inherently right or incorrect and hence ends cannot justify the means. A deontological viewpoint is underpinned by rights-based theories that emphasise universal adherence to the principles of beneficence (do skilful), non-maleficence (prevent harm), justice, honesty and gratitude. While both consequentialism and deontology focus on actions and behaviour, virtue ethics focuses on being virtuous, specially in relationships with various stakeholders. In that location are several overlaps, besides as tensions, between and across these philosophical traditions (Brooks et al. 2014; Cohen et al. 2018).

Recognising the inherently situated nature of ethical controlling, I am selectively eclectic in drawing from each of these traditions. I talk over a variety of ethical considerations of conducting systematic reviews informed by rights-based theories, ethics of care and Foucauldian ethics. Rights-based theories underpin deontology and consequentialism. Most regulatory research ethics guidelines, such as those offered by British Educational Research Association (BERA 2018) and American Educational Research Association are premised on rights-based theories that emphasises bones human rights, such every bit liberty, equality and dignity. Ideals of intendance prioritises attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness (Tronto 2005). Foucauldian ideals highlights the relationship of power and noesis (Ball 2013).

In my before publications, I have identified the following three guiding principles for a quality research synthesis (Suri 2018; Suri and Clarke 2009):

• Informed subjectivity and reflexivity

• Purposefully informed selective inclusivity

• Audience-appropriate transparency

In the rest of this chapter, I will discuss how these guiding principles can back up ethical decision making in systematic reviews in each of the post-obit six phases of systematic reviews as identified in my earlier publications (Suri 2014):

1. one.

   identifying an appropriate epistemological orientation

2. two.

   identifying an appropriate purpose

3. iii.

   searching for relevant literature

4. 4.

   evaluating, interpreting and distilling prove from selected reports

5. v.

   amalgam connected understandings

6. six.

   communicating with an audience

To promote ethical product and utilise of systematic reviews through this affiliate, I accept used questioning as a strategic tool with the purpose of raising awareness nearly a variety of ethical considerations amid systematic reviewers and their audition

Identifying an Appropriate Epistemological Orientation

What philosophical traditions are amenable for guiding ethical decision-making in systematic reviews positioned forth singled-out epistemologies?

Practising informed subjectivity and reflexivity, all systematic reviewers must identify an advisable epistemological orientation, such as post-positivist, interpretive, participatory and/or critical, that is aligned with their review purpose and inquiry competence (Suri 2013, 2018).

Deontological ethics is more than relevant to mail service-positivist reviewers who focus on explaining, predicting or describing educational phenomena as generalisable laws expressed through relationships between measurable constructs and variables. The upstanding focus of post-positivist systematic reviews tends to be on minimising threats to internal validity, external validity, internal reliability and external reliability of review findings. This is typically reach by using a priori synthesis protocols, defining all primal constructs conceptually and operationally in behavioural terms, employing exhaustive sampling strategies and employing variable oriented statistical analyses (Matt and Melt 2009; Petticrew and Roberts 2006).

Teleological ethics is more relevant to interpretive systematic reviews aiming to construct a holistic understanding of the educational phenomena that takes into business relationship subjective experiences of diverse groups in varied contexts. Ethical determination making in interpretive systematic reviews lays an emphasis on authentically representing experiences and perceptions of diverse groups, specially those whose viewpoints tend to be less represented in the literature, to the extent that is permissible from the published literature. Maintaining a questioning gaze and a 18-carat engagement with various viewpoints, interpretive systematic reviewers focus on how individual accounts of a phenomenon reinforce, abnegate or augment each other (Eisenhart 1998; Noblit and Hare 1988).

Ideals of care is acquiescent to participatory systematic reviews that are designed to improve participant reviewers' local earth experientially through disquisitional engagement with the relevant research. Ethical determination making in participatory systematic reviews promotes building teams of practitioners with the purpose of co-reviewing research that can transform their own practices and representations of their lived experiences. Participant co-reviewers exercise greater control throughout the review process to ensure that the review remains relevant to generating actionable knowledge for transforming their practice (Bassett and McGibbon 2013).

Foucauldian ethics is aligned with disquisitional systematic reviews that contest dominant soapbox by problematizing the prevalent metanarratives. Ethical decision making in critical systematic reviews focuses on problematizing 'what we might take for granted' (Schwandt 1998, p. 410) in a field of enquiry by raising 'important questions about how narratives get constructed, what they mean, how they regulate item forms of moral and social experiences, and how they presuppose and embody particular epistemological and political views of the world' (Aronowitz and Giroux 1991, pp. 80–81).

Identifying an Advisable Purpose

What are key ethical considerations associated with identifying an appropriate purpose for a systematic review?

In this age of information explosion, systematic reviews require substantial resources. Guided by teleological ideals, systematic reviewers must conduct a cost-benefit assay with a critical consideration of the purpose and telescopic of the review and its potential benefits to diverse groups of stakeholders.

If we consider the number of views or downloads as a proxy mensurate of impact, then nosotros can gain useful insights by examining the teleological underpinnings of some of the highly read systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research (RER) tends to exist regarded every bit the premiere educational research review journal internationally. Let united states of america examine the telescopic and purpose of the 3 'most read' manufactures in RER, as listed on 26 September 2018. Given the finite amount of resources available, an of import question for educators is 'what interventions are likely to exist most effective, and under what circumstances?'. The ability of feedback (Hattie and Timperley 2007), with 11463 views and downloads, is a conceptual assay primarily drawing from the findings of published systematic reviews (largely meta-analyses) conducted to accost this of import question. In addition to effectively teaching what is deemed important, educators also take an important role of critiquing what is accounted important and why. The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas (Aronson and Laughter 2016), with 8958 views and downloads, is an example of such a systematic review. After highlighting the positive outcomes of culturally relevant education, the authors problematise the validity of standardised testing as an unbiased grade of a desirable educational upshot for all. As didactics is essentially a social phenomenon, understanding how different stakeholders perceive various configurations of an educational intervention is critical. Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education (Evans 2013), with 5372 views and downloads, is an example of a systematic review that follows such a pursuit. Even though each of these reviews required meaning resources and expertise, the cost is justified past the benefits axiomatic from the high number of views and downloads of these manufactures. Each of these iii reviews makes clear recommendations for practitioners and researchers by providing an overview, besides as interrogating, current practices.

All educational researchers are expected to foreclose, or disclose and manage, ethical dilemmas arising from whatever real or perceived conflicts of interest (AERA 2011; BERA 2018). Systematic reviewers should besides carefully scrutinise how their personal, professional or financial interests may influence the review findings in a specific management. As systematic reviews crave significant effort and resources, it is logical for systematic reviewers to bid for funding. Recognising the influence of systematic reviews in shaping perceptions of the wider community, many profit and non turn a profit organisations have go open up to funding systematic reviews. Before accepting funding for conducting a systematic review, educational researchers must carefully reverberate on the post-obit questions:

• How does the agenda of the funding source intersect with the purpose of the review?

• How might this potentially influence the review process and findings? How volition this exist managed ethically to ensure integrity of the systematic review findings?

In case of sponsored systematic reviews, it is of import to consider at the outset how potential ethical issues volition exist managed if the interest of the funding agency conflicts with the interests of relatively less influential or less represented groups. Systematic reviews funded by a single bureau with a vested interest in the findings are particularly vulnerable to ethical dilemmas arising from a conflict of interest (The Methods Coordinating Grouping of the Campbell Collaboration 2017). Ane approach could exist to seek funding from a combination of agencies representing interests of unlike stakeholder groups. Exploring the option of crowdfunding is another option that systematic reviewers could use to represent the interests of marginalised groups whose interests are typically overlooked in the agenda of powerful funding agencies. In participatory synthesis, it is critical that the purpose of the systematic review evolves organically in response to the emerging needs of the practitioner participant reviewers.

Searching for Relevant Literature

What are key upstanding considerations associated with developing an appropriate strategy for sampling and searching relevant main research reports to include in a systematic review?

A number of researchers in education and wellness sciences have found that studies with sure methodological orientations or types of findings are more probable to be funded, published, cited and retrieved through common search channels (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). Serious ethical implications ascend when systematic reviews of biased research are drawn upon to make policy decisions with an assumption that review findings are representative of the larger population. In designing an appropriate sampling and search strategy, systematic reviewers should carefully consider the impact of potential publication biases and search biases.

Funding bias, methodological bias, upshot bias and confirmatory bias are common forms of publication bias in educational research. For instance, studies with large sample-sizes are more likely to attract research funding, being submitted for publishing and getting published in reputable journals (Finfgeld-Connett and Johnson 2012). Research that reports significantly positive effects of an innovative intervention is more than likely to be submitted for publishing past master researchers and beingness accustomed for publishing by journal editors (Dixon-Woods 2011; Rothstein et al. 2004). Rather than reporting on all the comparisons made in a study, frequently authors report on only those comparisons that are significant (Sutton 2009). As a issue, the effectiveness of innovative educational interventions gets spuriously inflated in published literature. Ofttimes, when an educational intervention is piloted, additional resource are allocated for staff capacity building. However, in real life when the same intervention is rolled out at scale, the same degree of support is not provided to teachers whose exercise is impacted by the intervention (Schoenfeld 2006).

Fifty-fifty afterwards getting published, certain types of studies are more likely to be cited and retrieved through common search channels, such as primal databases and professional networks (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). Systematic reviewers must advisedly consider common forms of search biases, such as database bias, commendation bias, availability bias, language bias, country bias, familiarity bias and multiple publication bias. The term 'grey literature' is sometimes used to refer to published and unpublished reports, such as government reports, that are not typically included in common enquiry indexes and databases (Rothstein and Hopewell 2009). Several scholars recommend inclusion of grey literature to minimise potential touch of publication bias and search bias (Glass 2000) and to exist inclusive of key policy documents and government reports (Godin et al. 2015). On the other paw, several other scholars fence that systematic reviewers should include simply published research that has undergone the peer-review process of academic customs to include simply high-quality inquiry and to minimise the potential impact of multiple publications based on the same dataset (La Paro and Pianta 2000).

With the ease of net publishing and searching, the distinction betwixt published and unpublished research has get blurred and the term grey literature has varied connotations. While nigh systematic reviews employ exhaustive sampling, in recent years there has been an increasing uptake of purposeful sampling in systematic reviews as evident from more than 1055 Google Scholar citations of a publication on this topic: Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis (Suri 2011).

Aligned with the review'southward epistemological and teleological positioning, all systematic reviewers must prudently pattern a sampling strategy and search program, with complementary sources, that will give them access to most relevant primary research from a variety of high-quality sources that is inclusive of diverse viewpoints. They must ethically consider positioning of the enquiry studies included in their sample in relation to the various contextual configurations and viewpoints commonly observed in practical settings.

Evaluating, Interpreting and Distilling Show from the Selected Inquiry Reports

What are fundamental ethical considerations associated with evaluating, interpreting and distilling bear witness from the selected research reports in a systematic review?

Systematic reviewers typically exercise non take straight access to participants of master enquiry studies included in their review. The information they analyse is inevitably refracted through the subjective lens of authors of private studies. It is important for systematic reviewers to critically reverberate upon contextual position of the authors of primary research studies included in the review, their methodological and pedagogical orientations, assumptions they are making, and how they might have influenced the findings of the original studies. This becomes peculiarly important with global access to information where disquisitional contextual information, that is mutual do in a item context but not necessarily in other contexts, may exist taken-for-granted past the authors of the master enquiry report and hence may not get explicitly mentioned.

Systematic reviewers must ethically consider the quality and relevance of evidence reported in primary enquiry reports with respect to the review purpose (Major and Savin-Baden 2010). In evaluating quality of evidence in private reports, it is important to employ the evaluation criteria that are commensurate with the epistemological positioning of the author of the study. Cook and Campbell'southward (1979) constructs of internal validity, construct validity, external validity and statistical conclusion are amenable for evaluating postpositivist research. Valentine (2009) provides a comprehensive discussion of criteria suitable for evaluating research employing a wide range of postpositivist methods. Lincoln and Guba'southward (1985) constructs of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are suitable for evaluating interpretive inquiry. The Centre for Reviews and Broadcasting (CRD 2009) provides a useful comparing of mutual qualitative inquiry appraisal tools in Chap. 6 of its open up admission guidelines for systematic reviews. Herons and Reason's (1997) constructs of disquisitional subjectivity, epistemic participation and political participation emphasising a congruence of experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical knowings are appropriate for evaluating participatory research studies. Validity of transgression, rather than correspondence, is suitable for evaluating critically oriented inquiry reports using Lather's constructs of ironic validity, paralogical validity, rhizomatic validity and voluptuous validity (Lather 1993). Rather than seeking perfect studies, systematic reviewers must ethically evaluate the extent to which findings reported in individual studies are grounded in the reported evidence.

While interpreting bear witness from individual research reports, systematic reviewers should be cognisant of the quality criteria that are commensurate with the epistemological positioning of the original study. It is important to ethically reverberate on plausible reasons for critical information that may be missing from individual reports and how might that influence the report findings (Dunkin 1996). Through purposefully informed selective inclusivity, systematic reviewers must distil information that is most relevant for addressing the synthesis purpose.

Often a two-stage approach is appropriate for evaluating, interpreting and distilling evidence from individual studies. For instance, in their review that won the American Educational Research Association's Review of the Year Award, Wideen et al. (1998) get-go evaluated individual studies using the criteria aligned with the methodological orientation of private studies. Then, they distilled information that was most relevant for addressing their review purpose. In this stage, systematic reviewers must ethically pay particular attention to the quality criteria that are aligned with the overarching methodological orientation of their review, including some of the post-obit criteria: reducing any potential biases, honouring representations of the participants of primary research studies, enriching praxis of participant reviewers or constructing a critically reflexive account of how certain discourses of an educational phenomenon have go more powerful than others. The overarching orientation and purpose of the systematic review should influence the extent to which evidence from individual primary inquiry studies is fatigued upon in a systematic review to shape the review findings (Major and Savin-Baden 2010; Suri 2018).

Constructing Connected Understandings

What are key upstanding considerations associated with amalgam continued understandings in a systematic review?

Through informed subjectivity and reflexivity, systematic reviewers must ethically consider how their ain contextual positioning is influencing the connected understandings they are constructing from the distilled evidence. A variety of systematic techniques can be used to minimise unacknowledged biases, such as content assay, statistical techniques, historical methods, visual displays, narrative methods, disquisitional sensibilities and figurer-based techniques. Common strategies for enhancing quality of all systematic reviews include 'reflexivity; collaborative sense-making; eliciting feedback from key stakeholders; identifying disconfirming cases and exploring rival connections; sensitivity analyses and using multiple lenses' (Suri 2014, p. 144).

In addition, systematic reviewers must pay specific attention to upstanding considerations particularly relevant to their review'due south epistemological orientation. For instance, all mail-positivist systematic reviewers should be wary of the following types of common errors: unexplained selectivity, not discriminating between evidence of varying quality, inaccurate coding of contextual factors, overstating claims fabricated in the review across what can exist justified by the evidence reported in primary studies and not paying adequate attention to the findings that are at odds with the generalisations made in the review (Dunkin 1996). Interpretive systematic reviews should focus on ensuring accurate representation of the viewpoints of the participants of the original studies as expressed through the interpretive lens of the authors of those studies. Rather than aiming for generalisability of the findings, they should aim at transferability by focusing on how the findings of individual studies intersect with their methodological and contextual configurations. Upstanding considerations in participatory systematic reviews should pay attention to the extent to which practitioner co-reviewers feel empowered to drive the calendar of the review to address their own questions, change their ain practices through the learning afforded by participating in the experience of the synthesis and have practitioner voices heard through the review (Suri 2014). Critically oriented systematic reviews should highlight how certain representations silence or privilege some discourses over the others and how they intersect with the interests of various stakeholder groups (Baker 1999; Lather 1999; Livingston 1999).

Communicating with an Audience

What are key ethical considerations associated with communicating findings of a systematic review to various audiences?

All educational researchers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of quality and rigour (AERA 2011; BERA 2018). The PRISMA-P group have identified a list of 'Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols' (Moher et al. 2015) which are useful guidelines to improve the transparency of the process in systematic reviews. Like all educational researchers, systematic reviewers also accept an obligation to disembalm any sources of funding and potential conflicts of involvement that could have influenced their findings.

All researchers should reflexively appoint with issues that may bear upon on individuals participating in the research as well as the wider groups whose interests are intended to exist addressed through their enquiry (Greenwood 2016; Pullman and Wang 2001; Tolich and Fitzgerald 2006). Systematic reviewers should besides critically consider the potential bear upon of the review findings on the participants of original studies and the wider groups whose practices or experiences are likely to be impacted by the review findings. They should advisedly articulate the domain of applicability of a review to deter the extrapolation of the review findings across their intended apply. Contextual configurations of typical master research studies included in the review must be comprehensively and succinctly described in a way that contextual configurations missing from their sample of studies become visible.

Summary

Like main researchers, systematic reviewers should reflexively engage with a variety of upstanding bug associated that potential conflicts of interest and issues of voice and representation. Systematic reviews are frequently read and cited in documents that influence educational policy and exercise. Hence, ethical issues associated with what and how systematic reviews are produced and used take serious implications. Systematic reviewers must pay careful attention to how perspectives of authors and research participants of original studies are represented in a way that makes the missing perspectives visible. Domain of applicability of systematic reviews should exist scrutinised to deter unintended extrapolation of review findings to contexts where they are not applicable. This necessitates that they systematically reflect upon how various publication biases and search biases may influence the synthesis findings. Throughout the review process, they must remain reflexive about how their own subjective positioning is influencing, and being influenced, by the review findings. Purposefully informed selective inclusivity should guide critical decisions in the review process. In communicating the insights gained through the review, they must ensure audience-appropriate transparency to maximise an ethical impact of the review findings.

References

• AERA. (2011). Lawmaking of ethics (Approved past Amercian Educational Research Association Council February 2011). Educational Researcher, xl(three), 145–156.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern instruction: Politics, culture, and social criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  Google Scholar

• Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant instruction: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Bakery, B. (1999). What is vocalism? Problems of identity and representation in the framing of reviews. Review of Educational Research, 69(4), 365–383.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Ball, S. (2013). Foucault, power and education. NY: Routledge.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Bassett, R., & McGibbon, E. (2013). A disquisitional participatory and collaborative method for scoping the literature. Quality and quantity, 47(six), 3249–3259.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• BERA. (2018). British Educational Research Associations' ethical guidelines for educational enquiry. Retrieved iv Apr 2018 from https://world wide web.bera.air-conditioning.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_2018.pdf?noredirect=1.

• Brooks, R., Kitty, t. R., & Maguire, Thou. (2014). Ethics and Teaching Inquiry. London: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, Thousand. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Melt, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis bug for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  Google Scholar

• CRD. (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Retrieved Apr 10, 2019 from https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.

• Dixon-woods, M. (2011). Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Medicine, nine(3), 39–40.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Dunkin, One thousand. J. (1996). Types of errors in synthesizing research in pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 87–97.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Eisenhart, Thousand. (1998). On the subject of interpretive reviews. Review of Educational Inquiry, 68(four), 391–399.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(i), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Finfgeld-Connett, D., & Johnson, Due east. D. (2012). Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-edifice and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(1), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06037.10.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Franklin, B. M. (1999). Discourse, rationality and educational research: A historical perspective of RER. Review of Educational Research, 69(four), 347–363.

  Google Scholar

• Glass, Grand. 5. (2000, Jan). Meta-analysis at 25. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from http://www.gvglass.info/papers/meta25.html.

• Godin, K., Stapleton, J., Kirkpatrick, Due south. I., Hanning, R. Grand., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2015). Applying systematic review search methods to the gray literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Gough, D., Oliver, South., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• Greenwood, G. (2016). Approving or improving research ethics in management journals. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 507–520.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Hammersley, M. (2003). Systematic or unsystematic, is that the question? Some reflections on the science, art, and politics of reviewing inquiry. Newspaper presented at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Wellness, University of Leicester.

  Google Scholar

• Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2004). Opportunities and challenges of using systematic reviews of enquiry for bear witness-based policy in education. Evaluation and Research in Education, eighteen(1–two), 54–71.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The ability of feedback. Review of Educational Enquiry, 77(i), 81–113.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, iii(three), 274–294.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• La Paro, Grand., & Pianta, R. (2000). Predicting children'southward competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443–484.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Soap, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quaterly, 34(iv), 673–693.

  Google Scholar

• Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research, 69(one), 2–7.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. One thousand. (1985). Naturalistic research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Livingston, G. (1999). Beyond watching over established means: A review as recasting the literature, recasting the lived. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 9–19.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, Yard. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. London: Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Matt, G. E., & Cook, T. D. (2009). Threats to the validity of generalized inferences. In H. M. Cooper, L. 5. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2d ed., pp. 537–560). New York: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, Thou., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, G., . . . Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, four(1–9).

  Google Scholar

• Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Popkewitz, T. S. (1999). Reviewing reviews: RER, research and the politics of educational knowledge. Review of Educational Enquiry, 69(4), 397–404.

  Google Scholar

• Pullman, D., & Wang, A. T. (2001). Adaptive designs, informed consent, and the ethics of research. Controlled Clinical Trials, 22(3), 203–210.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. M. Cooper, L. Five. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (second ed., pp. 103–125). New York: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• Rothstein, H. R., College, B., Turner, H. M., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2004). The Campbell Collaboration information retrieval policy brief. Retrieved 2006, June 05, from http://world wide web.campbellcollaboration.org/MG/IRMGPolicyBriefRevised.pdf.

• Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn't work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to acquit meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13–21.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Schwandt, T. A. (1998). The interpretive review of educational matters: Is there any other kind? Review of Educational Inquiry, 68(4), 409–412.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Suri, H. (2008). Upstanding considerations in synthesising research: Whose representations? Qualitative Inquiry Journal, viii(i), 62–73.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, xi(2), 63–75.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Suri, H. (2013). Epistemological pluralism in qualitative research synthesis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Teaching 26(7), 889–911.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Suri, H. (2014). Towards methodologically inclusive research synthesis. United kingdom: Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Suri, H. (2018). 'Meta-analysis, systematic reviews and research syntheses' In L. Cohen, L. Manion & K. R. B. Morrison Research Methods in Instruction (8th ed., pp. 427–439). Abingdon: Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Suri, H., & Clarke, D. J. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395–430.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

• Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. M. Cooper, 50. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of enquiry synthesis and meta-analysis (second ed., pp. 435–452). New York: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• The Methods Analogous Group of the Campbell Collaboration. (2017). Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: Reporting standards. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/campbell-methods-reporting-standards.html.

• Tolich, M., & Fitzgerald, Thou. (2006). If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. Journal of Empirical Research on Human being Enquiry Ethics, 12(2), 71–78.

  Google Scholar

• Tronto, J. C. (2005). An ethic of care. In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 251–263). Oxford, U.k. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

  Google Scholar

• Valentine, J. C. (2009). Judging the quality of primary research. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of inquiry synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 129–146). New York: Sage.

  Google Scholar

• Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A disquisitional assay of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(ii), 130–178.

  CrossRef  Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

1. Deakin Academy, Melbourne, Australia

   Harsh Suri

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harsh Suri .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, accommodation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, every bit long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were fabricated.

The images or other tertiary party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If cloth is not included in the chapter's Creative Eatables license and your intended use is not permitted past statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you volition need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright data

© 2020 The Author(s)

Nearly this chapter

Cite this chapter

Suri, H. (2020). Upstanding Considerations of Conducting Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bail, M., Buntins, M. (eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Inquiry. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/ten.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_3

Download commendation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI : https://doi.org/x.1007/978-iii-658-27602-7_3

• Published: 22 Nov 2019

• Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

• Impress ISBN: 978-3-658-27601-0

• Online ISBN: 978-iii-658-27602-7

• eBook Packages: Education Education (R0)

mcconachypairame67.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_3

Share this post