Samenvatting
Summary literature Literature Review (AM_1251)
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
This is a summary of the mandatory literature for the course Literature Review, which is also the exam material.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 18 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 18 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
1 - A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associatedmethodologies - Grant & Booth (2009)
Systematic review = gathering research, getting rid of rubbish and summarizing the best of what
remains → to review = to view, inspect or examine a second time or again → discovered in 18th
century, but explicit review methods in 20th century → SALSA-framework = Search, Appraisal,
Synthesis and Analysis → types of reviews:
1. Critical review: demonstrates that the writer has extensively researched the literature
and critically evaluated its quality → presents, analyses and synthesizes material from
diverse sources → strength = evaluate what is of value from the previous body of work,
may resolve competing schools of thought → weakness = less structured than other
review types.
2. Literature (narrative) review: describes published materials which provide an
examination of recent or current literature (wide range of subjects) → strength = allows
for consolidation, building on previous work, summation, avoiding duplication and
identifying gaps → weakness = conclusions are open to bias and not generalisable.
3. Mapping (systematic) review: map out and categorize existing literature on a particular
topic to identify gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews
and/or primary research → strength = enable the contextualization of in-depth
systematic literature reviews within broader literature and identification of gaps in the
evidence base → weakness = time constrained and lack the synthesis and analysis of more
considered approaches.
4. Meta-analysis: combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise
effect of the results → strength = compilation of individual studies is time-efficient for
decision-makers → weakness = inappropriate to combine apples and oranges (studies
that are not sufficiently similar).
5. Mixed studies/methods review: any combination of methods where at least one of the
components is a literature (usually systematic) review → strength = provide a potentially
more complete picture of the research landscape in a specific topic area → weakness =
theoretical and methodological challenges of bringing together differently structured
studies, addressing different questions and conducted within different paradigms.
6. Overview: any summary of the literature that attempts to survey the literature and
describe its characteristics → strength = provides a broad and often comprehensive
summation of a topic area → weakness = includes reviews of varying rigour and quality.
7. Qualitative systematic/evidence review: a method for integrating or comparing the
findings from qualitative studies → strength = complements research evidence with
user-reported and practitioner-observed considerations → weakness = methods for
qualitative systematic review are still in their infancy and there is considerable debate
about when specific methods or approaches are appropriate.
8. Rapid review: provides an assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice
issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing
research → strength = quick but not dirty (rigorous and explicit in method and thus
systematic, but make concessions to the breadth or depth of the process by limiting
particular aspects of the systematic review process) → weakness = limiting the time taken
to search may result in publication bias.
9. Scoping review: provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of
available research literature → strength = inform policymakers as to whether a full
systematic review is needed → weakness = cannot be regarded as a final output.
, 10. State-of-the-art review: offer new perspectives on an issue (current matter) or highlight
an area in need of further research (subtype of literature review) → strength = valuable
for those new to an area or for those seeking to identify potential opportunities for
contemporary research → weakness = time bound and may distort the overall picture of
development of a field.
11. Systematic review: systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence →
strength = draw together all known knowledge on a topic area → weakness = restricting
studies for inclusion to a single study design (FEX. RCT’s) can limit the application to
providing insights about effectiveness rather than seeking answers to complex questions.
12. Systematic search and review: combines the strengths of a critical review with a
comprehensive search process (addresses broad questions) → strength = incorporates
multiple study types and thereby provides a more complete picture of the prevalence of
research on a topic than a systematic review limited to RCT’s → weakness = may be a
subjective selection of research to support a particular line of argument.
13. Systematised review: include one or more elements of the systematic review process
while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review →
strength = basis for a more extensive piece of work (simple) → weakness = quality
assessment and synthesis are often not described (prone to bias).
14. Umbrella review: overarching review to aggregate findings from several reviews that
address specific questions (focuses on broad condition/problem) → strength = quick
overview of reviews relevant to the decision at hand → weakness = it is not feasible for
many areas of library and information practice.
1 - Clarifying differences between review designs and methods - Gough et al.
(2012)
3 dimensions of difference between reviews:
1. Aims and approaches (methodology): approach of the review = ontological,
epistemological, theoretical, and ideological assumptions → distinction between:
a. aggregate reviews = reviews that collect empirical data to
describe and test predefined concepts (seeking evidence to inform
decisions through predefined methods) → example RQ: What is the effect
of a health or social intervention?
b. configurative reviews = reviews that try to interpret and
understand the world through arranging info and developing concepts
(seeking concepts to provide new ways of understanding) → example RQ:
What theories can be generated from the conceptual literature?
→ many reviews have elements of both aggregation and configuration.
→ ontological or epistemological position: aggregative reviews take a realist position (used to
make empirical statements to inform decision making), while configurative reviews take a more
relativist idealist position (not seeking a single correct answer, but examining the variation and
complexity of different conceptualisations).
2. Structure and components: single reviews that synthesize a specific literature to answer
the review question OR maps of what research has been undertaken OR contain multiple
components equating to conducting many reviews or to reviewing many reviews.
→ systematic maps = 3 purposes; (1) describing the nature of a research field, (2) informing the
conduct of a synthesis, and (3) interpreting the findings of a synthesis.
→ mixed-method reviews = combine data from previous research with other forms of data.
, 3. Breadth, depth, and extent of the work done: the need for a broader view is raised by
complex questions (FEX. assessing the impact of complex interventions) → achieve
breadth through multi-component reviews → broad reviews require more resources →
depth = reviews vary in the extent that they engage with a research issue.
→ macro research strategy = the positioning of the review and resources and the work aimed to
be done within the state of what is already known.
2 - Getting started with a review - Oliver et al. (2012)
Review process: initiation (form a team, engage stakeholders) -> RQ and methodology (conceptual
framework and approach) -> search strategy (screen for inclusion with eligibility criteria) ->
description of study characteristics -> quality and relevance assessment (quality appraisal
criteria) -> synthesis (use conceptual framework, study codes and quality judgments) -> using
reviews (interpret and communicate findings with stakeholders).
Conceptual framework = a working hypothesis that can be developed, refined or confirmed
during the course of the research → purpose: explain the key issues to be studied, the constructs
or variables and the presumed relationships between them.
→ specify a causal link between who the review is about (population), what the review is about
(intervention), and the possible consequences of intervening in the lives of these people
(desirable and undesirable outcomes).
→ when concepts are complex and causal pathways unclear, conceptual frameworks can be
partially developed before a review begins (working hypothesis) and refined during the course of
reviewing the literature (the resulting conceptual framework).
Social franchising = a developer of a successfully tested social concept (franchiser) enables
others (franchisees) to replicate the model using the tested system and brand name to achieve a
social benefit → the franchisee is obligated to comply with quality standards, report sales and
service statistics, and in some cases, pay franchise fees.
Synthesis approaches: (1) aggregate the findings of studies to test
hypotheses constructed with concepts well defined in advance
(mostly quantitative data), (2) configure the findings from studies
to generate theory from early tentative assumptions and concepts
that emerge from the data (mostly qualitative data) (picture right).
Causal pathways = link a series of events that result in effects →
may be hypothetical or supported by evidence.
Transformative reviews = use the views of less powerful groups to
(a) drive the analysis of quantitative data, (b) explore the role of
social inequalities in shaping people’s views or the impact of
intervention, (c) acknowledge power relations, and (d) allow service users to shape a review.
Theoretical lens = focuses a review on a particular way of analysing the evidence → FEX. equity
lens: focus on unjust differences between groups of people.
Choice of review methods depends on: (a) the RQ(‘s), (b) whether the data available are qualitative,
quantitative or mixed, and (c) how well defined concepts are before the review begins.
→ mixed methods to: combine the strengths of different research methods -> have one method
inform or develop another by applying them sequentially -> provide insights at different levels of
analysis by nesting one method within another -> apply a theoretical lens.
Scale of a review depends on: the need for evidence, what is already known about the evidence
likely to be found, the methods appropriate for answering the review question and the time and
resources available for the review.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper yaralangeveld. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52510 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen