روش‌شناسی پژوهش مروری و نقش آن در تولید دانش: توسعه یک گونه‌شناسی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

پیشینه پژوهشی بدست آمده از پژوهش‌های پیوسته و متکامل دانشمندان، از سرمایه­های بزرگ جامعه علمی محسوب می‌شود که در صورت بهره‌برداری مناسب، می‌تواند نقش کم‌نظیری در تولید دانش داشته باشد. دراین‌راستا پژوهش مروری نوعی از تحقیقات است که هدف آن، مطالعه مستقل و روش‌مند پیشینه پژوهش برای اکتشاف، توصیف، تلفیق، تبیین و یا نقد الگوها، روابط و روند‌های قابل مشاهده در پیکره دانش می‌باشد که ازطریق پژوهش‌ها و منابع مرتبه اول، به راحتی امکان بررسی آن وجود ندارد. اما گاهی تصور می‌شود مقالات مروری برخلاف مقالات علمی پژوهشی، و مشابه با مقالات علمی ترویجی، نوآوری خاصی ندارند و صرفاً به بازگویی نتایج پژوهش‌های پیشین می‌پردازند. ازاین‌رو هدف پژوهش حاضر عبارت است از بررسی ظرفیت تحقیقات مروری در تولید دانش و مفهوم‌سازی انواع این پژوهش‌ها و در نهایت ارائه یک گونه‌شناسی جامع از مقالات مروری. نتایج این پژوهش که با روش فراترکیب انجام شده نشان می‌دهد دامنه گسترده پژوهش‌های مروری را می‌توان ذیل سه معیار: دامنه، سازماندهی و اهداف مرور، طبقه‌بندی کرد و می‌توان حداقل ده گونه متمایز از مقالات مروری را شناسایی کرد که هر یک کارکرد خاص خود را در تولید دانش دارند

کلیدواژه‌ها


,1-م.، و فتاحی، ر. (۱۳۸۴). راهنمای نگارش مرور نوشتارها و پیشینه پژوهش در حوزه های علوم انسانی و اجتماعی. تهران: کتابدار.
2-رضائیان، م. (1392). مروری بر انواع مطالعات مروری در حوزه سلامت. مجله تحقیقات نظام سلامت، 9(11)، 1149-1157.
3-یارمحمدیان، م.، محمدی, ع.، و موحدی، ف. (1390). استانداردهایی برای تدوین مقالات مروری در نظام سلامت. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 8(8), 1226-1234.
 
4-American Psychological Association. (2013). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5-Anderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., & Goodwin, N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6(1), 7.
6-Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
7-Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2014). Towards an Analysis of Review Article in Applied Linguistics: Its Classes, Purposes and Characteristics. English Language Teaching, 7, 76-88.
8-Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2014). Towards an Analysis of Review Article in Applied Linguistics: Its Classes, Purposes and Characteristics. English Language Teaching, 7, 76-88.
9-Babbie, E. (2013). Earl Babbie identifies three purposes of social-science research: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th edition. Belmont CA: Thompson - Wadsworth. pp. 87-89. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
10-Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1997). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320.
11-Bern, D. (1995). Writing a Review Article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172-177.
12-Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., ..., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. The Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 571–583.
13-Cooper, H. (1988). Organizing Knowledge Syntheses: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104–126.
14-Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.
15-Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1386–1400.
16-Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., ..., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 45–53.
17-Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., ..., & Agarwal, S. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 35.
18-Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2008). DOING A LITERATURE REVIEW. In M. Easterby-Smith, R. Thorpe, & P. Jackson, Management Research (pp. 29-53). SAGE.
19-Grant, M., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108.
20-Green, B., Johnson, C., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. JOURNAL OF CHIROPRACTIC MEDICINE, 5(3), 101-117.
21-Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper; Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta­analyses). British Medical Journal, 315, 672-675.
22-Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
23-Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D., ..., & Moher, D. (2015). The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(11), 777-484.
24-JESSON, J., & LACEY, F. (2006). How to do (or not to do) a critical literature review. Pharmacy Education, 6(2), 139–148.
25-King, W., & He, J. (2005). Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta- Analysis in IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 665-686.
26-Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Computer Science. Keele: Keele University.
27-Liberati, A., Altman, D., ..., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-28.
28-Mayer, P. (2009). Guidelines for writing a Review Article. Retrieved MAY 15, 2017, from Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center: http://www.plantscience.ethz.ch/education/Masters/courses/Scientific_Writing
29-Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 6–20.
30-Mertens, D. (2014). Literature Review and Focusing the Research. In D. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (4 ed., p. 536). SAGE.
31-Mertens, D. (2014). Literature Review and Focusing the Research. In D. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (4 ed., p. 536). SAGE.
32-Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & Group, T. P. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8, 336-341.
33-Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information, 10(26). Retrieved jul 26, 2018, from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26
34-Pare, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52, 183–199.
35-Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 21–34.
36-Pieper, D., Buechter, R., Jerinic, P., & Eikermann, M. (2012). Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 1267-1273.
37-Randolph, J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1-13.
38-Rumrill, P., Fitzgerald, S., & Merchant, W. (2010). Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work (Reading, Mass.), 35(3), 399–404.
39-Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 15.
40-The Methods Coordinating Group of the Campbell Col. (2016). Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: Conduct standards and Reporting standards. The Campbell Collaboration.
41-Torraco, R. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.
42-Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management , 14, 207-222.
43-Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.
44-Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., & Pawson, R. (2010). Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Medical Education, 10(12), 1.