Methodology of Research Reviews and Its Role in Knowledge Production: Developing a Typology

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

The literature review obtained from the continuous scientific researches is considered as a great capital for the scientific community, which can play a unique role in the production of knowledge, if exploited appropriately. In this regard, review research is a type of research aimed at independent and systematic study of the literature review for exploring, describing, integrating, explaining or criticizing patterns, relationships, and trends visible in the body of knowledge, which can not easily be addressed through the first-order research and resources. It is sometimes thought that review articles, in contrast to scientific-research articles and similar to scientific-promotional articles, have no particular innovation and merely retell the previous researches results. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the capacity of review research in generating knowledge, conceptualizing different types of these studies and ultimately, providing a comprehensive typology of review articles The results of this study, which have been carried out by Metha-synthesis method suggest that the broad scope of review research can be classified according to the three criteria consisting of scope, organization and study objectives, and  also at least 10 distinct types of review articles can be identified that each one has its own function in the production of knowledge

Keywords

References

,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.
Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities
Volume 25, Issue 98
June 2019
Pages 79-105

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics