On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews
On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews
复制标题
论文献综述的“系统性”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Cecez
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Boell;D. Cecez
进行文献综述的一般指南通常没有解决文献检索和处理可能大量已识别来源的问题。这些问题通过所谓的系统性文献综述（SLR）来具体解决，SLR提出了一个严格的文献检索和评价方案。此外，SLR被认为是文献综述的“标准化方法”，即可复制、透明、客观、无偏见和严格，因此上级其他文献综述方法。这些都是重要的和相应的索赔- 2014;尽管越来越多地采用SLR - 2014;在信息系统（IS）文献中仍然基本上没有注意到。这场辩论的目的是提请IS社区注意SLR的主张，质疑其正当性并揭示其采用的潜在风险。这是通过首先检查SLR的起源和规定的系统性文献综述过程，然后通过批判性地评估其索赔和影响。在这场辩论中，我们表明，SLR是适用和有用的一种非常具体的文献综述，一个Meta研究，识别和总结证据，从早期的研究。我们还证明了SLR提供上级质量的说法是不合理的。更重要的是，我们认为，SLR作为一种通用的方法进行文献综述是非常值得怀疑的，隐藏着重大的危险。这篇论文警告说，单反相机可能会破坏对文学的批判性参与，以及学术工作中的学术性意味着什么。
General guidelines for conducting literature reviews often do not address the question of literature searches and dealing with a potentially large number of identified sources. These issues are specifically addressed by so-called systematic literature reviews (SLR) that propose a strict protocol for the search and appraisal of literature. Moreover, SLR are claimed to be a ‘standardized method’ for literature reviews, that is, replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased, and rigorous, and thus superior to other approaches for conducting literature reviews. These are significant and consequential claims that — 2014; despite increasing adoption of SLR — 2014; remained largely unnoticed in the information systems (IS) literature. The objective of this debate is to draw attention of the IS community to SLR’s claims, to question their justification and reveal potential risks of their adoption. This is achieved by first examining the origins of SLR and the prescribed systematic literature review process and then by critically assessing their claims and implications. In this debate, we show that SLR are applicable and useful for a very specific kind of literature review, a meta study that identifies and summarizes evidence from earlier research. We also demonstrate that the claims that SLR provide superior quality are not justified. More importantly, we argue that SLR as a general approach to conducting literature reviews is highly questionable, concealing significant perils. The paper cautions that SLR could undermine critical engagement with literature and what it means to be scholarly in academic work.
研究综合研究中的可比性工作和差异管理。
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.041
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
Social science & medicine (1982)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Sandelowski,Margarete;Voils,CorrineI;Barroso,Julie
通讯作者：
Barroso,Julie