cooper 1988 literature review

Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews

A taxonomy of literature reviews in education and psychology is presented. The taxonomy categorizes reviews according to: (a) focus; (b) goal; (c) perspective; (d) coverage; (e) organization; and (f) audience. The seven winners of the American Educational Research Association's Research Review Award are used to illustrate the taxonomy's categories. Data on the reliability of taxonomy codings when applied by readers is presented. Results of a survey of review authors provides baseline data on how frequently different types of reviews appear in the education and psychology literature. How the taxonomy might help in judging the quality of literature reviews is discussed, along with more general standards for evaluating reviews. © 1988 Springer-Verlag.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats

Dimensions citation stats, published in, publication date, start / end page, related subject headings.

• 5003 Philosophy
• 2203 Philosophy
• 2202 History and Philosophy of Specific Fields
• 1608 Sociology

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Send me an email reminder

By submitting, you agree to receive donor-related emails from the Internet Archive. Your privacy is important to us. We do not sell or trade your information with anyone.

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Synthesizing research : a guide for literature reviews

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

This book contains pen marking.

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

139 Previews

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station15.cebu on October 23, 2021

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Literature Reviews: An Overview of Systematic, Integrated, and Scoping Reviews

• First Online: 01 October 2023

Cite this chapter

• John R. Turner 4  

1259 Accesses

Literature reviews are a main part of the research process. Literature Reviews can be stand-alone research projects, or they can be part of a larger research study. In both cases, literature reviews must follow specific guidelines so they can meet the rigorous requirements for being classified as a scientific contribution. More importantly, these reviews must be transparent so that they can be replicated or reproduced if desired. The rigorous requirements set out by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) aim to support researchers in conducting literature reviews as well as address the replication crisis that has challenged scientific disciplines over the past decade. The current chapter identifies some of the requirements along with highlighting different types of reviews and recommendations for conducting a rigorous review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Beginners

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Systematic Literature Review

Begley GC, Ioannidis JPA (2015) Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 116:116–126. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Romero F (2019) Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philos Compass 14:e12633. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12633

Article   Google Scholar  

Van Bavel JJ, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady WJ, Reinero DA (2016) Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JPA (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bollen K, Cacioppo JT, Kaplan RM, Krosnick JA, Olds JL (2015) Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science. https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf . Accessed 15 Sept 2022

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Imel S (2011) Writing a literature review. In: Tonette RS, Hatcher T (eds) The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 145–160

Google Scholar  

Boote DN, Beile P (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 34:3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003

Bryman A (2008) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Taylor D (n.d.) The literature review: a few tips on conducting it. https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/ . Accessed 1 Oct 2022

Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Cooper HM (1988) Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl Soc 1:104–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis. 4th ed. Applied social research methods series, vol 2. Sage, Los Angelas, CA

Cooper H (2003) Psychological bulletin: editorial. Psychol Bull 129:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3

Hart C (2018) Doing a literature review: releasing the research imagination, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angelas, CA

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M et al (2016) A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15:404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

Doty DH, Glick WH (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad Manag Rev 19:230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1994.9410210748

Leedy PD, Ormrod JE (2005) Practical research: planning and design, 8th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Ragins BR (2012) Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Acad Manag Rev 37:493–501. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165

King S (2000) On writing: a memoir of the craft. Scribner, New York, NY

Torraco RJ (2016) Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparative analysis. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4:355–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043008

Pendleton-Jullian AM, Brown JS (2018) Design unbound: designing for emergence in a white water world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Book   Google Scholar  

Simon HA (2019) The sciences of the artificial [reissue of 3rd ed.]. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Klir GJ (2009) W. Ross Ashby: a pioneer of systems science. Int J Gen Syst 38:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070802601434

Reen J (2020) The evolution of knowledge: rethinking science for the anthropocene. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

Download references

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

John R. Turner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Turner .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Retired Senior Expert Pharmacologist at the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology, and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

Professor & Director, Research Training and Publications, The Office of Research and Development, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology (Deemed to be University), Vallam, Tamil Nadu, India

Pitchai Balakumar

Division Cardiology & Nephrology, Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Fortunato Senatore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Turner, J.R. (2023). Literature Reviews: An Overview of Systematic, Integrated, and Scoping Reviews. In: Jagadeesh, G., Balakumar, P., Senatore, F. (eds) The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_38

Published : 01 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-1283-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-1284-1

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews

1988, Knowledge, Technology & Policy

Related Papers

British Educational Research Journal

Martyn Hammersley

Reviews are one of the main means by which the findings of educational research are communicated to audiences outside the research community. In this article, we look at some aspects of the production of reviews in the light of this function. Attention is given to issues relating to the initiation of reviews, the definition of the field to be covered, the coverage and treatment of relevant research, and the drawing of conclusions. The discussion is illustrated by reference to some recent examples of reviews of educational research.

Sarah Elaine Eaton

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide students of educational research with clear guidance on how to choose high quality sources for research papers and theses. Methods: Using an information-analysis approach, this evidence-based guide draws from social sciences research methodology literature. It addresses a gap in the literature by offering pragmatic guidance on how to engage in an informed decision-making process about what types of literature are appropriate for inclusion in educational research reports. Results: The primary outcome of this work is a clear, plain-language guide for students to help them build their understanding of the kinds of sources to include in a literature review. Implications: As a result of better understanding the types of sources that constitute a credible literature review, students may develop both their competence and confidence selecting appropriate sources for their research writing. Although written for an educational research audience, researchers in other disciplines may find it applicable. Additional Materials: 12 references, 1 figure.

Publications

Cherley C Du Plessis

The ability to conduct an explicit and robust literature review by students, scholars or scientists is critical in producing excellent journal articles, academic theses, academic dissertations or working papers. A literature review is an evaluation of existing research works on a specific academic topic, theme or subject to identify gaps and propose future research agenda. Many postgraduate students in higher education institutions lack the necessary skills and understanding to conduct in-depth literature reviews. This may lead to the presentation of incorrect, false or biased inferences in their theses or dissertations. This study offers scientific knowledge on how literature reviews in different fields of study could be conducted to mitigate against biased inferences such as unscientific analogies and baseless recommendations. The literature review is presented as a process that involves several activities including searching, identifying, reading, summarising, compiling, analysing, interpreting and referencing. We hope this article serves as reference material to improve the academic rigour in the literature review chapters of postgraduate students' theses or dissertations. This article prompts established scholars to explore more innovative ways through which scientific literature reviews can be conducted to identify gaps (empirical, knowledge, theoretical, methodological, application and population gap) and propose a future research agenda.

KMB Electricals & Plumbing

Educational Researcher

Penny Beile

We thank Joseph Maxwell (this issue of Educational Researcher, pp. 28–31) for accepting our invitation to examine the roles and expectations of dissertation literature reviews. We agree that most are inadequate but disagree why. Maxwell argues that dissertations should emulate research articles and include a conceptual framework that only discusses relevant literature. Candidates need not present a thorough analysis and synthesis of the scholarship and research, Maxwell argues, or justify claims made about the literature. Finally, he asserts that we misunderstand the relationship between literature and research, leading to an accusation of “foundationalism.” However, these specific disagreements ignore fundamental differences about the purposes of the doctoral dissertation and the relationship between those purposes and doctoral program goals. In this rejoinder, we briefly explore these conceptual and normative differences.

Ahmed OUARET

• Learning outcomes • The nature of a literature review • Identifying the main subject and themes • Reviewing previous research • Emphasizing leading research studies • Exploring trends in the literature • Summarizing key ideas in a subject area • Summary A literature review is usually regarded as being an essential part of student projects, research studies and dissertations. This chapter examines the reasons for the importance of the literature review, and the things which it tries to achieve. It also explores the main strategies which you can use to write a good literature review.

Alfi Rahman

This Study Guide explains why literature reviews are needed, and how they can be conducted and reported. Related Study Guides are: Referencing and bibliographies, Avoiding plagiarism, Writing a dissertation, What is critical reading? What is critical writing? The focus of the Study Guide is the literature review within a dissertation or a thesis, but many of the ideas are transferable to other kinds of writing, such as an extended essay, or a report. After reading your literature review, it should be clear to the reader that you have up-to-date awareness of the relevant work of others, and that the research question you are asking is relevant. However, don't promise too much! Be wary of saying that your research will solve a problem, or that it will change practice. It would be safer and probably more realistic to say that your research will 'address a gap', rather than that it will 'fill a gap'.

Nicoleta Gabor

The primary focus of this study is to critically analyse two academic papers published in the educational field in terms of the validity and reliability of their methods of data collection and analysis, research design, and ethical implications. This is done in an attempt to demonstrate the valid procedure of conducting a research paper as a general aim for the current study. This is a desk research study conducted primarily for educational purposes. Data was collected from different resources found in the library of the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom. The analysis of the current research was conducted in the light of many educational resources specialized in research papers and publication. Results from the current study show that due to the lack of many standards, Brown's research is not reliable, valid and authentic, whereas Ornprapat and Saovapa's research is outstanding, valid, reliable, and authentic.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of P R O F E S S I O N A L Business Review

Review of Educational Research

Joshua R Polanin

intakhab khan

Journal of Asian Development

Erni Murniarti

Sarah Quinton

Yuh-shan Ho

Mahendra Budhathoki

Mariusz Panczyk , Jarosława Belowska

Communications in Computer and Information Science

Elizabeth Lee

Education Inquiry

Tine S Prøitz

Rebekka Tunombili

Olinna Wang

Herbert Walberg

KANNANAYAKAL RAJAN

Educational Psychology

Amanda Bolderston

theresa sipe

Frances Slack

Christopher N Lawrence

Perspectives on Medical Education

Oluwatobi Balogun

Vikash Mishra

Tonette S Rocco , Maria Plakhotnik

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Campbell Syst Rev
• v.14(1); 2018

Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products

This paper builds on existing taxonomies and typologies of research reviews to create an inclusive conceptual framework for classifying diverse evidence synthesis methods. Previous typologies are incomplete and there is little consistency among them in descriptions of review and synthesis methods. A more inclusive framework may promote better understanding, wider applications, and more judicious use of synthesis methods.

INTRODUCTION

Growing interest in evidence synthesis has stimulated development of novel synthesis methods. Along with valuable new tools and approaches for handling different kinds of questions and data, the proliferation of synthesis methods has produced some confusion. Some review terms are applied in idiosyncratic or indiscriminate ways, some methods are ill‐defined, and the fit between questions and synthesis methods is often under‐emphasized or unclear. In this paper, I examine the terms and typologies used to describe diverse synthesis methods, identify distinct and overlapping types of synthesis, and consider the goodness of fit between different synthesis questions and methods. This paper is motivated by interest in supporting judicious selection of synthesis methods that are fit for different purposes.

The production of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in the social and health sciences began to increase exponentially in the early 1990s, but this trend is overshadowed by even steeper rises in the production of non‐systematic reviews ( Bastian, Glasziou, & Chalmers, 2010 ; Littell, 2016 ). This rise in research synthesis activity is due, in part, to increased research output ( Bastian et al., 2010 ) and awareness that synthesized evidence is more robust and potentially more useful than results of individual studies ( Grimshaw, Eccles, Lavis, Hill, & Squires, 2012 ).

Beyond meta‐analyses of data from randomized controlled trials on effects of interventions, systematic review methods have been extended to diverse types of research questions and data. New search, appraisal, and synthesis methods have emerged within and across disciplines. On one hand, such diverse methods are needed to synthesize different types of evidence on the wide range of topics that are important to funders, policy makers, consumers, and researchers. However, stakeholders are now faced with a rather bewildering array of review and synthesis products, including: systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, network meta‐analyses, rapid reviews, realist reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps.

CONFUSING TERMINOLOGY

For purposes of this paper, I use the terms “research review” and “evidence synthesis” interchangeably to refer to a wide range of approaches to the identification, appraisal, and analysis of empirical research; these efforts may or may not include the synthesis of results across studies.

There is little consensus on the meanings of terms commonly used to describe research reviews. This is similar to the terminological confusion that appears in the literature on designs for primary research (e.g., the terms “controlled study” and “quasi‐experimental design” have multiple meanings). In the research literature, this confusion is known as the jingle/jangle fallacy ( Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991 ).

The jingle fallacy

The jingle fallacy is the erroneous belief that two different things are the same because they are given the same name. As a prime example, the term “systematic review” has taken on multiple meanings in recent years. According to the Cochrane Handbook,

A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre‐specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made (Higgins & Green, 2011).

With these twin emphases on comprehensive coverage and accuracy, systematic reviews are viewed as the most reliable sources of evidence for practice and policy ( Clarke, 2011 ). However, the term “systematic review” has been applied to a wide range of review methods, including approaches that are neither comprehensive nor reliable. Some reviews are described as systematic solely because they used keyword searches of an electronic database. Other so‐called “systematic reviews” follow explicit rules and procedures that have been shown to invite bias and error (e.g., systematically excluding eligible unpublished studies, or relying on a single coder).

Similarly, the term “rapid review” has been used to describe diverse approaches ( Polisena et al., 2015 ), and “scoping reviews” use a wide range of methods ( Pham et al., 2014 ). When the same terms are applied to disparate approaches, readers may not be aware of important distinctions between them.

The jangle fallacy

The jangle fallacy is the erroneous belief that two identical (or nearly identical) things are different because they are given different names. For example, the terms used to describe reviews of existing reviews include: overviews, umbrella reviews, systematic reviews of reviews, and meta‐reviews – although distinctions between these terms are neither consistent nor clear ( Ballard & Montgomery, 2017 ).

To address this confusion, it is necessary to look beyond the current lexicon to consider important elements of diverse approaches to the identification, analysis, and synthesis of empirical evidence. To do this, we shall examine and build on existing classification systems.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Typologies and taxonomies are two different types of classification systems ( Bailey, 1994 ). A taxonomy uses empirical observations to classify items into categories, while a typology is based on theoretical or conceptual distinctions. Either approach can employ multi‐dimensional structures. Classification systems are useful for organizing information and identifying important dimensions on which members of the class (in our case, research reviews) may vary ( Collier, LaPorte, & Seawright, 2012 ). However, attempts at classification risk the imposition of artificial structures on phenomena that may not fit neatly into prescribed categories; and multi‐dimensional classification schemes do not necessarily solve this problem.

Like designs for primary research (see Beissel‐Durrant, 2004 ; Luff, Byatt, & Martin, 2015 ) and public policies (see Smith, 2002 ), research reviews defy a basic rule of classification, which stipulates that categories must be both exhaustive (covering all instances) and mutually exclusive (with no member belonging to more than one category). In other words, in classical set theory there must be one category – but only one category – for each member ( Bailey, 1994 ). More flexible approaches to classification are possible, when we use “fuzzy sets” that don't have clear or arbitrary boundaries and allow each member of a class to take on multiple values or positions within a category.

Cooper (1988) and Gough, Thomas, and Oliver (2012) noted that research reviews differ and overlap in so many aspects that a simple taxonomy or typology of reviews is not possible. They identified key characteristics or dimensions on which reviews vary.

Key characteristics of reviews

Harris Cooper was one of the first social scientists to suggest that research reviews should follow basic steps in the scientific process. Cooper (1988) developed and assessed a taxonomy of reviews based on existing literature, unstructured interviews with 14 scholars in psychology and education, reliability checks on independent classifications of 37 reviews, and a survey completed by 108 review authors. As shown in Figure 1 , Cooper (1988) characterized literature reviews according to their foci, goals, perspectives, coverage, organization, and audience. Using this taxonomy, Cooper found low initial agreement on independent classifications of reviews, in part because many reviews have multiple foci or multiple goals. However, when reviewers were asked to describe their own reviews using Cooper's taxonomy, few objected to these categories or suggested new ones.

Comparison of Cooper's (1988) taxonomy and Gough et al. (2012) dimensions of reviews.

Gough, Thomas, and Oliver (2012) provided another classification system, focusing on variations in the aims and approaches, structures and components, and breadth and depth of research reviews. They identified several dimensions (or continua) on which reviews vary, including philosophy, relation to theory, approaches to synthesis, use of iterative or a priori methods, search strategies, approaches to quality assessment, products, and uses.

As shown in Figure 1 , there is little overlap between Cooper's (1988) taxonomy and the dimensions identified by Gough and colleagues (2012) .

Typologies of reviews

Several typologies of research reviews and emerging knowledge synthesis methods are shown in Table 1 . (1) Grant and Booth (2009) identified 14 types of reviews and described the methods commonly used within each approach for searching, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis of evidence. (2) The Royal Pharmaceutical Company (2011) described key features, similarities, and differences of eight types of reviews. (3) Tricco and colleagues (2016) conducted a scoping review of “emerging knowledge synthesis methods” in health, education, sociology, and philosophy. They identified 25 distinct synthesis methods; of these, 12 provided guidance for the entire process (including search, critical appraisal, and synthesis; these are shown in Table 1 ) and 13 provided guidance for synthesis only. (4) Perrier and colleagues (2016) found more than 600 articles on “emerging knowledge synthesis methods” published in 330 different journals, with steady increases in the number of these publications after 2003; the most commonly used approaches are shown in Table 1 .

Typologies of research reviews and emerging knowledge synthesis methods

In contrast to typologies that focus on review methods, Munn and colleagues (2018) propose a typology of systematic reviews (in the medical and health sciences) that categorizes review topics. Their typology includes 10 foci of systematic reviews: effectiveness, experiential (qualitative), costs/economic evaluations, prevalence and/or incidence, diagnostic test accuracy, etiology and/or risk, expert opinion or policy, psychometric, prognostic, and methodology.

Diverse methodologies for the synthesis of qualitative evidence have also been identified by several teams. As shown in Table 2 , four teams of authors have identified a total of 23 distinct qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) methodologies. Some of these methodologies (e.g., meta‐ethnography and qualitative comparative analysis) include multiple methods for analysis or synthesis and some analysis/synthesis methods (e.g., thematic analysis) are shared by different methodologies.

Methodologies for synthesizing qualitative evidence

Authors of previous review typologies note the overlap between review types, lack of explicit methodologies for some approaches ( Grant & Booth, 2009 ), and an overall “lack of guidance on how to select a knowledge synthesis method” ( Tricco et al., 2016 , p. 19).

Tables 1 and ​ and2 2 suggest that each typology is incomplete. There is little overlap in the review types – or terminology used to describe reviews – across these papers.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION OF RESEARCH REVIEWS

I aim to develop a more comprehensive system for classifying research reviews across topics, methods, and disciplines. This classification schema is informed by the taxonomies and typologies described above, including pivotal examples ( Cooper, 1988 ; Grant & Booth, 2009 ; Gough et al., 2012 ), empirical studies ( Tricco et al., 2016 ; Perrier et al. 2016 ), and divergent approaches (e.g., Munn et al., 2018 ).

Instead of a typology of “crisp sets” (mutually exclusive, exhaustive categories), this schema uses multiple criteria (dimensions) and recognizes that reviews can take on more than one value or position within each set of criteria. For example, reviews can have multiple goals. This multi‐dimensional, conceptual schema reflects the inherent complexity and flexibility of research reviews. A summary of the schema is shown in Appendix A and discussed below.

Embedded within the following discussion of these dimensions and characteristics are several emboldened terms; these are terms that are often used to describe certain “types” of reviews; it will become clear that these commonly‐used labels are incomplete and rather idiosyncratic descriptors.

Topics and questions for evidence synthesis

• 1.1 Conditions of interest include social, cultural, economic, environmental, political, medical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and/or relational phenomena such as attributes, perceptions, experiences, situations, problems, and disorders.
• 1.2 Interventions are practices, programs, and policies that attempt to change one or more conditions. Reviews can focus on implementation, acceptability, utilization, complexity, equity, theories of change, outcomes, impacts, costs, replication, and/or dissemination of interventions. Barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake, and effectiveness may be of interest, along with adherence to and adaptability of interventions in different contexts.
• 1.3 Methodology reviews are a form of meta‐research, which can consider qualities of research methods, measures, and/or reports.

Logic and evidentiary requirements for different kinds of inferences

‐ depends on types of inferences that are generalized

• 2.1 Constructs and categories. To synthesize data about constructs and categories, we need reliable and valid measures or thick descriptions. Relevant topics in each of our three domains include diagnostic categories, treatment typologies, and properties of measurement instruments. Reviews can synthesize data on how people view, understand, or experience a condition or intervention. We might ask how a construct is defined or measured (what nominal and operational definitions are used?) What are the characteristics or properties of a construct (categories, level of measurement, underlying dimensions)? Methodological reviews can assess various properties of measurement instruments including reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, and underlying dimensions.
• 2.2 Rates and trends include studies of incidence and prevalence, other proportions, ratios, averages, and variations. With clear constructs in mind and reliable and valid measures, we can synthesize descriptive data on the incidence or prevalence of a problem or condition (e.g., a disease, crime, school failure, child abuse, poverty). For continuous variables of interest (e.g., household income, years of school completed), we can analyze and synthesize data on averages and distributions. We can also examine changes in rates, averages, or distributions over time, in different places or contexts, or across subgroups.
• 2.3 Associations between constructs of interest are typically assessed with bivariate and multivariate analyses, which can be synthesized in meta‐analysis. Primary studies and meta‐analyses will need sufficient statistical power to detect associations between variables if these associations exist. Reviews of research on binary gender differences are examples of associational reviews.
• 2.4 Predictions . In addition to establishing associations between variables, predictions require information on time order, usually in the form of longitudinal data. Reviews in this category can identify risk and protective factors, examine the predictive validity of diagnostic or prognostic tests, or identify outcomes (but not effects or impacts) of different interventions.
• 2.5 Causes and effects . Reviews of research on the etiology and outcomes of various conditions, belong in this category, along with reviews on the impacts of interventions. In addition to establishing correlation and time order (prediction), reviews in this category will include studies that attempt to rule out rival plausible explanations for causal relationships. In intervention research, this is often done with randomized controlled trials or high‐quality quasi‐experimental designs ( Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 ). Relevant questions concern the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness of interventions, along with questions about mediators and moderators of these effects. Logic models or theories of change are useful in these reviews. Intervention research on costs effectiveness and cost‐benefit analysis also belongs in this category, as it relies on causal inferences. Methodological reviews can include studies of elements of research design (e.g., as moderators of effect size), features of studies that are associated with reductions in the risk of bias or error, along with methods for analysis and synthesis of data involving complex networks or causal models.
• 2.6 Applications. Reviews can explore the generalizability of empirical constructs and patterns across studies, settings, populations, cultures, and geopolitical contexts; replication and transportability of interventions; and external validity of research measures and methods. Inferences about generalizability rely on probability sampling methods and inferential statistics or on the proximal similarity of study samples and target populations ( Shadish, 1995 ).
• 3.1 Configure information . Reviews can identify patterns and main themes without necessarily synthesizing study results. For example, scoping reviews identify existing studies and evidence and gap maps configure information on available studies in matrices (e.g., indicating the types of interventions and outcomes that have been studied); these approaches can inform decisions about future primary studies and syntheses.
• 3.2 Aggregate or synthesize results. Cooper (1998) suggested that synthesis involves building general statements from specific instances, resolving apparent contradictions by proposing new explanations, and linguistic bridge‐building to unite ideas or observations that may have been expressed differently in different studies. Meta‐analytic tools for these activities include pooling effect sizes across studies, identifying moderators that may account for heterogeneous results, and converting original data to standard metrics. Reviews often combine aggregation and configuration activities in attempts to explore or resolve apparent contradictions across studies.
• 3.3 Appraise study qualities . Some reviews assess or criticize studies using explicit or implicit external criteria ( Cooper, 1988 ).
• 3.4 Maintain a neutral stance or espouse a position ( Cooper, 1988 ). Reviews that eschew a prior positions on key issues can avoid conflicts of interest and use systematic review methods to minimize bias and error at each step in the review process.
• 3.5 Generate, explore, or test theory or hypotheses. Reviews can consider theories of etiology, theories of change, and alternative plausible explanations.
• 3.6 Inform practice, policy, and/or further research.

Note that any one or more of these goals could be applied to any topic or question in Table 3 . For example, reviewers can configure information (perhaps in evidence and gap maps) on existing studies of: the incidence or prevalence of a condition, treatment participation, associations, comparative effectiveness of interventions, or the predictive validity of prognostic tools; the same topics can be addressed in reviews that synthesize results across studies.

• 4.1 A priori plans are often described in a protocol, with the expectation that any changes in or deviations from these initial plans will be explained in the final report. This approach is related to the goal of minimizing bias in reviews.
• 4.2 Iterative planning is more common in reviews that are exploratory in nature.
• 5.1 Exhaustive. Reviewers attempt to locate and include all studies on a particular topic. Absent clear eligibility criteria, an exhaustive search may be overly broad and inefficient. Hence, many reviewers attempt to find all studies that meet a priori eligibility criteria. For example, Campbell and Cochrane intervention reviews pre‐specify characteristics of research participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study designs (PICOS) that will (and will not) be included in a review.
• 5.2 Representative. Instead of locating all relevant research, reviewers obtain a representative sample of the studies conducted on a topic. This is difficult to do absent a sampling frame (exhaustive list) of all relevant studies.
• 5.3 Purposive. Some reviewers choose to focus on central or pivotal works in an area, rather than an exhaustive or representative set of studies ( Cooper, 1988 ). When this is done, reviewers should provide a clear rationale for the selection of studies.
• 5.4 Selective and incomplete . Rapid reviews are selective and incomplete by design; thus, they should (and often do) include appropriate caveats about likely missing data.

Reviews that purport to be exhaustive but only cite selected works are difficult for readers to evaluate and, in this sense, they are incomplete. Reviews that are limited to published studies are likely to be affected by reporting and publication biases, particularly if these reviews relate to intervention effects or other forms of hypothesis testing.

• 6.1 Quantitative primary studies (randomized controlled trials, cohort studies)
• 6.2 Qualitative primary studies provide raw material for qualitative evidence synthesis .
• 6.3 Individual participant data.
• 6.4 Previous reviews. Reviews of reviews are often called overviews.
• 7.1 Narrative. Virtually all reviews include narrative summaries.
• 7.2 Tabular. Tables are used to organize and display information (e.g., on characteristics of included studies, results of risk of bias assessments, summary of findings, other data matrices, evidence and gap maps).
• 7.3 Graphic displays (e.g., PRISMA flow charts, forest plots, funnel plots, visual illustrations of theories of change).
• 7.4 Qualitative methods include content analysis, critical interpretive synthesis, thematic synthesis, and qualitative comparative analysis (see Table 2 ).
• 7.5 Pseudo‐statistical vote‐counting.
• 7.6 Statistical meta‐analysis includes techniques for handling effect size multiplicity and pooling results across studies (generating point estimates, confidence intervals, and prediction intervals), assessing heterogeneity, moderator analysis (ANOVA analog, meta‐regression), network meta‐analysis , SROC curves, multivariate (SEM) models, hierarchical linear models (HLM), assessment of small sample and publication bias, and other sensitivity analyses.
• 7.7 Economic analyses focus on service costs, cost‐effectiveness, or cost‐benefit comparisons.
• 8.1 Historical
• 8.2 Conceptual
• 8.3 Methodological
• 9.1 Periodic. Updates are often planned to occur every few years, but this may depend on the availability of resources and new data.
• 9.2 Ongoing. Living systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available (Elliott, Synnot, Turner, Simmonds, Akl, McDonald, et al., 2017).
• 10.1 Plain language summary
• 10.2 Brief report
• 10.3 Full technical report

Not included in this classification scheme are issues of philosophy of science and epistemology. Following Morgan (2007) , who emphasized the importance of abduction (moving back and forth between inductive and deductive reasoning), inter‐subjectivity, and transferability, I believe that a pragmatic approach is needed to promote more robust and integrated synthesis methodologies. Toward that end, the classification scheme advanced here supports methodological pluralism, which is based on the premise that the “best” method for any particular study or review depends on the questions one is asking and the aims of the project. Far from an “anything goes” approach, methodological pluralism advances the value of goodness‐of‐fit between questions and methods. Thus, for example, the logic and evidence needed to support causal inferences differ from the logic and evidence needed to establish associations or generalizability ( Table 4 ).

As noted above, I emboldened some terms that are commonly used to describe research reviews. The location of these terms within a broader framework illustrates the incomplete and idiosyncratic ways in which reviews are described: Some reviews are distinguished by their goals (scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps configure information, but do not (usually) aggregate results; meta‐analyses aggregate information; while systematic reviews are usually designed to maintain a neutral stance by minimizing bias and error). Other reviews are characterized by their coverage (rapid reviews), the type of information they use (qualitative evidence synthesis, individual participant data, and overviews), analytic methods (network meta‐analysis), or updating plans (living systematic reviews). A comprehensive framework is needed to fully describe the foci, goals, and methods of research reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

By classifying research reviews, we aim to provide a conceptual scaffolding that can be used to describe available options, enhance communication about the types of reviews that are desired (e.g., when commissioning new reviews), support development of new reviews, and assess qualities of completed reviews. It is hoped that this can be useful for funders, review authors, consumers, and other stakeholders.

• 1.1. Conditions
• 1.2. Interventions
• 1.3. Methodology
• 2.1. Constructs and categories
• 2.2. Rates and trends
• 2.3. Associations
• 2.4. Predictions
• 2.5. Causes and effects
• 2.6. Applications
• 3.1. Configure information
• 3.2. Aggregate or synthesize results
• 3.3. Appraise study qualities
• 3.4. Maintain a neutral stance or espouse a position
• 3.5. Generate, explore, or test theory or hypotheses
• 3.6. Inform practice, policy, and/or further research
• 4.1. A priori
• 4.2. Iterative
• 5.1. Exhaustive
• 5.2. Representative
• 5.3. Purposive
• 5.4. Selective and incomplete
• 6.1. Quantitative primary studies
• 6.2. Qualitative primary studies
• 6.3. Individual participant data
• 6.4. Previous reviews
• 7.1. Narrative
• 7.2. Tabular
• 7.3. Graphic
• 7.4. Qualitative
• 7.5. Pseudo‐statistical vote‐counting
• 7.6. Statistical meta‐analysis
• 7.7. Economic
• 8.1. Historical
• 8.2. Conceptual
• 8.3. Methodological
• 9.1. Periodic
• 9.2. Ongoing
• 10.1. Plain language summary
• 10.2. Brief report
• 10.3. Full technical report

Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products . Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved from: www.campbellcollaboration.org/ DOI: 10.4073/cmdp.2018.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ballard, M. & Montgomery, P. (2017). Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: A scoping review of methodological guidance and four‐item checklist . Research Synthesis Methods , 8 , 92–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett‐Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 9 , 59. doi:10.1186/1471‐2288‐9‐59 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy‐five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine , 7 ( 9 ), e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beissel‐Durrant, G. (2004). A typology of research methods within the social sciences. NCRM Working paper . Southampton, UK: Economic & Social Research Council, National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved 17 May 2018 from: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/115/1/NCRMResearchMethodsTypology.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., Van der Wilt, G. J., et al. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions . Retrieved 17 May 2018 from: https://www.integrate‐hta.eu/wp‐content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance‐on‐choosing‐qualitative‐evidence‐synthesis‐methods‐for‐use‐in‐HTA‐of‐complex‐interventions.pdf
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). Synthesis of qualitative research (Section 6.5) in Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care . Retrieved 17 May 2018 from: https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_5_SYNTHESIS_OF_QUALITATIVE_RESEARCH.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier, D., LaPorte, J., & Seawright, J. (2012). Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor . Political Research Quarterly , 65 ( 1 ), 217–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews . Knowledge in Society , 1 , 104–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke, J. (2011). What is a systematic review? Evidence‐Based Nursing , 14 , 64. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews . Knowledge in Society , 1 , 104. 10.1007/BF03177550. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., … Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 91 , 23–30. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods . Systematic Reviews , 1 , 28. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information and Libraries Journal , 26 , 91–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471‐1842.2009.00848.x [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings . Implementation Science , 7 , 50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds) (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 . The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org . [ Google Scholar ]
• Littell, J. H. (2016). The rise of research synthesis: Too much of a good thing? Ingram Olkin Award Presentation at the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, 13 July 2016 , Florence, Italy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luff, R., Byatt, D., & Martin, D. (2015). Review of the typology of research methods within the social sciences . Southampton, UK: Economic & Social Research Council, National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved 17 May 2018 from: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3721/1/research_methods_typology_2015.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Lunny, C., Brennan, S. E., McDonald, S., & McKenzie, J. E. (2017). Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: Paper 1 ‐ Purpose, eligibility, search, and data extraction . Systematic Reviews , 6 , 231. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods . Journal of Mixed Methods , 1 , 48–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: State of the science . Annals of Internal Medicine , 106 , 485–488. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18. DOI: 10.1186/s12874‐017‐0468‐4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., Hannes, K., & Booth, A. on behalf of the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group (2011). Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews . In Higgins J. P. T. & Green S. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 . Available from: www.handbook.cochrane.org
• Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach . Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pham, M. T., Rajic, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency . Research Synthesis Methods , 5 , 371–385. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polisena, J., Garritty, C., Kamel, C., Stevens, A., & Abou‐Setta, A. M. (2015). Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: A descriptive analysis of processes and methods . Systematic Reviews , 4 ( 1 ). 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal Pharmaceutical Society . (2011). Different types of evidence/literature reviews . Retrieved from: http://studylib.net/doc/8647248/series‐two–article‐four–different‐types‐of‐evidence‐lit… [ Google Scholar ]
• Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research . Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish, W. R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies . American Journal of Community Psychology , 23 , 419–427. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi‐experimental designs for general causal inference . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification . Policy Studies Journal , 30 , 379–395. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco, A. C., Soobia, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDeonald, H.Lillie, E., Tran, J., D'Souza, J. D., Hui, W., Perrier, L., Welch, V, Horsley, T., Straus, S. E., & Kastner, M. (2016). A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 73 , 19–28. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews

Reprint years, other versions.

No versions found

PhilArchive

External links.

• From the Publisher via CrossRef (no proxy)
• link.springer.com (no proxy)

Through your library

• Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
• Configure custom resolver

Similar books and articles

Citations of this work, references found in this work.

Home > CIRS > 3105

Cooper, Harris M.,"A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1985. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 254541.

Harris M. Cooper

Posits components of a literature review (focus, goals, prespective, coverage, organization, audience) and uses them to analyze examples; suggests other uses for the taxonomy.

• Broad Topical Focus

Curriculum Inquiry Guidelines, Critique and Utilization of Curriculum Research and Inquiry

• Source Discipline

Mode of Inquiry in the Study

Integrative Inquiry, Philosophical Inquiry-Conceptual Analysis

• Type of Study

Single Study

• Narrow Topic

Knowledge Generation, Knowledge Utilization

Printing CIRS:

To print the citation, use CTRL-P for PC or ⌘ P for Mac

Since June 07, 2018

• Tips for Using the CIRS Database

Browse CIRS:

• Mode of Inquiry

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Colleges & Departments
• Disciplines
• Expert Gallery
• My STARS Account
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Follow STARS
• About STARS

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright