In the mid‐2000s, several highly‐cited papers called for improving conceptual coherence and methodological transparency in vulnerability research to support greater policy relevance. As reducing vulnerability rises on political agendas, identifying empirically validated measures will become increasingly important in the design and evaluation of multi‐site and multi‐scale programmatic interventions. Using a systematic review methodology, we analyze the current range of conceptual frameworks, operationalizations and research methodologies as used in empirical studies of local‐level vulnerability in agricultural settings. Detailed analysis of theories and methods provides a platform for moving toward reporting that supports valid comparisons between disparate studies. This in turn, enables the design and implementation of empirically‐informed programmatic interventions. The results show that earlier concerns remain relevant. Even the best reported cases do not support aggregated analysis because conceptual ambiguity and methodological heterogeneity renders each study effectively unique. While conceptualization is broadly consolidating around the IPCC framework, declaration of that framework does not predict consistent operationalization. Furthermore, emerging alternative frameworks, especially Vulnerability as Expected Poverty, reveal important limitations of the IPCC framework. Findings also highlight that reporting practices in vulnerability research perpetuate problematic ambiguity. When designing and reporting research, we recommend addressing six key questions that can help specify the objectives of the study: (1) Is this system vulnerable? (2) To what is this system vulnerable? (3) How vulnerable is this system? (4)What is causing this system to be vulnerable? (5) How is vulnerability distributed within the system? (6) What is causing the observed distribution of vulnerability within the system? WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e464. doi: 10.1002/wcc.464 This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

The food systems upon which humanity depends face multiple interdependent environmental, social, and economic threats in the 21 st Century. Yet, the governance of these systems, which determines to a large extent the ability to adapt and transform in response to these challenges, is under-researched. This perspective piece synthesises the findings of two recent reviews of food systems governance and transformations and proposes a comprehensive research agenda for the coming years. These reviews highlight the influence of governance on food systems, methodological obstacles to explaining the effectiveness of governance in realising food sustainability, and conditions that have historically supported food system transformations. We argue that the following steps are key to improving our knowledge of the role of governance in food systems: (1) developing more comparable research designs for building generalisable explanations of what governance elements are most effective in realising food systems goals; (2) using the lens of polycentricity to help disentangle complex governance networks; (3) giving greater attention to the conditions and pre-conditions associated with historical food system transformations; (4) identifying adaptations that strengthen or weaken path dependency; and, (5) focusing research on how transformations can be supported by institutions that facilitate collective action and stakeholder agency.

Despite recognition that database search alone is inadequate even within the health sciences, it appears that reviewers in fields that have adopted systematic review are choosing to rely primarily, or only, on database search for information retrieval. This commentary reminds readers of factors that call into question the appropriateness of default reliance on database searches particularly as systematic review is adapted for use in new and lower consensus fields. It then discusses alternative methods for information retrieval that require development, formalisation, and evaluation. Our goals are to encourage reviewers to reflect critically and transparently on their choice of information retrieval methods and to encourage investment in research on alternatives.

With climate change impacts being felt across Europe, governments have started to invest in designing and implementing adaptation actions. The means through which governments adapt is generally referred to as policy instruments. Although there is a large body of adaptation policy literature emerging, our comprehensive understanding of policy instruments is limited nor do we know much about how scholarship on adaptation is addressing critical questions about policy instrument choice and effectiveness to support policy practice. In this article we map academic scholarship on climate change adaptation policy instruments in Europe. Using systematic approaches, we identify 184 relevant articles published 2014–2019. Our findings show that research is heavily concentrated on a limited number of western-European countries, with hardly any insights from eastern Europe and smaller countries. Most studies do not connect climate change impacts and risks with policy instruments, making assessment of policy effectiveness difficult, if not impossible. We argue that expanding the geographical scope of future research and enhancing the diversity of study types across Europe is critical for advancing theories on climate change adaptation policy, as well as providing useful recommendations for policy makers to strengthen the solution space and accelerate climate change adaptation.

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing empirical research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This complicates aggregation of evidence and generalization. This paper presents a review of literature to identify a core set of methodological indicators to study food systems governance in future research. Indicators were identified from literature gathered through a structured consultation and sampling from recent systematic reviews and were classified according to governance levels and the food system activity domain they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and with less literature investigating how food governance affects food distribution and consumption. Many indicators of institutional structure were found, while indicators capturing social agency and indicators of cross-scale dynamics were moderately represented but critical perspectives on governance were lacking. These gaps present an opportunity for future empirical research to investigate more comprehensively the diverse components of food systems and how governance arrangements at different scales affect them.

There is increasing interest in using systematic review to synthesize evidence on the social and environmental effects of and adaptations to climate change. Use of systematic review for evidence in this field is complicated by the heterogeneity of methods used and by uneven reporting. In order to facilitate synthesis of results and design of subsequent research a method, construct-centered methods aggregation, was designed to 1) provide a transparent, valid and reliable description of research methods, 2) support comparability of primary studies and 3) contribute to a shared empirical basis for improving research practice. Rather than taking research reports at face value, research designs are reviewed through inductive analysis. This involves bottom-up identification of constructs, definitions and operationalizations; assessment of concepts’ commensurability through comparison of definitions; identification of theoretical frameworks through patterns of construct use; and integration of transparently reported and valid operationalizations into ideal-type research frameworks. Through the integration of reliable bottom-up inductive coding from operationalizations and top-down coding driven from stated theory with expert interpretation, construct-centered methods aggregation enabled both resolution of heterogeneity within identically named constructs and merging of differently labeled but identical constructs. These two processes allowed transparent, rigorous and contextually sensitive synthesis of the research presented in an uneven set of reports undertaken in a heterogenous field. If adopted more broadly, construct-centered methods aggregation may contribute to the emergence of a valid, empirically-grounded description of methods used in primary research. These descriptions may function as a set of expectations that improves the transparency of reporting and as an evolving comprehensive framework that supports both interpretation of existing and design of future research.

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and help improve people's lives. 3ie evidence gap map reports 3ie evidence gap maps are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programmes. The maps provide a visual display of completed and ongoing systematic reviews and impact evaluations in a sector or sub-sector, structured around a framework of interventions and outcomes.The evidence gap map reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, protocols, and the analysis of results. About this evidence gap map reportThis report provides the supporting documentation for the 3ie evidence gap map on intimate partner violence prevention, developed as part of a project funded by an anonymous donor. All of the content of this report is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its Board of Commissioners. Any errors and omissions are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Please direct any comments or queries to the corresponding author Mario G Picon at mpicon@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsThe work for this paper was funded by a grant from an anonymous donor, as a key component of a nascent knowledge hub addressing the issue of intimate partner violence prevention. 3ie staff and independent consultants prepared the evidence gap map under the direction of Mario G Picon. Special thanks to consultants Junior Ovince, Claudia Deijl, Sarah Custer-Lalanne and Anjini Mishra who, at different points during the project, provided invaluable assistance in screening, coding and synthesising information that was used in drafting this report. We are grateful to Sara Pacqué-Margolis, Beryl Leach and Edoardo Masset for reviewing and providing helpful feedback that improved the draft. Additionally, 3ie would like to thank the more than 30 practitioners and researchers who participated in a consultation webinar for stakeholders in Sub-Saharan Africa, coordinated by the Raising Voices office in Kampala, Uganda. Also, many thanks to the participants of a London-based workshop for researchers working on impact evaluations and systematic reviews of intimate partner violence prevention interventions, and to participants of a donor roundtable meeting hosted by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2015, where the idea of developing an evidence gap map around this topic was originally raised.ii SummaryIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a global health concern and a human rights violation. According to the World Health Organization (2013), about...

Evidence-based development suggests empirical choice of evaluation methods. Systematic review (SR) is increasingly used in development but, to our knowledge, has not informed methods selection. This article tests SR for methods selection for evaluation in health and conflict studies. The review comprised a reproducible literature search, inclusion protocols, quality assessment, data extraction and qualitative aggregation. The study finds that adopting even some aspects of SR for methods selection to be useful and an improvement. The usefulness of SR is constrained by the paucity of empirically grounded methodological recommendations, inconsistent citation and reporting practices and difficulties surrounding multidisciplinary quality assessments. ARTICLE HISTORY