About Research

Abstract

In our world of rapidly expanding knowledge and exponential growth in published research, synthesis of knowledge has become ever more important. The most up-to-date method for doing this in our field, as well as many others, is a scholarly analysis of published research studies-the literature review. Not so long ago, knowledge synthesis was the main purpose of textbooks; however, by the time a textbook is published, the content is already several years old. Clinicians, program planners, and policy makers need more updated information and often cannot spend the time to obtain all the relevant literature on a topic. Literature reviews fill this gap. Recognizing the importance of this type of research, we are publishing four literature reviews in this issue (two systematic reviews, a scoping review, and a critical review) that illustrate the topics covered in this column. Different disciplines use different techniques for analyzing and presenting knowledge synthesis (literature reviews). In this inaugural About Research column, along with describing these different approaches to conducting literature reviews, process standards and determining rigor in this type of research are discussed. What all types of reviews have in common and what makes them scholarly is the critical analysis that occurs during the knowledge synthesis process. Synthesis without critical analysis is just reporting, not research. Therefore, in evaluating this type of research, one needs to examine how the critical analysis was done, ensuring the rigor in the methodology and the review process and checking for possible bias (Whittemore, Chao, Jang, Minges, & Park, 2014). Bias has a number of sources when synthesizing knowledge, stemming from the researchers' choices surrounding the development of the research aim/question, the selection of articles to review, and the transparency in their process or lack of it.