Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011

Abstract

Use of research synthesis methods has contributed to changes in research practices. In disciplinary literatures, authors indicate motivations to use the methods include needs to (a) translate research‐based knowledge to inform practice and policy decisions, and (b) integrate relatively large and diverse knowledge bases to increase the generality of results and yield novel insights or explanations. This review presents two histories of the diffusion of research synthesis methods: a narrative history based primarily in the health and social sciences; and a bibliometric overview across science broadly. Engagement with research synthesis was strongly correlated with evidence‐based practice (EBP), and moderately with review prevalence. The social sciences were most diverse in terms of when research synthesis was adopted. Technology, physical sciences, and math appear to be relatively resistant though fields such as physics may be considered to have used similar methods long ago. Additional research is needed to assess the consequences of adoption within fields, including changes in how researchers engage with knowledge resources. This review demonstrates that particularistic histories of science and technology may be fruitfully augmented with informetrics to examine how disciplinary diffusion narratives coincide with patterns across science more broadly, thereby opening up disciplinary knowledge to inform future research.

Reviews and Reviewing: Approaches to Research Synthesis. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

“…They cite three trends that are likely to inform future directions of evidence reviews including using data science tools, embedding an equity focus, and translating research into practice. Sheble (2017) observes that motivations for research synthesis include the translation of research-based knowledge to inform practice and policy decisions and the integration of relatively large and diverse knowledge bases to yield novel insights. She provides two histories of the diffusion of research synthesis methods: a narrative history based primarily in the health and social sciences; and a bibliometric overview across science broadly.…”

A Systematic Review of Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment and Modeling through Concept Mapping

“…This idea arose in the 1980s in studies featuring statistical meta-analysis (Glass et al, 1981) and meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988). Although the literature review as a form of study has been continuously developed over many years (Boland, Cherry, & Dickson, 2017;Bolin, 2012;Shadish & Lecy, 2015;Sheble, 2017), the systematic literature review is "still a young and rapidly developing field of study and methods of reviewing have not been developed for all areas of science" (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2017, p. 9). There are still many challenges to be overcome (Dickersin, 2015;Oakley et al, 2005) such as conceptual and methodological challenges, resource constraints, the constraints related to the use of reviews, and broader political challenges (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2017).…”

Benchmarking Librarian Support of Systematic Reviews in the Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences

“…SRs took hold and spread widely in health along with the Evidence-Based Practice Movement in the mid-1990s, but the social science disciplines of education, psychology, and business and economics have continuously used the SR methodology since the mid to late 1970's, albeit without the same fervor seen in the health disciplines. 2 Library literature has discussed library support for SRs since at least the mid 1990s. 3 Health librarians found roles on SR research teams, likely due to well-established methodological guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Institute of Medicine, that advise review-ers to consult with an experienced health sciences librarian to ensure a high-quality literature search for the project.…”