The phronesis of expert searchers on using forward citation searching and web searching to search for studies for systematic reviews: A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis

Abstract

Systematic reviews aim to use formalised and explicitly described methods. However, studies show that systematic reviews pose challenges which can only be resolved using expert judgement that is resistant to explicit formulation. The expertise required to make such judgements can be understood as practical knowledge or phronesis, and is based on lived experiences rather than following clearly defined rules. This study used qualitative methods to investigate the phronesis of expert searchers in the development and conduct of searches for studies for systematic reviews. In particular, the study focused on two ‘supplementary’ search methods: forward citation searching and web searching. Data collection used semi-structured interviews with 15 expert searchers and the analysis used a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. The findings describe five habits of phronesis when searching for studies: Outcome-oriented; persistent; adaptive; critically engaged and holistic. The study brings attention to the use of expert judgement when searching for studies for systematic reviews.

Value co‐creation in cultural heritage information practices: Literature review and future agenda: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

“…Hence, the review process is illustrated as a "hermeneutic circle" (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010, p. 132): searching for literature, sorting and selecting results, acquiring and reading materials, identifying further search terms and relevant literature, refining the questions and then searching again (Gorichanaz, 2017). This approach has also been used in recent information studies to conduct reviews on a number of exploratory topics (Briscoe et al, 2022;Gorichanaz, 2017;Llamzon et al, 2022;Mathiasson & Jochumsen, 2022). In our case, since value creation or co-creation is not explicitly mentioned in some literature, as well as a series of related terms that can characterize VCC, the feasibility and applicability of conducting a systematic review are not good.…”

Reporting standards and the irreducible complexity of scientific writing

“…Besides one participant who generally rejected the idea of guidelines for writing, no interviewee provided fundamental issues with its application or criticized its overall epistemic role. Therefore, the guideline does not seem to cause immediate friction with other methods and established practices even if embedded into a network of different standards (see Briscoe et al 2022). At this stage, critical aspects seem to be more tied to the realm of potential issues and theoretical considerations, rather than being observable phenomena.…”

Expert searchers identified time, team, technology and tension as challenges when carrying out supplementary searches for systematic reviews: A thematic network analysis

“…To this end, our objective was to undertake a qualitative study of expert searchers' perspectives on the logistical challenges of using forward citation searching and web searching. The findings of this study will form part of a larger study on how expert searchers develop and carry out supplementary searches for systematic reviews (Briscoe et al, 2022).…”