Unpacking Assumptions in Research Synthesis: A Critical Construct Synthesis Approach

Abstract

Research syntheses in education, particularly meta-analyses and best-evidence syntheses, identify evidence-based practices by combining findings across studies whose constructs are similar enough to warrant comparison. Yet constructs come preloaded with social, historical, political, and cultural assumptions that anticipate how research problems are framed and solutions formulated. The information research syntheses provide is therefore incomplete when the assumptions underlying constructs are not critically understood. We describe and demonstrate a new systematic review method, critical construct synthesis (CCS), to unpack assumptions in research synthesis and to show how other framings of educational problems are made possible when the constructs excluded through methodological elimination decisions are taken into consideration.

Uplifting Voices and Images of Research Participants: Issues in Video Dissemination

“…For instance, Annells [32] pointed out that video dissemination may render research results ineligible for meta-synthesis. The usual practice in research syntheses is to "limit the literature search to only research published in peer-reviewed journals" (p. 135) [33]. Indeed, in preparing this paper, no meta-syntheses that included video disseminated research findings were found.…”

Mindfulness in and as education: A map of a developing academic discourse from 2002 to 2017

“…The current project proposes a conceptual systematic review and mapping of the diverse strands and voices within the discourse of mindfulness in education. We see the essential tasks of this synthesis as integrating major aspects and themes found in the literature into a higher-order structure (Dixon-woods, 2005, Wolgemuth, Hicks & Agosto, 2017. Expanding the scope of previous reviews that focused on limited domains, our aim is to include all domains of implementation and conceptualization of mindfulness in education within one mapping of the field.…”

“…In order to represent the diversity of curricular voices outlined above we began with a systematic literature search (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, Wolgemuth et al, 2017. To find relevant articles, we conducted electronic searches using the following search engines: Sciencedirect, Google scholar and EBSCO host (which includes PubMed, PsychINFO, and ERIC).…”

“…Given the above mentioned MBI and contemplative pedagogy review strands and the lack of meta-approaches to the discourse as a whole, our methodology was guided by a systematic review approach (Wolgemuth et al, 2017). This applied first to the formulation of inclusion and exclusion criteria, which comprised of two stages.…”

A Mixed Methods Systematic Scoping Review of the Use of Big Data in Early Intervention Research: Ethical and Practical Implications

“…This is due to the recent concerns raised by Wolgemuth, Hicks, and Agosto (2017) regarding study inclusion and exclusion criteria in systematic review. Specifically, important information may be missed if studies are eliminated due to quality ratings when addressing research questions in limited fields of research or with vulnerable populations(Wolgemuth, Hicks & Agosto, 2017), such as this review. This perspective that the use of quality assessment should be determined by the research question is also supported by recent guidelines for scoping review byPeters et al (2015).An Excel document was used for recording coded data from the included articles and stored in a secure cloud-based storage to provide a clear audit trail and collaboration between article reviewers.…”