What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development?

Waddington, Hugh; Masset, Edoardo; Jiménez, Emmanuel

doi:10.1080/19439342.2018.1441166

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence is important in policy development and guiding managers (Waddington et al., 2018). Yet, primary studies are not usually in a format accessible by the decision‐makers who need the knowledge provided in the research pieces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such reviews will need to be kept up‐to‐date to increase relevance in terms of scope, and frequency, to further ensure that management knowledge is consolidated. We further recommend that SRs put more focus on relevant methods for, and articulations from, a clearly articulated synthesis, which includes implications of research for theory, policy and practice (Waddington et al., 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

Rojon

Okupe

McDowall

2021

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several years since the introduction of systematic review in management research, our paper takes stock of how the methodology has been used thus far to elicit potential areas for improvement and a future best practice agenda. It was our focus to investigate how synthesis methods have been approached and how implications are spelled out for future research, practice and, where relevant, policy. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews published in management research since the early 2000s (N = 391). We found that whilst scholars adopted similar methodological steps, there was variability in focus, with more attention paid to explaining the systematic review methodology protocol and search strategy utilized, than on detailed analysis and synthesis of the included studies’ findings. These aspects should be addressed more explicitly from the outset as an integral aspect of a systematic review protocol to support more refined application of relevant synthesis methods to develop the field. We conclude with a guide for ‘best practice’, including recommendations and published examples where available and an agenda for future refinement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

Rojon

Okupe

McDowall

2021

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Impact evaluations are gaining currency as a robust method of assessing the effects of an implemented policy. Going beyond traditional before-and-after analysis, an impact evaluation typically compares the effect of a policy on a 'treated' group against a 'control' group (Waddington et al 2018). So far, few impact evaluations have focused on electricity access (Bernard 2012), and experimental research designs that would allow for more robust inference for policy development are still scarce (Bayer et al 2019).…”

Section: Impact Evaluation and Electricity Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shades of darkness or light? A systematic review of geographic bias in impact evaluations of electricity access

Hamburger

Jaeger

Bayer

et al. 2019

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the growing use of impact evaluations for electrification interventions, little attention has been paid to the geographical distribution of such evaluations. This is concerning because cultural and regional differences may limit how transferable results across regions are. We undertake a systematic review of the literature and find 31 impact evaluations of electricity access in 16 countries that meet our criteria for statistical hypothesis testing of development outcomes. India accounts for a quarter of the impact evaluations. Given the large non-electrified population in India, this is still a small number, roughly comparable to Nigeria or Kenya. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are the most underrepresented regions. We find more positive impacts from electricity access, on average, for South Asia than for sub-Saharan Africa, which calls for greater attention to geographical bias in future impact evaluations of electrification access.

show abstract

“…Theory-based systematic reviews are probably most closely related to framework synthesis in the approach to combining broad evidence along the causal chain. A key distinction appears to be that theory-based systematic reviews usually include a research question that focuses on synthesising results from impact evaluations (see Waddington, Masset, and Jimenez (2018)). As with CCA, theory-based systematic reviews are a significant undertaking, and are conceptually challenging, and their production may necessitate drawing upon different causal accounts, which diverge from the traditional counterfactual accounts usually synthesised in (standard) reviews of impact evaluations (White 2018).…”

Section: Theory-based Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising causal pathways in systematic reviews of international development interventions through adopting a causal chain analysis approach

Kneale

Thomas

Bangpan

et al. 2018

Journal of Development Effectiveness

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualising causal pathways in systematic reviews of international development interventions through adopting a causal chain analysis approach Understanding the extent to which an intervention 'works' can provide compelling evidence to decision-makers, although without an accompanying explanation of how an intervention works, this evidence can be difficult to apply in other settings, ultimately impeding its usefulness in making judicious and evidence-informed decisions. In this paper we describe logic models as a tool for outlining graphically a hypothesis of how an intervention leads to a change in an outcome through depicting a causal chain of events. However, it is the nature of these connecting relationships and their basis in causality which is of interest here, and we focus on complex causal relationships and the way in which contextual factors reflecting the intervention setting or population may moderate these. Evidence synthesis techniques are considered, and their usefulness in analysing different parts of the causal chain or different types of relationship. The approaches outlined in this paper aim to assist systematic reviewers in producing findings that are useful to decision-makers and practitioners, and in turn help to confirm existing theories or develop entirely new ways of understanding how interventions effect change.

show abstract

What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development?

Cited by 22 publications

References 64 publications

Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

Shades of darkness or light? A systematic review of geographic bias in impact evaluations of electricity access

Conceptualising causal pathways in systematic reviews of international development interventions through adopting a causal chain analysis approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About