Margarete Sandelowski1. 1. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. msandelo@email.unc.edu
Abstract
AIM: This paper offers a discussion of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review. BACKGROUND: Although increasingly popular, systematic review has engendered a critique of the claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews. DISCUSSION: An alternative understanding of systematic review is as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between resisting readers and resistant texts. Reviewers of research exemplify the resisting reader when they exclude reports on grounds of relevance, quality, or methodological difference. Research reports exemplify resistant texts as they do not simply yield their findings, but rather must be made docile to review. These acts of resistance make systematic review possible, but challenge claims of its greater capacity to control bias. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
AIM: This paper offers a discussion of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review. BACKGROUND: Although increasingly popular, systematic review has engendered a critique of the claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews. DISCUSSION: An alternative understanding of systematic review is as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between resisting readers and resistant texts. Reviewers of research exemplify the resisting reader when they exclude reports on grounds of relevance, quality, or methodological difference. Research reports exemplify resistant texts as they do not simply yield their findings, but rather must be made docile to review. These acts of resistance make systematic review possible, but challenge claims of its greater capacity to control bias. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
Authors: Lin Zhang; Wei-Ti Chen; Joyce P Yang; Jane M Simoni; Chengshi Shiu; Meijuan Bao; Jing Zhang; Meiyan Sun; Yang Qiu; Hongzhou Lu Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Deborah J Cohen; Sara R Keller; Gillian R Hayes; David A Dorr; Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig Journal: Pers Ubiquitous Comput Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Alison M Hutchinson; Doris L Milke; Suzanne Maisey; Cynthia Johnson; Janet E Squires; Gary Teare; Carole A Estabrooks Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrew Booth; Janet Harris; Elizabeth Croot; Jane Springett; Fiona Campbell; Emma Wilkins Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 4.615