However, systematic reviews are now widely used in a plethora of topics, including construction, psychology, economics and marketing to name a few. Methods in environmental sciences and conservation are outlined by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in social sciences by the Campbell Collaboration and in medicine by the Cochrane Collaboration. Systematic reviews are, in essence, literature reviews that are undertaken in a specific way according to strict guidelines that aim to minimise subjectivity, maximise transparency and repeatability, and provide a highly reliable review of evidence pertaining to a specific topic. Reviews have long been commissioned as part of the policy-making process, but the past decade has seen a rise in the number of systematic reviews being commissioned by national and international policy-makers. Either way, a reliable review of research literature provides a quick and relatively low-cost means of summarising a large body of evidence and can provide an unbiased assessment where there are contradictory findings. Others believe that this can lead to unacceptable subjectivity where a topic is contentious or the published research is contradictory. Some organisations advocate the building of relationships between researchers and policy-makers, enabling research findings to be provided to those with an evidence need. Whilst policy-makers may turn to science to guide their paths, they often do not have the time or training to trawl some of the 100,000+ academic journals to find relevant research evidence. That said, decisions should always be based on the best available evidence, whatever form that might take. ![]() With the exception of a technocracy, research forms only part of the picture in decision-making. In reality, decision-makers use a wide variety of evidence, from constituents’ opinions to financial and from scientific research to media attention. Many academics, my former self included, have a rather romantic view of the science-policy interface: a bedraggled researcher runs to Westminster clutching their latest research paper, ready to thrust the ground-breaking findings beneath the waiting noses of thumb-twiddling policy-makers, desperate for some form of evidence to help them to reach a decision. How does research make its way into policy? Thinking carefully about legacy and future use of data is not only sensible, but should be an obligation. One way to encourage secondary synthesis is for researchers to ensure their data is reported in sufficient detail. Neal Haddaway argues that while certain fields have embraced these reviews, there is a great opportunity for their growth in other fields. Systematic reviews are widely accepted as a ‘gold standard’ in evidence synthesis and the meta-analysis within provides a powerful means of looking across datasets.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |