ASTRA blog by Early-Stage Researcher Michael Emru Tadesse: Systematic Literature Reviews: Valuable Research Methods for Social Work
Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are types of literature review and research methods that I am using and examining in relation to my recent social work research on the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) of People of African Descent (PAD) in Europe within the ASTRA project.
SLRs involve identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing existing evidence on a specific topic or question. Examples of SLRs include meta-analysis (for quantitative studies), meta-synthesis (for qualitative studies), meta-ethnography (for ethnographic studies), umbrella review (review of reviews), scoping review (for mapping evidence, scope), etc. SLR can be used for various purposes, such as informing policy and practice, developing research agendas, identifying research questions, doing meta-analyses, or synthesizing qualitative results.
SLRs employ the following steps that make them systematic: choosing a topic; writing a review protocol (addressing all the steps followed); designing a review framework (e.g., the PCC framework to identify the Population, Concept, Context for qualitative reviews); identifying specific research question/s; identifying relevant studies (from electronic databases and other information retrieval sources using search terms and search strategies); selecting studies (using inclusion/exclusion criteria and two or three levels of screening of identified studies); conducting critical/quality appraisal of selected studies; charting/extracting data (from selected studies using standard data charting/extracting forms); analysing data (e.g., using SPSS, NVIVO); and writing the report.
It can be argued that SLRs, such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, are the best research methods in terms of providing the strongest scientific evidence since they are studies of other studies on a particular topic. However, despite their great potential, SLRs have been underutilized in social work. For example, in the past, I did not know and appreciate SLRs as research methods. When I did literature reviews in the past, I thought they were only meant to provide background information for empirical studies (e.g., to introduce the topic, state the problem, and discuss relevant history, concepts, and theories). I did not realize that literature reviews could be a stand-alone research method. I also noticed that many of my colleagues from social sciences and social work had similar misconceptions about literature reviews.
I have found SLR to be especially useful and relevant for social work, which is both an academic discipline and a practice-based profession that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. SLR can help social workers and social work researchers to synthesize diverse types of evidence from different disciplines or paradigms that may contribute to answering complex social problems. SLR can help bridge the gap between research and practice in social work. By systematically reviewing the available evidence on a topic or question that is relevant for practice, SLR can provide social workers with reliable and up-to-date information that can inform their decisions and interventions. SLR can also help social workers to identify effective practices, interventions, or programs that have been tested and evaluated in different contexts and populations. Moreover, SLR can help social work researchers to disseminate the findings and implications of their research to a wider audience, such as practitioners, policymakers, funders, service users, and other stakeholders.
In conclusion, SLRs are valuable research methods that can benefit social work and social workers in various ways. But SLRs are not widely used in social work and social sciences compared to other fields such as health and medical sciences. Therefore, there is a need for more systematic reviews in social work that can address this gap and provide reliable and relevant evidence for practice and policy decisions. I encourage anyone interested in social work research to make use of SLRs. Below, I provided a list of suggested readings I found helpful.
Suggested Readings
Arksey, H., & O鈥橫alley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19鈥�32.
Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020.聽
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108. 鈥�
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., 贬谤贸产箩补谤迟蝉蝉辞苍, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., 鈥� Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research. In Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review.鈥疛ournal of Planning Education and Research,鈥�39(1), 93-112.