Reviews: Their typology, functions and how to write them

Vol.23,No.4(2013)

J. Mareš

https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-4-427

PDF (Čeština)
Abstract
The study informs the reader about how to write a quality review, which would summarize the current knowledge of the selected research topic. The aim of this study is to present a typology of review studies, to characterize various functions performed by diff erent types of review studies; to show how to proceed in the selection of topics, at the preparation of supporting documents, and at the actual writing a review. The first part presents 11 types of review studies, both the generally known and the less known ones. The second part is a brief overview of the genres that do not belong to the category of review studies. The third part characterizes diff erent functions that are fulfilled by the reviews (the review studies may facilitate understanding of the presented research, they are beneficial to the study´s author, to the development of the field or to other researchers). The fourth section of the text looks closer at the problems faced by the author when choosing the topic for the review study, and off ers possible solutions. The fifth part summarizes the procedures for preparation of documents for a review study (literature research, reduction of the initial selected works, critical reading, text analysis, creation of review tables). The sixth section provides advice on how to proceed in the actual writing a review. Where appropriate, in addition to recommendations on how to proceed, typical mistakes are mentioned that should be avoided by the author. In developed countries, there are three types of materials teaching students and young scientists how to write a review study. These guidelines can be found on the University website (usually within so called Writing Centres) or are available as journal articles on this topic or there are more comprehensive guides. So far, there has not been such a set of guidelines available in the Czech Republic. The present overview tries to fill this gap. Apart from general advice and guidelines, it is completed with some practical examples.

Keywords:
review; literature review; critical review; writing; guidelines
References

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.172">https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.172

Boote. D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003">https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104–126.

Crowe, L. M., Beauchamp, M. H., & Catroppa, C. et al. (2011). Social function assessment tools for children and adolescents: A systematic review from 1988–2010. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(5), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.008">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.008

Dunkin, M. J. (1996). Types of errors in synthesizing research in education. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002087">https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002087

Eco, U. (1997). Jak napsat diplomovou práci. Olomouc: Votobia.

Galvan, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: A guide for student of the behavioral sciences. Glendale: Pyrczak Publishing.

Geršlová, J. (2009). Vádemékum vědecké a odborné práce. Praha: Professional Publishing.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. A. (2009). Typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Hart, C. (2005). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage.

Hendl, J. (2004). Přehled statistických metod zpracování dat. Praha: Portál.

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality and Quantity, 47(2), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., & Cushman, R. et al. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(10), 1–13. Dostupné z http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/10 https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10">https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Writing academic review. (2010). Peterbourough: Trent University, Academic Skills Centre.

Writing a psychology literature review. (2010). Seattle: University of Washington, Psychology Writing Center. Dostupné z http://www.psych.uw.edu/psych.php#p=339.

Writing literature reviews. (2006). Melbourne: Monash University. Dostupné z http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/general/lit-reviews/print-section.doc

Mareš, J. (1995). Jak připravit přehledovou studii (power-pointová prezentace). Hradec Králové: Lékařská fakulta UK.

Mareš, J. (2009). Edukace založená na důkazech: inspirace pro pedagogický výzkum i školní praxi. Pedagogika, 59(3), 232–258.

Mareš, J. (2013). Pedagogická psychologie. Praha: Portál.

Mareš, J., & Kebza, V. (2012). Psychologie založená na důkazech. Československá psychologie, 56(2), 178–193.

Mausethagen, S. A (2013). Research review of the impact of accountability policies on teachers’ workplace relations. Educational Research Review, 9(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.001

Mayer, P. (2009). Guidelines for writing a review article. Zurich-Basel: Plant Science Center. Dostupné z http://www.plantscience.ethz.ch/education/Masters/courses/Scientific_Writing

Mitchell, A. W., & McConnell, R. (2012). A historical review of Contemporary Educational Psychology from 1995 to 2010. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 136–147.

Moher, D., Tetzlaff , J., Tricco, & A.C. et al. (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 4(3), 447–455.

Mongan-Rallis, H. (2006). Guidelines for writing a literature review. Duluth: University of Minnesota. Dostupné z http://www.duluth.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litreview.html

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(13), 1–13. Dostupné z http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=13.

Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review – a step-by-step guide for students. London: Sage.

Short, S. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309337489">https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309337489

Sipe, T. A., & Curlette, W. L. (1997). A meta-synthesis of factors related to educational achievement: A methodological approach to summarizing and synthesizing meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(7), 583–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355%2896%2980001-2">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(96)80001-2

Spousta, V. (2000). Vádemékum autora odborné a vědecké práce. Brno: Pedagogická fakulta MU.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Woodman, J., Thomas, J., & Dickson, K. (2012). How explicable are diff erences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions. Systematic Reviews, 1(37), 1–16. Dostupné z http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/37

Metrics

37

Crossref logo

0

17827

Views

8981

PDF (Čeština) views

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2014 Czech Pedagogical Society

PDF (Čeština)