Recent years have seen the growing use of systematic literature reviews within the social sciences. Despite some reservations over the adoption of an approach originally popularised within clinical and health sciences, the literature in the area has contributed some clear benefits to accounts of existing research. It is surprising, therefore, that political scientists have tended to ignore, or at best marginalise, reviews of this kind. This article outlines a number of features of systematic reviews which might be suitable for the kinds of questions political scientists ask of their data. Throughout, it highlights both the value and the potential complications of the approach, raising a number of questions which should be considered if systematic reviews are to be adopted more widely.
BoazAAshbyDYoungK (2002) Systematic Reviews: What Have They Got to Offer Evidence Based Policy and Practice?London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
2.
Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government (White paper). London: HMSO.
3.
CookTCooperHMCordrayDS. (1992) Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
CooperHM (1982) Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews. Review of Educational Research52 (2): 291–302.
5.
DaigneaultP-MJacobSOuimetM (2012) Using Systematic Review Methods within a Ph.D. Dissertation in Political Science: Challenges and Lessons Learned from Practice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology17 (3): 267–283.
6.
DaltonR (1996) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
7.
DaviesP (2000) The Relevance of Systematic Reviews to Educational Policy and Practice. Oxford Review of Education26 (3–4): 365–378.
8.
DenyerDTranfieldD (2009) Producing a Systematic Review. In: BuchananDBrymanA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: SAGE Publishing, pp.671–689.
9.
DoucouliagosHUlubaşoğluM (2008) Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Political Science52 (1): 61–83.
10.
ElstubS (2013) Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review: A Framework for Comparing Institutional Devices and Their Enactment of Deliberative Democracy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations16 (3): 386–409.
11.
GlassG (1976) Primary, Secondary and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher5: 3–8.
12.
GoughDElbourneD (2002) Systematic Research Synthesis to Inform Policy, Practice and Democratic Debate. Social Policy and Society1 (3): 225–236.
13.
HammersleyM (2001) On Systematic Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘Narrative’ Response to Evans and Benefield. British Educational Research Journal27 (5): 543–554.
14.
HansenHRieperO (2009) The Evidence Movement: The Development and Consequences of Methodologies in Review Practices. Evaluation15 (2): 141–163.
15.
ImbeauLPétryFLamariM (2001) Left-Right Party Ideology and Government Policies: A Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Political Research40 (1): 1–29.
16.
LauR (1999) The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment. American Political Science Review93 (4): 851–857.
17.
LijphartA (1996) Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review91 (1): 1–14.
18.
LittellJCorcoranJPillaiV (2008) Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
LudvigsenMSHallEOMeyerG. (2015) Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s Metasynthesis Method in Advancing Qualitative Evidence. Qualitative Health Research51 (1): 1–10.
NorrisP (2011) Democratic Deficit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
OakleyAGoughDOliverS. (2005) The Politics of Evidence and Methodology. Evidence and Policy1 (1): 5–31.
23.
PawsonRGreenhalghTHarveyG. (2005) Realist Review: A New Method of Systematic Review Designed for Complex Policy Interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy10 (1): 21–34.
24.
PetticrewM (2001) Systematic Reviews from Astronomy to Zoology: Myths and Misconceptions. British Medical Journal322: 98–101.
25.
PetticrewMRobertsH (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
26.
RosenstoneSHansenJ (1993) Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
27.
SandelowskiMBarrosoJ (2006) Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. London: Springer.
28.
SmetsKVan HamC (2013) The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual Level Research on Voter Turnout. Electoral Studies32 (2): 344–359.
29.
StrandbergK (2008) Online Electoral Competition in Different Settings: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of the Research on Party Websites and Online Electoral Competition. Party Politics14 (2): 223–244.
30.
TonraB (2013) Europeanization and EU Foreign Policy: A Genealogy and Survey. Paper Presented to the 8th Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Warsaw, 18–21 September.
31.
VictorL (2008) Systematic Reviewing in the Social Sciences: Outcomes and Explanation. Enquire1 (1): 1–12.
32.
WallaceACroucherKQuilgarsD. (2004) Meeting the Challenge: Developing Systematic Reviewing in Social Policy. Policy & Politics32 (4): 455–470.
