This methodological guidance paper discusses the craft of reviewing qualitative research for a systematic review. Qualitative research is an expansive and wide-ranging domain that includes research from different disciplines, for different purposes, following different methodological traditions, and employing a variety of data collection and analysis methods. While many aspects of reviewing qualitative research are similar to reviewing quantitative research, the essay focuses on five central tasks: (1) clarifying purpose(s), (2) defining research quality, (3) situating the research in relevant contexts, (4) adding it up, and (5) practicing reflexivity—that every reviewer of qualitative research engages in.
AbbottA. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. W. W. Norton.
2.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
3.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006033
4.
American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09341833
5.
AronsonB.LaughterJ. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066
6.
BaldwinJ. (1984). Notes of a native son. Beacon Press.
7.
Barnett-PageE.ThomasJ. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
8.
BeckerH. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In JessorR.ColbyA.SwederR. (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 53–71). University of Chicago Press.
9.
BjorklundP. (2018). Undocumented students in higher education: A review of the literature, 2001 to 2016. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 631–670. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318783018
10.
BrunerJ. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In EisnerE. W. (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (84th Yearbook of the NSSE, Part II, pp. 97–115). University of Chicago Press.
11.
byrdd. (2019). Uncovering hegemony in higher education: A critical appraisal of the use of “institutional habitus” in empirical scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 171–210. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318812915
12.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2000). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
13.
DowdA. C.JohnsonR. M. (2020). Why publish a systematic review: An editor’s and reader’s perspective. Zawacki-RichterO.KerresM.BedenlierS.BondM.BuntinsK. (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 69–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_5
14.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). MacMillan.
15.
FreemanM.de MarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK. J.St. PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298009
16.
GarciaG. A.NunezA-M.SansoneV. A. (2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-serving institutions: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 745–784. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319864591
17.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
GreeneS.BurkeK. J.McKennaM. K. (2018). A review if research connecting digital storytelling, photovoice, and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 844–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318794134
21.
HallingerP. (2014). Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506594
22.
HornI. S.LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
23.
IvesJ.Castillo-MontoyaM. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899707
24.
KyndtE.GijbelsD.GrosemansI.DoncheV. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627864
LeeH. P.HartR. I.WatsonR. M.RapleyT. (2015). Qualitative synthesis in practice: Some pragmatics of meta-ethnography. Qualitative Research, 15(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114524221
28.
LewinS.BoothA.GlentonC.ColvinC. J.Munthe-KaasH.RashidianA.WainwrightM.BohrenM. A.TunçalpÖ.GarsideR.CarlsenB.LangloisE. V.NoyesJ. (2018). Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series. Implementation Science, 13(Suppl. 1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3
29.
MajorC. H.Savin-BadenM. (2011). Integration of qualitative evidence: Towards construction of academic knowledge in social science and professional fields. Qualitative Research, 11(6), 645–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111413367
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
32.
MillerP. M. (2011). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415120
33.
MossP. A.HaertelE. H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In GitomerD.BellC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 127–247). AERA. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_3
MurphyP. K.DowdA. C.LloydG. M.ListA. (2020). Transparency in literature syntheses and editorial review: Introducing the Methodological Guidance Paper Series. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319901128
36.
Neal-JacksonA. (2018). A meta-ethnographic review of the experiences of African American girls and young women in K–12 education. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 508–546. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318760785
37.
NoblitG. W. (2018). Meta-ethnography: Adaptation and return. In UrrietaL.Jr.NoblitG. W. (Eds.), Cultural constructions of identity: Meta-ethnography and theory (pp. 34–50). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190676087.003.0002
ParkhouseH.LuC. Y.MassaroV. R. (2019). Multicultural education professional development: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 416–458. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319840359
PetticrewM. (2015). Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from “what works” to “what happens.”Systematic Reviews, 4(1), Article 36. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4384311/
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
44.
PopperK. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
45.
ShpancerN. (2010). The good psychologist. Henry Holt.
Winkle-WagnerR. (2015). Having their lives narrowed down? The state of Black women’s college success. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 171–204. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551065
52.
WittgensteinL. (1953). Philosophical investigations (AnscombeG. E. M.RheesR., Eds.; AnscombeG. E. M., Trans.). Blackwell.
53.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.
54.
Zawacki-RichterO.KerresM.BedenlierS.BondM.BuntinsK. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives, and applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7
