%20(1).jpg)
The data collection stage's goal is to collect an exhaustive, semi-exhaustive, representative, or pivotal set of relevant articles. Secondary data researchers, like primary data researchers, must not only devise a systematic plan for data collection but also accurately document how the data were collected. The reviewer should describe the data collection procedure in such detail that other reviewers following the same procedures under the same conditions would find the same set of articles.
The process of gathering data frequently begins with an electronic search of academic databases and the Internet. (Because relevant databases vary by field, I won't go into detail about them here.) When conducting these searches, careful, accurate records of the date of each search, the databases searched, the keywords and keyword combinations used, and the number of records returned must be kept.
Electronic searches, in my experience, yield only about 10% of the articles that will comprise an exhaustive review. There are several methods for locating the remaining 90%. The most effective method may be to search the references of the retrieved articles, determine which of those appear relevant, find those, read their references, and repeat the process until saturation is reached—a point at which no new relevant articles appear.
When all electronic and reference searches have been exhausted, the reviewer should share the list of references with colleagues and experts in the field to see if any missing articles are discovered. Sending a query to the main Listserv of experts in the relevant field and asking them to identify missing articles is frequently effective in yielding additional references. It is also recommended that the final list of potentially relevant articles be shared with dissertation supervisors and reviewers, as they may be aware of additional relevant literature.
When the reviewer has sufficient evidence to convince readers that everything that can reasonably be done to identify all relevant articles has been diligently undertaken, the data collection process can be terminated. Of course, new articles are likely to emerge after the data collection period has ended. However, unless the new article is critical, I recommend leaving it out. Otherwise, the reviewer may have to reopen the floodgates and begin the data collection process from scratch.
The reviewer must now devise a system for further sifting through the collected articles. To distinguish between potentially relevant and obviously irrelevant studies, the reviewer might read every word of every electronic record, just the abstract, just the title, or some combination of the two. Whatever method is chosen, the reviewer should accurately document the process. After identifying and discarding the obviously irrelevant articles, the reviewer can begin to decide which of the remaining articles will be included in the literature review. When reliability is critical, it is common for two or more other qualified individuals to determine which articles in the new subset meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to estimate and consider the level of interrater agreement. The data evaluation stage can begin once the reviewer is satisfied that the final subset of relevant articles is complete.
.jpg)
0 Comments :
Post a Comment