Journal
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 104-110Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x
Keywords
bias; qualitative research; quantitative research; research methods; resisting reader; systematic review; textual practices
Categories
Funding
- National Institute of Nursing Research
- National Institutes of Health [5R01NR004907]
- NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [R01NR004907] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Aim. This paper offers a discussion of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review. Background. Although increasingly popular, systematic review has engendered a critique of the claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews. Discussion. An alternative understanding of systematic review is as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between resisting readers and resistant texts. Reviewers of research exemplify the resisting reader when they exclude reports on grounds of relevance, quality, or methodological difference. Research reports exemplify resistant texts as they do not simply yield their findings, but rather must be made docile to review. These acts of resistance make systematic review possible, but challenge claims of its greater capacity to control bias. Conclusion. An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available