Espinha, Ângela

Machado, Marisa

Miranda, Lívia

Roia, Cristovão

Souza, Vanessa

Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro

Revisão (sistemática) da literatura: o processo e o produtoÂngela EspinhaCristovão RoiaLívia MirandaMarisa MachadoVanessa Souzameta-analysismeta-ethnography• Literature review• Narrative review• Systematic reviewBryman, 2012• Literature review• Traditional review• Systematic reviewJesson, Matheson& Lacey, 2011• Research literature• Selective review• Comprehensive reviewYin, 2011• Literaturereview / revisão de literaturaAnderson & Arsenault, 2002; Cardoso, Alarcão & Celorico, 2010; Coutinho, 2015; Creswell, 2007 (…)• A method• A reportJesson, Matheson, Lacey, 2011• Como ponto de partida• Como ponto de chegadaCardoso, Alarcão & Celorico, 201• Types of knowledge• Historical knowledge• Axiologicalknowledge• Theoretical andconceptual knowledge• Prior research studies• Reviews• Academic debateAnderson & Arsenault, 2002“Successful research is based on all the knowledge,thinking and research that precedes it, and for thisreason a review of the literature is an essential stepin the process of embarking on a research study”(Anderson & Arsenault, 2002, p. 76)Traditional review“A literature review is a re-view of something that hasalready been written” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 9)“A review of literature is a summary, analysis andinterpretation of the theoretical, conceptual andresearch literature related to a topic or theme.”(Anderson & Arsenault, 2002, p. 76)“A revisão de literatura não é um processo acrítico.”(Cardoso, Alarcão & Celorico, 2010, p. 25)Traditional reviewTraditional reviewOliveira e Ferreira,2014 1. Identificar palavras-chave2. Consultar fontes secundárias3. Fazer a pesquisa nas bases de dados e recolher fontes primárias 4. Ler de forma crítica e resumir literatura – é importante que faça uma leitura “ativa”, procure temas, questões e pontos comuns e divergentes entre os vários autores Jesson, Matheson, Lacey, 2011 1. Formulate your draft research questions.2. Search for information, using key words.3. Skim, scan, read, reflect and search some more, defining key concepts.4. Obtain articles and read some more. 5. Reassess your questions.6. Formulate the final research question.Traditional reviewTraditional review1. Conhecer (e dar conhecer) o que já se sabe sobre um dadotema – o estado da arte (Anderson & Arsenault, 2002; Bryman, 2012;Cardoso, Alarcão, Celorico, 2010; Coutinho, 2015)2. Argumentar a relevância e originalidade de um estudo (Bryman,2012; Coutinho, 2015; Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011; Yin, 2011)3. Situar o estudo na tradição de investigação na área (Bryman,2012; Anderson & Arsenault, 2002; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2005;Coutinho, 2015; Creswell, 2007)4. Identificar metodologias, definições, limitações (Anderson &Arsenault, 2002; Cardoso, Alarcão & Celorico, 2010; Coutinho, 2015)5. Identificar resultados divergentes (Coutinho, 2015;Creswell, 2007)6. Potencia a credibilidade do investigador (Anderson &Arsenault, 2002; Coutinho, 2015)Traditional review“In research, we seek to beoriginal and to make anoriginal contribution toknowledge. In the literaturereview context that meanscreating a new dimensionor fresh perspective thatmakes a distinctcontribution.” (Jesson,Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 10)“There are different types orreasons for reviewing:- Traditional review (criticalapproach)- Conceptual review (synthesiseareas of conceptual knowledge)- State-of-the-art review (mostrecent research on the topic)- Expert review- Scoping review (what is alreadyknown, gaps, points to way to thefuture” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey,2011, p. 10)Traditional review“On the other hand, one value of traditional reviews isthat they often provide insights that can be neglected orpassed over in the steps towards exclusion and qualitycontrol that are required in the systematic reviewmodel.” (Jesson, Matheson, Lacey, 2011, p. 15)“The advantage of a traditional review, which is lessformally prescribed that a systematic review, is that youcan add new thoughts and new themes to your planthroughout the process.” (Jesson, Matheson, Lacey, 2011, p. 83)VANTAGENSTraditional review“Narrative reviews therefore tend to be less focused and morewide-ranging in scope than systematic reviews. They are alsoinvariably less explicit about the criteria for exclusion or inclusionof studies.” (Bryman, 2012, p. 110)“it may produce a one-sided or even a biased argument.” (Jesson,Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 15)“there is no formal methodology, so there is a lack oftransparency and no academic rigour” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey,2011, p. 75)“since there is no methodological audit trail, the review cannotbe replicated by others” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 75)“there is no quality assessment of the materialincluded (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 75)LIMITAÇÕESSystematic review“a replicable, scientiﬁc and transparent process…that aims tominimize bias through exhaustive literature searches of publishedand unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of thereviewer’s decisions, procedures and conclusions” (Tranﬁeld et al.,2003, p. 209)“Procura-se, de certa forma, tematizar a questão, de objetivarprincípios que colaborem na definição de um pensamentoconducente a uma experiência afastada, o mais possível, deconvicções pessoais.” (Faria, 2016, p. 18)“We therefore define systematic review as a review with a clearstated purpose, a question, a defined search approach, statinginclusion and exclusion criteria, producing a qualitative appraisalof articles.” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 12)Systematic reviewSystematic reviewBryman, 2012 1. Define thepurpose and scope of the review2. Seek out studiesrelevant to thescope of thereview3. Appraise thestudies from Step 2.4. Analyse eachstudy andsynthesise theresults.Faria, 2016 1. Objetivos2. Equações de pesquisa3. Âmbito da pesquisa4. Critérios de inclusão5.Critérios de exclusão6. Critérios de validade metodológica7. Resultados8. Tratamento dos dados e resultadosJesson, Matheson& Lacey, 2011 1. Mapping thefield through a scoping review2. Comprehensivesearch3. Qualityassessment4. Data extraction5. Synthesis6. Write upSystematic reviewSystematic review“This would enable researchers to ‘say something more precise andtargeted’ about the effectiveness of speciﬁc interventions, or inother words to provide evidence about ‘what works’ (Evans andBeneﬁeld 2001: 538). Systematic reviews would thus help to makeresearch evidence more usable.” (Bryman, 2012, p. 109)Systematic review“Proponents of systematic review also recommend the approachfor its transparency; in other words, the grounds on whichstudies were selected and how they were analysed are clearlyarticulated and are potentially replicable.” (Bryman, 2012, p. 105)“The appeal of this style of review lies in its claim to be a moreneutral, technical process, which is rational and standardized,thereby demonstrating objectivity and a transparent process tothe reader. These features sit easily in a scientific framework butless so in a more open qualitative, interpretative paradigmcommon in the social sciences.” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p.15)VANTAGENSSystematic review“Another criticism of the approach is that it can lead to abureaucratization of the process of reviewing the literature,because it is more concerned with the technical aspects of how it isdone than with the analytical interpretations generated by it.”(Bryman, 2012, p. 108)The systematic approach assumes that an objective judgementabout the quality of an article can be made. Particularly in relationto qualitative research, there is little consensus on how the qualityof studies should be carried out” (Bryman, 2012, p. 108)“One of the limitations of the systematic methodology is that to doa good systematic review takes time, resources and ideallymore than one researcher.” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p.108)LIMITAÇÕESTraditional review vs systematic reviewTraditional (scoping) review Systematic reviewAim To gain a broad understanding, and description of the fieldTightly specified aim with a specific research questionScope Big picture Narrow focusPlanning the review No defined path, allows for creativity and explorationTransparent process and documented audit trailIdentifying studies Searching in probing, moving from one study to another, following up leadsRigorous and comprehensive search for ALL studiesSelection of studies Purposive selection made by the reviewer Predetermined criteria for including and excluding studiesQuality assessment Based on the reviewer’s opinion Checklists to assess the methodological quality of studiesAnalysis Content analysis Meta-analysis, Meta-ethnographySynthesis Discursive In tabular format and short summary answersMethodological reportNot necessarily given Must be presented for transparency(Adapted from Pilbean and Denver, 2008 in Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 105)Traditional review vs systematic review“To work systematically simply means to work in anordered or methodological way, rather than in a haphazardor random way. So, as a researcher, you have to take asystematic approach to your learning and to your writing.But taking an ordered approach to doing your literaturereview does not mean that the review can be called a“systematic review”. It is possible to claim that you havetaken a systematic approach to obtaining knowledge foryour literature review, but without working through the sixkey stages of a systematic review protocol it cannot claimto be a systematic review.” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 12)Literature review1. “An excellent beginning is to obtain a bibliography from aprofessor or other knowledgeable expert” (Anderson & Arsenault,2002, p. 79)2. There are topics where you may need to be more adventurousin your choice of material, maybe looking at the work of differentacademic disciplines” (Jesson, Matheson & Lacey, 2011, p. 20)3. “In some instances, a great number of research studies appearto bear on the problem under investigation. Generally, this occurswhen the research problem is not sufficiently focused.” (Anderson &Arsenault, 2002, p. 79)4. “Regra geral, a experiência mostra que só se encontraum ou dois artigos por cada 10 ou 20 referênciasrealmente interessantes para o problema que é o objetode análise.” (Coutinho, 2015, p. 64)Bibliografia(1) Amado, J. D. S. (2009). Introdução à Investigação Qualitativa em Educação(Relatório de Disciplina apresentado nas Provas de Agregação). Coimbra:Universidade de Coimbra.(2) Anderson, G., & Arsenault, N. (2002). Fundamentals of Educational research.London: RoutledgeFalmer.(3) Bicudo, M.A.V. & Esposito, V.H.C. (1994). A pesquisa qualitativa em educação: umenfoque fenomenológico. São Paulo: Editora Unimep.(4) Bogdan, R. C, & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: Anintroduction to Theories and Methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.(5) Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th Edition). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.(6) Cardoso, T., Alarcão, I., & Calorico, J. A. (2010). Revisão da literatura esistematização do conhecimento. Porto: Porto Editora.(7) Carvalho, E.J. (2009). Metodologia do Trabalho Científico «Saber-Fazer» da investigação para dissertações e teses. Lisboa: Escolar Editora.(8) Castellan, C. M. (2010). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Viewfor Clarity. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1-14.Bibliografia(9) Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5thed). UK: Taylor & Francis e-Library.(10) Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(11) Coutinho, C. P. (2015). Metodologias de Investigação em Ciências Sociais eHumanas: Teoria e Prática. (2.ª Edição). Coimbra: Edições Almedina(12) Espírito Santo, P. (2015). Introdução à metodologia das Ciências Sociais: gêneses,fundamentos e problemas. (2.ed. rev. atual).(13) Faria, P. M. (2016). Revisão Sistemática da Literatura: contributo para um novoparadigma investigativo. Metodologia e Procedimentos na área das Ciências da Educação.Santo Tirso: Whitebooks.(14) Flick, U. (2005). Métodos qualitativos na investigação científica. Lisboa: Monitor.(15) Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGEPublications.(16) Jesson, Jill K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, Fiona M. (2011). Doing yourliterature review: traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: SAGEPublications.Bibliografia(17) Luna, S.V. (1999). Planejamento de pesquisa: uma introdução. São Paulo: Educ. (18) Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design andimplementation. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.(19) Oliveira, R. E., & Ferreira. (2014). Métodos de Investigação. Da Investigação àDescoberta Científica. Porto: Vida Económica-editorial, SA.(20) Pardal, L., & Lopes, E. S. (2011). Métodos e Técnicas de investigação Social.Porto: Areal Editores.(21) Vilelas, J. (2009). Investigação. O Processo de Construção do Conhecimento.Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. (Vanessa Souza)(22) Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Revisão (sistemática) da literatura: o processo e o produto

http://ria.ua.pt/bitstream/10773/21303/1/CaminhosdeInvestiga%c3%a7%c3%a3o_GTTerminologia_VF.pdf

Revisão (sistemática) da literatura: o processo e o produto

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro