Sfide per la sintesi della ricerca valutativa

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Annalisa Di Benedetto
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2022/82
Language Italian Pages 22 P. 93-114 File size 396 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2022-082006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Evaluative research and research synthesis are connected from the drive to a constant reflection on the organicity of the available knowledge, its reliability, and the chance of considering it transferable beyond the original contest. The pluralism that characterizes evaluative research presents specific challenges related to the variety of ap-proaches, designs, and questions. The reporting mode of processes and results - with the coexistence of heterogeneous literatures, lexicons, and approaches - require a specific reflection. Developments on the research synthesis front make it possible to identify different pathways to reach various objectives. Those developments are often related to collaborative initiatives that provide platforms for coordination, de-bate, and methodological development. The construction of collabora-tive networks involving the academic and professional community is the first step to respond to the main research synthesis challenges in the evaluative research field.

  1. Feldman K.A. (1971). Using the work of others: Some observations on reviewing and integrating. Sociology of Education, 44(1): 86-102. DOI: 10.2307/211196
  2. Glaser B., Strauss B. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
  3. Glass G.V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10): 3-8. DOI: 10.2307/117477
  4. Snilstveit, B., Bhatia, R., Rankin, K., Leach, B. (2017). 3ie evidence gap maps. 3ie Working Paper 28 -- https://www.3ieimpact.org/evidence-hub/publications/working-papers/3ie-evidence-gap-maps-starting-point-strategic-evidence (ultimo accesso 18/01/2022).
  5. Argentin G. (2019). Gli esperimenti nelle scienze sociali: molta strada resta da fare per un dibattito maturo sul tema. Quaderni di Sociologia, 81: 131-141.
  6. Barbour R. S., Barbour M. (2003). Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 9(2): 179-186.
  7. Barnett-Page E., Thomas J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59). DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
  8. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., Pitkin R., Rennie D., Schulz K.F., Simel D., Stroup D.F. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA, 276(8): pp. 637-639.
  9. Boruch R., Petrosino A., Chalmers I. (1999). The Campbell Collaboration: A proposal for systematic, multinational, and continuous reviews of evidence. In: Davies P., Petrosino A., Chalmers I., editors, The effects of social and educational interventions: Developing an infrastructure for international collaboration to prepare, maintain and promote the accessibility of systematic reviews of relevant research. London: University College London School of Public Policy.
  10. Bronstein L.R., Kovacs P.J. (2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23: 354-360. DOI: 10.1177/104973151247156
  11. Bustelo M. (2002). Metaevaluation as a tool for the improvement and development of the evaluation function in public administrations. Presentation to the 2002 European Evaluation Society Conference, Siviglia: EES Conference: Three movements in contemporary evaluation: learning, theory and evidence. Testo disponible al sito: www. evaluationcanada. ca/distribution/20021010_bustelo_maria. pdf (ultimo accesso 18/01/2022).
  12. Campbell D.T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American psychologist, 24(4): 409-429.
  13. Campelli E. (1990). Dieci anni di sociologia in Italia. Un’analisi delle riviste. Sociologia e ricerca sociale, 11(32): 120-150.
  14. Candy B., King M., Jones L., Oliver S. (2011). Using qualitative synthesis to explore heterogeneity of complex interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(124): 1-9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-12
  15. Chalmers I., Hedges L.V., Cooper H. (2002). A Brief History of Research Synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25(1): 12–37. DOI: 10.1177/016327870202500100
  16. Chandler J., Cumpston M., Thomas J., Higgins J.P.T., Deeks J.J., Clarke M.J. (2021). Chapter I: Introduction. In: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., editors, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). -- Testo disponibile al sito: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  17. Cochrane A.L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., a cura di (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  19. Dalkey N., Helmer O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science, 9(3): 458-467.
  20. Davis J., Mengersen K., Bennett S., Mazerolle L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3. DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-51
  21. Gobo G. (2002), La ricerca qualitativa: passato, presente, futuro. In: Silverman D., Come fare ricerca qualitativa. Roma: Carocci.
  22. Grant M.J., Booth A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108.
  23. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3): 255-274. DOI: 10.3102/0162373701100325
  24. Greene J.C., Caracelli, V.J. (1997), Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigm. In New Directions for Evaluation, 74, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.
  25. Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Jagosh J., et al. (2015). Protocol—the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation. BMC Open 2015;5:e008567. 
  26. Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Pawson, R. (2011). Protocol-realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC medical research methodology, 11(1): 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-11
  27. Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., a cura di (2021). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). -- Testo disponibile al sito: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (ultimo accesso 18/01/2022).
  28. Kelley, T.L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY.: World Book Company.
  29. Leone L. (2006). Evidenze di efficacia nei programmi di prevenzione: dalle review sistematiche a sintesi theory-driven. RIV Rivista Italiana di Valutazione, 35:55-85.
  30. Linstone H.A., Turoff M., a cura di (1975). The delphi method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  31. Littell J.H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1): 1-21.
  32. Martin V.B. (2019). Using popular and academic literature as data for formal grounded theory. In: Bryant A., Charmaz K., a cura di, The Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
  33. Moher D., Hopewell S., Schulz K.F., Montori V., Gøtzsche P.C., Devereaux P.J., Elbourne D., Egger M., Altman D.G.. (2010a). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340 :c869 .
  34. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Simera I., Altman D. (2010b): Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLOS Medicine, 7(2): e1000217.
  35. Montgomery P., Grant S., Hopewell S., Macdonald G., Moher D., Michie S., Mayo-Wilson E. (2013). Protocol for CONSORT-SPI: an extension for social and psychological interventions. Implementation Science, 8(1): 1-7. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-9
  36. Munn Z., Stern C., Aromataris E., Lockwood C., Jordan Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1): 1-9.
  37. Murphy M.K., Black N.A., Lamping D.L., et. al. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3): 1-88.
  38. Newman M., Elbourne D. (2004). Improving the usability of educational research: guidelines for the REPOrting of primary empirical research Studies in Education (The REPOSE Guidelines). Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(4): 201-212. DOI: 10.1080/0950079040866831
  39. Noblit G.W. (2018). Meta-Ethnography: Adaptation and Return. In: Urrieta Jr L., Noblit G.W., editors, Cultural constructions of identity: Meta-ethnography and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Noblit G.W., Hare R.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). London: Sage.
  41. Noyes J., Booth A., Cargo M., et. al. (2021). Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., et al. (a cura di), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). -- Testo disponibile al sito: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  42. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., et.al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-11.
  43. Paré G., Trudel M.C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2): 183-199.
  44. Patton M.Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  45. Pawson R. (2002). Evidence-based Policy: The Promise of 'Realist Synthesis', Evaluation, 8(3): 340-358. DOI: 10.1177/13563890240146244
  46. Pawson R. (2004). Would Campbell be a member of the Campbell Collaboration. The Evaluator, Winter: 13-15.
  47. Petticrew M., Roberts H. (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford, Blackwell.
  48. Rahmandad H., Sterman J.D. (2012). Reporting Guidelines for Simulation-based Research in Social Sciences. System Dynamics Review, 28: 396-411.
  49. Sandelowski M., Barroso J. (2003). Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings. Nursing Research, 52(4): 226-233. DOI: 10.1097/00006199-200307000-0000
  50. Sandelowski M., Barroso J. (2007). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Springer.
  51. Scriven, M. S. (1969). An introduction to meta-evaluation. Educational Products Report, 2, 36–38.
  52. Taveggia T.C. (1974). Resolving research controversy through empirical cumulation: Toward reliable sociological knowledge. Sociological methods & research, 2(4): 395-407. DOI: 10.1177/00491241740020040
  53. Thomas J., Petticrew M., Noyes J., Chandler J., Rehfuess E., Tugwell P., Welch V.A. (2021). Chapter 17: Intervention complexity. In: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., editors, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). -- Testo disponibile al sito: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  54. Thorndike E.L. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measures. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  55. Thorne S., Jensen L., Kearney M.H., Noblit G., Sandelowski M. (2004). Qualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10):1342-1365. DOI: 10.1177/104973230426988
  56. Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care, 19(6): 349-357.
  57. Turner S. (1980). Sociological Explanation as Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Uny I., France E.F., Noblit G.W. (2017). Steady and delayed: explaining the different development of meta-ethnography in health care and education. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 243-257. DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2017.128232
  59. Wharton T. (2017). Rigor, Transparency, and Reporting Social Science Research: Why Guidelines Don't Have to Kill Your Story. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(4):487-493. DOI: 10.1177/104973151562226
  60. White H.D. (2019). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In: Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., (a cura di), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation

Annalisa Di Benedetto, Sfide per la sintesi della ricerca valutativa in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 82/2022, pp 93-114, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2022-082006