...
首页> 外文期刊>Research Synthesis Methods >'It has no meaning to me.' How do researchers understand the effectiveness of literature searches? A qualitative analysis and preliminary typology of understandings
【24h】

'It has no meaning to me.' How do researchers understand the effectiveness of literature searches? A qualitative analysis and preliminary typology of understandings

机译:“它对我没有意义。”研究人员如何了解文学搜索的有效性?理解的定性分析与初步类型

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This study aimed to address the question: what does "effectiveness" mean to researchers in the context of literature searching for systematic reviews? We conducted a thematic analysis of responses to an e-mail survey. Eighty-nine study authors, whose studies met inclusion in a recent review (2018), were contacted via e-mail and asked three questions; one directly asking the question: in literature searching, what does effective (or effectiveness in) literature searching mean to you? Thirty-eight (46%) responses were received from diverse professional groups, including: literature searchers, systematic reviewers, clinicians and researchers. A shared understanding of what effectiveness means was not identified. Instead, five themes were developed from data: (a) effectiveness is described as a metric; (b) effectiveness is a balance between metrics; (c) effectiveness can be categorized by search purpose; (d) effectiveness is an outcome; and, (e) effectiveness is an experimental concept. We propose that these themes constitute a preliminary typology of understandings. No single definition of effectiveness was identified. The proposed typology suggests that different researchers have differing understandings of effectiveness. This could lead to uncertainty as to the aim and the purpose of literature searches and confusion about the outcomes. The typology offers a potential route for further exploration.
机译:本研究旨在解决问题:“有效性”对研究人员对系统性评论的背景下的研究人员意味着什么?我们对电子邮件调查进行了对答复进行了主题分析。八十九项研究作者,其研究在最近的审查中纳入其中(2018年),通过电子邮件联系并询问了三个问题;直接询问问题:在文献搜索中,有效(或效率)文学搜索对您意味着什么?从不同的专业团体中收到了三十八(46%)的响应,包括:文学搜索者,系统评论员,临床医生和研究人员。对没有确定有效性意味的共同理解。相反,五个主题是从数据开发的:(a)有效性被描述为指标; (b)有效性是指标之间的平衡; (c)通过搜索目的可以对有效性进行分类; (d)有效性是结果;而且,(e)有效性是实验概念。我们建议这些主题构成了理解的初步类型。没有确定有效性的单一定义。拟议的类型表明,不同的研究人员对有效性有不同的理解。这可能导致对瞄准的不确定性以及文学搜索的目的和关于结果的困惑。类型学提供了进一步探索的潜在路线。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号