Systematic review methodology in higher education
Open accessAbstract
Systematic review methodology can be distinguished from narrative reviews of the literature through its emphasis on transparent, structured and comprehensive approaches to searching the literature and its requirement for formal synthesis of research findings. There appears to be relatively little use of the systematic review methodology within the higher education sector. This paper outlines the systematic review methodology, including variations, explores debates regarding systematic reviews from the educational literature and describes particular issues for its application within higher education. We conclude that thoughtful use of the systematic review methodology may be of benefit to the sector.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Numerous studies in education have attested to the effectiveness and utility of systematic review methodology.
“numerous studies in the field of education have also attested to its effectiveness and utility (Andrews and Harlen, 2006; Bearman et al., 2012; Davies, 2000; Martin et al., 2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Bearman et al., 2012
Cites
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966 · see citing works
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190 · see citing works
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education
Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2013) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12092 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Self-citationStudents’ trajectories through higher education: A review of quantitative research
Haas, C., & Hadjar, A. (2020) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00458-5 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Transition to higher education for students with autism: A systematic literature review.
Nuske, A., Rillotta, F., Bellon, M., & Richdale, A. (2019) · Journal of Diversity in Higher Education · doi:10.1037/dhe0000108 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
MOOCs and upskilling in Australia: A qualitative literature study
Santandreu Calonge, D., Aman Shah, M., Riggs, K., Connor, M., & Wang, S. (2019) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2019.1687392 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Kumar, S., & Todd, G. (2022) · Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal · doi:10.11157/fohpe.v23i3.430 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., & Neumann, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bearman, Margaret
- Venue
- Higher Education Research & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 625-640
- ISSN
- 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8366
- OpenAlex
- W1997116422
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- systematic review methodology, higher education, literature searching, research transparency, educational research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
