CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Relevance of Systematic Reviews to Educational Policy and Practice

Davies, Philip·2000·Oxford Review of Education
DOI 10.1080/713688543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper argues that educational policy and practice has much to gain from systematic reviews and other methods of research synthesis. Different types of reviews are considered, including narrative reviews, vote-counting reviews, meta-analyses, best evidence synthesis, and meta-ethnography. It is argued that systematic reviews allow researchers, and users of research, to go beyond the limitations of single studies and to discover the consistencies and variability in seemingly similar studies. This, in turn, allows for some degree of cumulative knowledge of educational research that is often missing in the absence of systematic reviews. Some limitations of systematic reviews and research synthesis for educational policy and practice are also discussed. The work of the Campbell Collaboration as an international organisation that promotes the use of systematic reviews in educational policy and practice is outlined.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/713688543

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. CABINET OFFICE, 1999. Modernising Government, White Paper. London: Stationery Office; 1999, Cmnd. 4310.
  2. DAVIES, P.T., HOLMES, E., and WOLF, F., 2000. An organisational framework for preparing and maintaining systematic reviews in education. Presented at Paper presented at the Inaugural Meeting of the Campbell Collaboration. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 25-26, February, 2000.
  3. DENNIS, M.L., 1988. Implementing Randomised Field Experiments: An Analysis of Criminal and Civil Justice Research. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microforms, Northwestern University; 1988, PhD Dissertation.
  4. FARRINGTON, D., 1983. "Randomised experiments on crime and justice". In: TONRY, M., and MORRIS, N., eds. Crime and Justice: An Annual Reviews of Research. Vol. Volume IV. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1983.
  5. 10.3102/00028312020001063 · DOI
  6. MORTON, S., 1999. Presented at Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, Workshop materials on Evidence-Based Health Care, Extended Studies and Public Programs.
  7. PETROSINO, A.J., 1997. What Works? Revisited Again: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments in Delinquency Prevention, Offender Rehabilitation and Deterrence. Ann Abor, Michigan: University of Michigan; 1997.
  8. PREISS, R.W., 1988. Meta-Analysis: A Bibliography of Conceptual Issues and Statistical Methods. Annandale, Virginia: Speech Communication Association; 1988.
  9. SMITH, M.L., GLASS, G.V., and MILLER, T.I., 1980. The Bene? ts of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1980.
  10. TOOLEY, J., and DARBY, D., 1998. Educational Research: An Ofsted Critique. London: OFSTED; 1998.
  11. WAX, M., 1979. Desegregated Schools: An Intimate Portrait Based on Five Ethnographic Studies. Washington D.C.: National Council of Education; 1979.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 286

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Davies, P.
Corresponding author
Davies, Philip
ORCID
Davies, Philip
Venue
Oxford Review of Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
26
Issue
3-4
Pages
365-378
ISSN
  • 0305-4985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3915
DOI
10.1080/713688543
OpenAlex
W2104283072
Cited by
286
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford Review of Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
systematic reviews, education policy, teaching practice, evidence synthesis, meta-analysis, best evidence synthesis, meta-ethnography, Campbell Collaboration, cumulative knowledge, research utilization

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