CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 247Educational Research and MethodsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the Exploratory Case Study Method

Ogawa, Rodney T., Malen, Betty·1991·Review of Educational Research
DOI 10.3102/00346543061003265
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article aims to stimulate discussion about the issue of rigor in conducting reviews of multivocal literatures. Multivocal literatures, which abound in the field of education, are comprised of all accessible writings on a common, often contemporary topic. The exploratory case study method is proposed as a means to engender rigor in reviews of such literatures. It is argued that it is appropriate to apply the concept of rigor to reviews of multivocal literatures and to use the exploratory case study method as a tool for thinking about procedures that could enhance rigor in such reviews. The article draws upon the authors’ experiences in conducting a review of the literature on school-based management to illustrate how the proposed procedures might be employed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543061003265

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Argyris C, 1982, Theory in practice
  2. Berkhofer R, 1976, The difficulty of studying man in past time
  3. Gottschalk L, 1969, Understanding history
  4. Guba E, 1981, Effective evaluation
  5. Johnson SM, 1990, Choice and control in American education, 2, 343
  6. Kingdon J, 1984, Agendas, alternative, and public policies
  7. Lindblom CE, 1979, Usable knowledge
  8. Malen B, 1990, Choice and control in American education, 2, 289
  9. 10.2307/1174243 · DOI
  10. Mosher E, 1972, A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  11. Murphy JT, 1980, Getting the facts
  12. Patton MQ, 1980, Qualitative evaluation methods
  13. Raywid MA, 1988, Paper presented at the meeting of the Center for Policy Research in Education
  14. Schatzman L, 1973, Field research
  15. Yin RK, 1974, Street-level governments: Assessing decentralization and urban services

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 247

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1991-09
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
265-286
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
DOI
10.3102/00346543061003265
OpenAlex
W2138571267
Cited by
247
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
26.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
research rigor, school-based management, review procedures, 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