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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Some of the challenges for researchers while selecting GL sources are accessibility, discoverability, bias, low quality, and lack of standardization [49] [41].”
From DevSecOps practices and tools (2025) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cites
(1984) · Cited by 81,983
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in strategic management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,973
(1990) · Cited by 24,217
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
Ellis, D. J. (1990) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/0268-4012(90)90041-p · Cited by 17,943
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,625
(1990) · Cited by 8,425
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Argyris C, 1982, Theory in practice
- Berkhofer R, 1976, The difficulty of studying man in past time
- Gottschalk L, 1969, Understanding history
- Guba E, 1981, Effective evaluation
- Johnson SM, 1990, Choice and control in American education, 2, 343
- Kingdon J, 1984, Agendas, alternative, and public policies
- Lindblom CE, 1979, Usable knowledge
- Malen B, 1990, Choice and control in American education, 2, 289
- 10.2307/1174243 · DOI
- Mosher E, 1972, A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
- Murphy JT, 1980, Getting the facts
- Patton MQ, 1980, Qualitative evaluation methods
- Raywid MA, 1988, Paper presented at the meeting of the Center for Policy Research in Education
- Schatzman L, 1973, Field research
- Yin RK, 1974, Street-level governments: Assessing decentralization and urban services
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis
Suri, H. (2011) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.3316/qrj1102063 · Cited by 2,284
“A rigorous research synthesis makes much more demand on time and resources when compared with ad hoc reviews (Elmore, 1991; Ogawa & Malen, 1991; Stock, Benito, and Lasa, 1996).”
MethodConceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654311413609 · Cited by 1,814
“To help develop and validate this understanding, we relied on “informant confirmation” (Boote & Beile, 2005; Ogawa & Malen, 1991).”
MethodGarousi, V., Felderer, M., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006 · Cited by 831
A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03706 · Cited by 553
“According to Oxman and Guyatt (1988), “important aspects of the design and conduct of each primary study should be critiqued and the standard used in these critiques made explicit” (p.”
InfluentialAn exploration of technical debt
Tom, E., Aurum, A., & Vidgen, R. (2013) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.052 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-286
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- 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
- 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
