Scoping reviews: Their development and application in environmental and sustainability education research

Abstract

Recent decades have seen a marked growth in the quantity and range of literature reviews published on various aspects of environmental and sustainability education (ESE). However, critical assessment of these reviews suggests common challenges for authors and readers, the core of which concern distinct but related aspects of naming, assessing, and applying literature review methods. In some cases, these concerns can be traced back to matters of ‘category mistake’. Such mistakes may arise through a failure to recognise or demonstrate sufficient understanding of the differences between and suitability of literature review options, such as systematic vs. scoping reviews. In response, we contrast some of the key considerations for designing and conducting both review methods. We also draw on various protocols, checklists, and examples of reviews from the field to help readers and authors combat the likelihood of repeating a category mistake. In sum, we suggest such considerations are particularly helpful for checking when research objectives and methodological frameworks are not correctly aligned with their elected literature synthesis approach, while they may also help enhance the transparency and rigour of literature reviews and help further establish their suitability and/or usability in the field of ESE.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords:

• Scoping review
• systematic review
• literature review
• research methods
• Environmental and sustainability education (ESE)

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the Faculty of Education and Monash University for promoting transdisciplinary research about sustainability and education. The authors would like to thank the Editor of Environmental Education Research and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Authorship contribution statement

Laura Gutierrez-Bucheli (50%): Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, resources, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing and visualisation.

Alan Reid (45%): Conceptualisation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, validation, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing, supervision, and project administration.

Gillian Kidman (5%): Writing-review & editing and supervision.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 We also hope the article moves some of our previously discussed considerations forward, particularly in relation to how we might identify some of the ‘blank, blind, bald, and bright spots’ of research that are produced by the use, misuse, or non-use of certain research methods Reid, A. (2019). Blank, blind, bald and bright spots in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 25(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1615735.

2 Other examples of field specific protocols include: ROSES—RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses in environmental research (https://www.roses-reporting.com), a “a collaborative initiative with the aim of improving the standards of reporting in evidence syntheses in the field of environment,” while the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, host PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews, rapid reviews and umbrella reviews.

3 Cochrane (previously the Cochrane Collaboration) (https://www.cochrane.org/) is an international charitable organisation that organises health and medical-related systematic reviews intended to support evidence-based choices. See Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: aims, myths and multiple methods. Review of Education, 4(1), 84-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3068

4 JBI is constantly updating their methodological recommendations for scoping reviews – from 2015 (https://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/ReviewersManuals/Scoping-.pdf) until now (https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910770/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews). The version used should be specified where possible.

5 A review protocol in a scoping review will describe the strategies for evidence search, selecting the evidence (e.g., inclusion and exclusion criteria) and data extraction to ensure the scoping review is as comprehensive as possible (see Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020 for more details about scoping review protocols).

6 Summaries of software options are widely available, e.g., at https://utas.libguides.com/SystematicReviews/Tools

7 It is recommended that researchers evaluate the advantages of using a software for the data extraction process such as Excel or NVivo (https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/resources/blog/extending-your-literature-review-nvivo-12-plus)

Additional information

Funding

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Notes on contributors

Laura Gutierrez-Bucheli

Laura Gutierrez-Bucheli: is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, originally from Colombia, with a background in civil engineering and construction management. Parallel to her studies, she works as a research assistant and teaching associate in the future building initiative at Monash Art, Design and Architecture and the Faculty of Engineering. Her research interests are sustainability education, engineering education, and construction management.

Alan Reid

Alan Reid: is a Professor at the Faculty of Education, Monash University. He is Editor-in-Chief of the international research journal, Environmental Education Research, and publishes regularly on environmental and sustainability education (ESE) and their research primarily in ‘Anglo’ contexts. Alan’s interests in research and service focus on growing associated traditions, capacities and the impact of ESE research. A key vehicle for this is his work with the Global Environmental Education Partnership, and via eePRO Research and Evaluation. Find out more via social media, pages or tags for eerjournal.

Gillian Kidman

Gillian Kidman: is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. She is the Chief Editor of the International Journal of Geographical and Environmental Education and is a member of the IGU’s Steering Committee for its Commission on Geographical Education. Her main research interests relate to interdisciplinary education and curriculum design, specialising in STEM Education using sustainability concepts and contexts. Gill works extensively in STEM education with South East Asian Ministries of Education and the Regional Education Centre of Science and Mathematics (RECSAM) in Penang, Malaysia.