Reviewing literature to inform policy: some complexities and tensions

Abstract

Drawing on the experience of carrying out a literature review commissioned to support the Review of Teacher Education in Scotland, this paper discusses the role of literature reviews within the movement for ‘evidence-based policy’ making. The first part of the paper discusses the purposes of such reviews and some of the misconceptions that may be associated with them. Several critical questions that shape the work of reviewing are identified. By examining the particular case in which the authors were involved, it is demonstrated how the establishment of terms of reference and definitions of scope are critical factors in determining the outcome of such a project. But so too are the relationships established between those undertaking the project and the commissioners of the work. The conclusion is that reviewing literature is much more of a deliberative process than is commonly understood.

Keywords:

• literature review
• policy reform
• teacher education

Notes

The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander 2010) was very extensive and yet had a tortuous relationship with policy processes under both Labour and Coalition governments.

See also Menter (2009) which discusses the relationship between research and teacher education in the UK.

Nisbet and Broadfoot (1980, 34–35) cite a paper by Tanner published in 1979 by the Department of Education and Science which offers a typology of different functions of research in relation to different stages of the policy process, which is similar in conception to this three-fold distinction.

We wish to acknowledge our colleagues Dely Elliot and Jon Lewin who were part of the core team that undertook the project, together with our team of reviewers: Vivienne Baumfield, Alan Britton, Mike Carroll, Kay Livingston, Margaret McCulloch, Irene McQueen, Fiona Patrick, and Tony Townsend.

The three databases used were: BEI, the EBSCO Professional Development Collection, and the Web of Knowledge Citation Indices.

There is even a sense in which this could be seen as ‘insider’ research (Sikes and Potts 2008).