Back-stage configuring: a textual analysis of formalisation and professional judgement in two systematic reviews

References

• Adolfsson, C.-H., Sundberg, D., & Forsberg, E. (2019). Evidently, the broker appears as the New Whizz-kid on the educational agora. In D. Pettersson & C. E. Mølstad (Eds.), New practices of comparison, quantification and expertise in education: Conducting empirically based research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464904
   Google Scholar
• Berg, M., Horstman, K., Plass, S., & Van Heusden, M. (2000). Guidelines, professionals and the production of objectivity: Standardisation and the professionalism of insurance medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 22(6), 765–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241
   Google Scholar
• Bohlin, I. (2010). Systematiska översikter, vetenskaplig kumulativitet och evidensbaserad pedagogik. Pedagogisk Forskning I Sverige, 15(2–3), 164–186.
   Google Scholar
• Bohlin, I. (2012). Formalizing syntheses of medical knowledge: The rise of meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Perspectives on Science, 20(3), 273–309. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00075
   Google Scholar
• Bohlin, I. (2018). Från begreppet evidence till metoder för syntes av kvalitativ utbildningsvetenskaplig kunskap: Formalisering, integration, strategier för generalisering. D. Alvunger & N. Wahlström (Red), Den Evidensbaserade Skolan: Svensk Skola I Skärningspunkten Mellan Forskning Och Praktik, 2018, pp. 171–205.
   Google Scholar
• Bohlin, I., & Sager, M. (2011). Evidensens många ansikten: Evidensbaserad praktik i praktiken. Arkiv.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice, 2. ed. with a new afterword. ed. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M. (1998). Socialness and the undersocialized conception of society. Science, Technology and Human Values, 23(4), 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399802300408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3–14). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, E., & Sundberg, D. (2019). Att utveckla undervisningen – en fråga om evidens eller professionellt omdöme. In Y. Ståhle, M. Waermö, & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Att Utveckla Forskningsbaserad Undervisning: Analyser, Utmaningar Och Exempel (pp. 29–50). Natur & Kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Glass, G., Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2017). Commonality and Diversity in Reviews. In Gough, Oliver & Thomas 2017, 35–65.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2001). On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, [2d ed., enl. ed, International encyclopedia of unified science. Foundations of the unity of science, v. 2, no. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Levinsson, M. (2013). Evidens och existens: evidensbaserad undervisning i ljuset av lärares erfarenheter. Diss. (sammanfattning) Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Levinsson, M. (2018). Skolforskningsinstitutet, konfigurativa översikter och undervisningens komplexitet. pfs 24, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.15626/pfs24.1.02
   Google Scholar
• Levinsson, M., & Prøitz, T. S. (2017). The (Non-)use of configurative reviews in education. Education Inquiry, 8(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1297004
   Google Scholar
• MacLure, M. (2005). ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: Where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500131801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megill, A. (1994). Rethinking objectivity. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moreira, T. (2007). Entangled evidence: Knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(2), 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00531.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, M., & Pistone, I. (2019). Mismatches in the production of a scoping review: Highlighting the interplay of (in)formalities. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(6), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandlee, J. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods–mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811427913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SIER. (2017a). Digitala lärresurser i matematikundervisningen. Delrapport förskola., systematisk översikt 2017:02 (2/2). ed. Skolforskningsinstitutet.
   Google Scholar
• SIER. (2017b). Digitala lärresurser i matematikundervisningen. Delrapport skola., systematisk översikt 2017:02 (1/2). ed. Skolforskningsinstitutet.
   Google Scholar
• SIER. (2017c). Klassrumsdialog i matematikundervisningen – matematiska samtal i helklass i grundskolan., systematisk översikt 2017:01. Ed. Skolforskningsinstitutet.
   Google Scholar
• SIER. (2018). Projektprocess systematiska översikter, Dnr: Skolfi 2018/8. Skolforskningsinstitutet.
   Google Scholar
• Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies, 2nd ed. Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sundqvist, G., Bohlin, I., Hermansen, E. A., & Yearley, S. (2015). Formalization and separation: A systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy. Social Studies of Science, 45(3), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715583737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U2014:02. Slutrapport från Utredningen om inrättande av ett skolforskningsinstitut. Utbildningsdepartementet.
   Google Scholar
• Voils, C. I., Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Hasselblad, V. (2008). Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods, 20(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X07307463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar