Systematic Literature Review Methodology

The first year of the project will comprise a major literature review of the topic of e-records management. The last comprehensive literature review on this topic was published in 1996:

• Erlandsson A. Electronic records management: A literature review. ICA Studies 10. Paris, International Council on Archives, 1996, pp.144. ISBN 0-9682361-2-X. http://www.ica.org/biblio.php?pdocid=5

Our project will be using a systematic literature review methodology to conduct the review. This is the first time that this methodology has been used in the records management field. The use of this methodology is particularly well developed in the medical field, e.g. http://www.cochrane.org/, but is also becoming more and more used in social science disciplines, e.g. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/.

Systematic literature reviews aim for a more objective, rigorous approach to reviewing the literature. The objectivity and rigour comes from establishing elements a priori and following a standard process. The stages of a classic systematic review comprise:

1. framing the question for the review

• questions should be focussed, precise and specific, and set out a priori

2. identifying relevant literature

• searches should be as comprehensive as possible, covering all literature types from online databases, reference lists of selected items, recent journal issues etc, and the grey literature
• selection criteria (e.g. subject coverage, study and publication type, etc.) need to be established a priori. To minimise bias, selection is done independently by different reviewers and their choices compared

3. assessing the quality of the literature

• with criteria established a priori. This enables individual items of evidence to be weighted based on the rigour of the work. This information can be used for selection and/or interpretation.

4. summarising the evidence

• using a data extraction form established a priori. The form is used to extract the data from the literature that will answer the review’s question(s)

5. interpreting the findings.

• using analysis methods established a priori. This interpretation aims to give a meaningful and practical answer to the review’s questions(s), considering the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence.

The output of the review is a narrative report, supported by data tables, a bibliography of the selected items, and a detailed description of the review process itself. Reviews covering quantitative data might also include a meta-analysis.

Further resources on this methodology:

NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance on carrying out a review http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm

EvidenceNetwork http://www.evidencenetwork.org/

ESRC Research Methods http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/

The nature of the topic and the disciplines we are covering in our review will require modification of this classic approach, e.g. often systematic reviews are undertaken using quantitative data, but for our review the analysis will be mostly qualitative. In future postings we will be discussing how and why we’ve adapted this methodology.

Sue and Catherine Hare