An Audit of Literature Reviews Published in<i>Australian Social Work</i>(2007–2017)

Strandberg, Thomas; Simpson, Grahame

doi:10.1080/0312407x.2019.1571619

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We developed our framework in three steps: (1) synthesising existing approaches (Aromataris & Pearson, 2014; Aromataris et al, 2015); (2) selecting the methodological criteria (Sny-der, 2019) and (3) adjusting the criteria (Strandberg & Simpson, 2019). The full framework is presented in Table 4.…”

Section: Methodological Framework Of Literature Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research

Gessler

Siemer

2020

IJRVET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The growing public interest in vocational education and training (VET), most recently since the economic crisis of 2007/2008, has led to an exponential increase in articles with a vocational focus, underscoring the need for review studies for the purposes of systematic knowledge aggregation, clarification and interpretation. We assume that review studies follow the same minimum standards as other research methods: The review must be at least reproducible and thus the results verifiable or falsifiable. So far, however, the review methods used in VET research have not been investigated. Our purpose is to review the review procedures and methods used in published reviews of VET research to identify their current methodological quality. Approach: To classify the review studies, we initially developed a conceptual framework to distinguish different types of reviews. We then developed a methodological framework to assess the review methods used. Overall, to accelerate the review process, our review of reviews (or umbrella review) followed the rapid review approach: we limited our search to reviews in English published between 2014 and 2019 in peer-reviewed journals with a sub-stantial VET focus and indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science. Therefore, we did not examine all existing reviews in the field of VET research. Rather, our specific focus was on a core sector of scientific research: peer-reviewed articles in curated databases. Furthermore, we concentrated on the review procedures and methods used, not on the content of the reviews. Findings: We identified nine journals with a substantial VET focus, yielding a total of 1,283 published articles between 2014 and 2019, of which only 19 articles (1.48%) were literature reviews. Of these 19 reviews, six were excluded from our umbrella review because of unclear methodological procedures. Based on the review typology we developed, five of the remaining 13 reviews were conceptual in nature, four were scoping reviews, three were evidence-oriented, and one was critical in nature. None of the reviews examined focused on meta-syntheses, research methods or meta-analyses. In total, this resulted in current review gaps with respect to theory generation (meta-synthesis), practice of theory elaboration and testing (methodological review) and the determination of overall effects across single studies (meta-analysis). Finally, our examination of the reviews showed that their scope was mostly clearly presented. However, with regard to the process steps ‘data selection’ and ‘data processing’, only a few reviews fully met the requirements of the methodological framework.Conclusion: Our review leads to four conclusions. 1) More systematic syntheses are needed because there is a substantial quantitative gap in review research. 2) In particular, there is a need for review studies with a focus on meta-synthesis, research methods and meta-analysis, as there is a current gap in these areas. 3) Reviews should be based on a review methodology with transparent and reproducible methods and verifiable or falsifiable results. The high number of subjective syntheses with unclear review procedures indicates that this mindset is not yet fully established in the field of VET research. 4) In the studies examined, there is a high degree of heterogeneity regarding to the accuracy and completeness of the methodological steps and data. The conceptual and methodological frameworks developed for the analysis can serve as guidelines for the conduct of reviews, and thus, the frameworks could contribute to the further development of the methodological basis of reviews.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Framework Of Literature Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research

Gessler

Siemer

2020

IJRVET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This had increased to 79 per cent of papers in 2014 (Simpson & Lord, 2015). Also encouraging is the finding by Strandberg and Simpson (2020) that there were signs of a growing methodological pluralism within the journal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Research is an essential element of the social work profession (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). It generates knowledge to support social work practice and human services, as well as to further social justice agendas (Shaw, 2007;Strandberg & Simpson, 2020). The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) recognises that conducting research and using knowledge generated from research is a core practice standard (AASW, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Types of Scholarly Publications Produced by Australian Social Work Researchers

Tilbury

Hughes

Bigby

et al. 2021

Australian Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of social work research and scholarship is integral to generating and disseminating knowledge for the profession and the human services field. Previous research has found a large proportion of non-research papers in social work journals, but there has been little exploration of the nature of this scholarship. Using a scoping review method supplemented by analysis of national research assessment output data, this study examined the quantity, format, and characteristics of scholarly publications between 2010 and 2020 by Australian social workers. It found they produced proportionately more journal articles than other disciplines and relatively fewer books and book chapters. Of 1389 Australian social work articles published in top-cited social work journals, 821 (59.1%) were research articles. Of the non-research papers, almost half provided an analysis of policy or practice without stating a method. Understanding the scope of social work research provides a foundation for reflection on the discipline's research endeavours.

show abstract

“…The study further revealed that companies' opinions of non-qualified auditors were received by companies seeking higher costs to acquire debts. Strandberg and Grahame (2020) investigated the nature of literature on audit conduct opinions of stakeholders published in Australian Social works for a period of 11 years, 2007 to 2017. The study explored a total of 21 literature reviews using exploratory review methods.…”

Section: Empirical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditing Concepts and Stakeholders’ Expectations

Owolabi

Ajala

2020

IPJAF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mixed reactions occasioned by disappointing top-level financial reporting failures has not dampened the unsettling loss of confidence of key players and other financial statement users on the relevance of audit and financial statements in making the right investment decisions. There is a contemporary debate trying to resolve mixed feelings and misplaced perceptions of auditing concepts in filing widened expectation gaps of auditor’s expression of opinion. Contributing to the argument involves a detailed review of auditing concepts and broadening the understanding and educating the stakeholders on the essence of auditing. In this consideration, the study employed an exploratory research approach, reviewed related materials, journals, and periodicals in the field of auditing and financial accounting. The outcome of the review showed that Auditing concepts are specific and inclusive. Auditors are guided by these concepts and standards set out by the international standards on auditing. While these concepts are valid, there are divergences and misconceptions of what stakeholders expect from the audited financial statements. The study recommended that stakeholders require audit education and understand the essence of auditors’ reporting dilemma of regulated auditing guidelines or go beyond the auditing standards to please the stakeholders’ expectations.

show abstract

An Audit of Literature Reviews Published inAustralian Social Work(2007–2017)

Cited by 8 publications

References 50 publications

Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research

Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research

The Types of Scholarly Publications Produced by Australian Social Work Researchers

Auditing Concepts and Stakeholders’ Expectations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About