Criminological scoping reviews as part of a student assignment: methodological considerations

Abstract

In this article we reflect on the use of a scoping review method in the course of a student assignment. In total, 24 scoping reviews were conducted on police research topics, following the same procedure with similar yet topic-specific review protocols. We discuss each of the eight phases of the scoping review method and provide examples and good practices on how to conduct these steps. We also focus on difficulties that were experienced and how to overcome them in future scoping reviews. The aim of this article is twofold: providing criminological examples of scoping reviews that can help define new scoping review protocols and avoid difficulties experienced in these reviews on the one hand, and reflecting on students' participation in the assignment on the other hand to stimulate involving students in scoping review projects more often. KeywordsScoping review • Student assignment • Criminology • Synthesis method • Good practices (crime reduction Braga 2005; Braga et al. 2015; Carriaga & Worral 2015) and various other topics such as procedural justice and police legitimacy (Mazerolle et al. 2013a, b), police leadership (Pearson-Goff and Herrington 2014), stress management (Patterson et al. 2012), and the effects of body-worn cameras (Lum et al. 2020).Grant and Booth (2009) distinguish fourteen review types (e.g. critical reviews, mapping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews, scoping reviews), that all differ in purpose, rigour, time necessary to conduct the review and specific procedures to be followed. For instance, scoping reviews 1 differ from systematic reviews by studying a broader topic or theme (Arksey and O'

Framing Belgian police research: an exploration of scoping reviews regarding police decision-making in terms of topics, methodology and literature characteristics – toward a research agenda

“…Feys and Verhage, 2019;Gilleir, 2013;Rummens et al, 2017). This is probably the result of some limitations regarding the use of keywords and databases to which the scoping reviews were subject (see Feys, 2022a). Undeniably, more research would have been found if more police decision-making topics had been included (e.g.…”

“…We chose this method because of our intention to explore the extent and nature of police decision-making research, summarize the available literature on the different topics included and the methodology used in these studies with the overall aim to identify gaps in the literature (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005;Munn et al, 2018). All scoping reviews followed the method developed by the first author of this article ( Feys, 2022a), which consists of eight steps. We recommend readers to consult the original article for a fuller discussion on the method and its application to the student assignment.…”

“…, 2018). All scoping reviews followed the method developed by the first author of this article ( Feys, 2022a), which consists of eight steps. We recommend readers to consult the original article for a fuller discussion on the method and its application to the student assignment.…”

More Than Just a Scratch: A Scoping Review on Physical and Psychological Consequences of Violence against Police

“…Although quality assessments are not typically included in scoping reviews (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al, 2010;Feys, 2022;Peters et al, 2015aPeters et al, , 2015b, we included them to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and future research (Daudt et al, 2013;Colquhoun et al, 2014;Khalil et al, 2016;Peters et al, 2015b). To ensure that all insights were considered, we assigned weights to studies without excluding those of lower quality (Feys & Verhage, 2018;Hannes, 2011).…”

More Than Just a Scratch: A Scoping Review on Physical and Psychological Consequences of Violence Against Police

“…The interrater agreement between the two authors for the final classification of studies to be included in the review 2 was almost perfect, with Cohen’s Kappa = 0.88, in accordance with established guidelines (Landis & Koch, 1977). Additional studies were included through reference mining, with the first author identifying six additional studies based on the references cited in the shortlisted studies (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Feys, 2022; Peters et al, 2015a). Four further studies were included by the first author through purposive sampling, which is a recognized method for ensuring broad coverage of the literature (Ames et al, 2019; Dixon-Woods et al, 2006).…”