The meta‐analytic big bang

Abstract

This article looks at the impact of meta-analysis and then explores why meta-analysis was developed at the time and by the scholars it did in the social sciences in the 1970s. For the first problem, impact, it examines the impact of meta-analysis using citation network analysis. The impact is seen in the sciences, arts and humanities, and on such contemporaneous developments as multilevel modeling, medical statistics, qualitative methods, program evaluation, and single-case design. Using a constrained snowball sample of citations, we highlight key articles that are either most highly cited or most central to the systematic review network. Then, the article examines why meta-analysis came to be in the 1970s in the social sciences through the work of Gene Glass, Robert Rosenthal, and Frank Schmidt, each of whom developed similar theories of meta-analysis at about the same time. The article ends by explaining how Simonton's chance configuration theory and Campbell's evolutionary epistemology can illuminate why meta-analysis occurred with these scholars when it did and not in medical sciences.

Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011

“…Overall, trends in the number and proportion of research synthesis publications across fields support the conventional narrative of the importance of the methods in health and medicine and related to the evidence‐based practice movement. Though the importance of the methods often has been discussed in psychology and education, fewer publications might be expected because social science researchers typically integrate results over a large number of studies, sometimes hundreds (Shadish & Lecy, ). In comparison, only six to sixteen studies are typically included in at least some health and medical science fields (Mallett & Clarke, ; Moher, Tetzlaff, Tricco, Sampson, & Altman, ).…”

“…This gap is addressed with this study through an investigation of the macro‐level diffusion of research synthesis methods from 1972 to 2011. It is hoped that this work will help connect and contextualize predominantly field‐specific studies of engagement with research synthesis methods performed by others, generally from within their own fields (e.g., Barrios, Guilera, & Gomez‐Benito, ; Cadotte, Mehrkens, & Menge, ; DeGeest & Schmidt, ); and sketch the landscape against which more detailed examinations of the development and diffusion of the methods (e.g., Shadish & Lecy, ) can be viewed. Fields sometimes neglected by other studies, those that do not engage with the methods, are also described.…”

Research Weaving: Visualizing the Future of Research Synthesis

“…These reviews were valuable not just for summarizing 'facts' about a particular research field, but also for giving broader insights, such as identifying the origin and development of key theoretical concepts, or drawing attention to ideas that deserved greater research focus. More sophisticated syntheses are now commonly used -systematic review and metaanalysis [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] -which incorporate systematic and often quantitative methods to extract factual information from the literature in a reliable manner. However, both these syntheses have their limitations.…”

Some reflections on combining meta‐analysis and structural equation modeling

“…The special issue on the origins of modern meta‐analysis edited by Shadish gives several personal perspectives from some of the main contributors to the development of meta‐analysis , , . (See also Cappelleri and Ingerick) Shadish and Lecy provide a history and a bibliometric analysis of the impact of meta‐analysis in various fields.…”