Adaptation of the systematic review methodology for research in Social Sciences
Authors
-
Cindy Giselle Díaz-Contino
Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-406X
-
Franklin Padrón-Quindemil
Universidad Americana de Europa
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1752-9472
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33936/rehuso.v11i2.8454Keywords:
Social Sciences, systematic review, research methodology, qualitative synthesisAbstract
The systematic review methodology, widely recognized in biomedical disciplines, offers a promising framework for improving rigor and transparency in social research. However, its direct application in this field is often hampered by the qualitative nature of the data, methodological heterogeneity, and varied theoretical perspectives. In this context, this article aims to propose a systematic review methodology suited to the social sciences. A theoretical-methodological analysis was developed based on a comparison between conventional systematic review procedures and the specific characteristics of scientific production in the social sciences. It was identified that several components of systematic reviews require adaptation, expansion, or reinterpretation within the social context, and a new proposal was developed that articulates methodological systematicity with contextual and interpretive sensitivity to social research. It is concluded that systematic reviews can be rigorously applied in the social sciences provided their procedures are adapted to the complexity, methodological diversity, and contextual nature of social phenomena, without mechanically reproducing models from the biomedical field.
Downloads
References
Acosta Faneite, S. F. (2023). Los enfoques de investigación en las Ciencias Sociales. Revista Latinoamericana Ogmios, 3(8), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.53595/rlo.v3.i8.084
Codina, L. (2018). Revisiones bibliográficas sistematizadas: procedimientos generales y Framework para ciencias humanas y sociales. Universitat Pompeu Fabra https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/34497/Codina_revisiones.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Codina L. (2020) Revisiones bibliográficas sistematizadas en Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. 1: Fundamentos. En Lopezosa C, Díaz-Noci J, Codina L, (Ed.) Methodos: Anuario de Métodos de Investigación en Comunicación Social (pp. 50-60). Universitat Pompeu Fabra. http://dx.doi.org/10.31009/methodos.2020.i01.05
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of health services research & policy, 10(1), 45-53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gómez-Luna, E., Fernando-Navas, D., Aponte-Mayor, G., & Betancourt-Buitrago, L. A. (2014). Metodología para la revisión bibliográfica y la gestión de información de temas científicos, a través de su estructuración y sistematización. Dyna, 81(184), 158-163. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4717293
Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. Sage Publications. https://www.cuzproduces.com/producinganew/files/resources/HART_Doing%20a%20literature%20review_1988_ch1.pdf
Harris, J. D., Quatman, C. E., Manring, M. M., Siston, R. A., & Flanigan, D. C. (2014). How to write a systematic review. The American journal of sports medicine, 42(11), 2761-2768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513497567
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2019). A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of mixed methods research, 13(4), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818770058
Joanna Briggs Institute. (2015). Systematic Review Resource Package The Joanna Brigs Institute Method for Systematic Review Research Quick Reference Guide, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465134975
Lockwood, C., Dos Santos, K. B., & Pap, R. (2019). Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping review methods. Asian nursing research, 13(5), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
Manchado Garabito, R., Tamames Gómez, S., López González, M., Mohedano Macías, L., & Veiga de Cabo, J. (2009). Revisiones sistemáticas exploratorias. Medicina y seguridad del trabajo, 55(216), 12-19. https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0465-546X2009000300002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7, 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777
Munn, Z.; Peters, M.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. (2018a). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. (2018b). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 8:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-44.
Ocaña-Fernández, Y., & Fuster-Guillén, D. (2021). The bibliographical review as a research methodology. Revista Tempos E Espaços Em Educação, 14(33), e15614-e15614. https://doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v14i33.15614
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). Revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis en Educación: Un tutorial. RiiTERevista interuniversitaria de investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 13, 5-40. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.545451
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Cindy Giselle Díaz-Contino, Franklin Padrón-Quindemil
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
