On the Experience of Conducting a Systematic Review in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology
Yes, It Is Worthwhile
Abstract
Systematic Review methodology (SRm) is an increasingly popular choice for literature reviews in the Social Sciences. While compared to traditional narrative reviews SRm appears time-consuming and laborious, transparency and replicability of the methodology is argued to facilitate greater clarity of review. Nevertheless, researchers in Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have yet to embrace this methodology. Drawing on experience from conducting a Systematic Review (SR) of individual workplace performance we explore the premise: The advantages of SRm to IWO Psychology researchers outweigh the disadvantages. We offer observations, insights, and potential solutions to challenges faced during the reviewing process, concluding that SRm is worthwhile for IWO Psychology researchers.
References
(1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141–168.
(2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 19–32.
(2011). Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22.
(2010, January). Qualitative guidelines: Criteria for evaluating papers using qualitative research methods. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8325/homepage/qualitative_guidelines.htm
(2009, October). Reviewing the literature systematically. Cranfield: Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM). Retrieved from aimexpertresearcher.org
(2009). Producing a systematic review. In , The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). London, UK: Sage.
(2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 417–430.
(2004). Opportunities and challenges of using systematic reviews of research for evidence-based policy in education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18, 54–71.
(2003, October). What is critical appraisal? Evidence Based Medicine, 3, 1–8.
(2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London, UK: Sage.
(2009). How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 119, 443–450.
(2005). Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 21–34.
(2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475–515.
(2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 15–20.
