Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 351–375 of 495 results
A literature review can be a section within a larger research project or a research project in its own right. A review article is a standalone scholarly publication whose central contribution comes from analyzing and synthesizing existing literature.
Read Guide →A systematic review is not automatically the best choice for every literature question. The appropriate approach depends on what you need the review to establish, how comprehensively the evidence must be identified, and how much methodological transparency the conclusion requires.
Read Guide →Scoping and mapping reviews overlap substantially, but the terms are not universally interchangeable. Their meaning depends partly on the methodological tradition, so researchers should define the approach they are using rather than rely on the label alone.
Read Guide →A systematic review usually synthesizes primary studies, while an umbrella review synthesizes existing systematic reviews or research syntheses. Reviewing the reviews is most useful when enough relevant reviews already exist to answer a broader question.
Read Guide →Integrative and narrative reviews can both synthesize broad and diverse literature, but they are not simply different names for the same approach. An integrative review typically follows an explicit methodological process for combining diverse empirical and theoretical sources, while narrative reviews are generally more flexible in how literature is selected and synthesized.
Read Guide →Meta-analysis statistically combines results from multiple studies to produce a quantitative summary, but it is not required for every systematic review. Pooling should be used only when the studies and available data make the combined estimate meaningful.
Read Guide →Research does not become philosophy-free simply because a study never names a research philosophy. Assumptions about reality, knowledge, evidence, values, and inquiry may remain implicit, and how explicitly they need to be discussed depends on the research tradition and context.
Read Guide →A research worldview is a broad set of beliefs or assumptions that helps orient how a researcher understands inquiry and develops knowledge. The term overlaps with research paradigm and research philosophy, but these labels are not used consistently across methodological traditions.
Read Guide →Axiology in research concerns values and their relationship to inquiry. It helps researchers examine how values may influence what is studied, how research is conducted, how evidence is interpreted, and what purposes research serves.
Read Guide →Methodology is the logic and rationale that explains how a research problem will be investigated, while methods are the specific procedures used to generate and analyze evidence. Methodology connects research questions with philosophical assumptions and practical research decisions.
Read Guide →Evidence does not become meaningful simply because data have been collected. Philosophical assumptions can influence what researchers regard as relevant evidence, how they interpret it, and what claims they believe it can justify.
Read Guide →Research questions are not philosophically neutral containers. Assumptions about reality, knowledge, values, and the purpose of inquiry can influence what researchers consider worth asking and what kind of answer they seek.
Read Guide →Philosophical assumptions can influence methodology by shaping what researchers believe can be known, what evidence is appropriate, and how inquiry should proceed. They inform methodological choices without functioning as a rigid method-selection formula.
Read Guide →Philosophical assumptions can influence not only which data researchers collect but what they believe those data represent and how they should be analyzed. The same method can therefore serve different purposes within different methodological traditions.
Read Guide →Research findings do not interpret themselves. Philosophical assumptions can influence what researchers believe results mean, how they connect evidence to claims, and what kinds of conclusions they consider justified.
Read Guide →Positionality identifies how the researcher is positioned in relation to the research, while reflexivity is the ongoing examination of how that position and the wider research process may influence knowledge production. They are closely related but not interchangeable.
Read Guide →A researcher’s background and position can influence what questions seem important, who participates, what people disclose, how evidence is generated, and how findings are interpreted. The relevant influences depend on the particular researcher, study, setting, and methodology.
Read Guide →Not every research report requires a separate positionality statement. Explicit positionality reporting is most useful when the researcher’s identity, relationships, role, experience, or position materially affects how the study is conducted, interpreted, or evaluated.
Read Guide →A useful positionality statement does more than describe the researcher. It identifies aspects of the researcher’s position that matter to the study, explains how they may influence the inquiry, and describes how consequential implications are addressed.
Read Guide →Positionality is often associated with qualitative research, but quantitative studies also involve researcher decisions. Learn where positionality may matter and how reflexivity can strengthen transparency without treating every quantitative study as subjective.
Read Guide →Research philosophy and research paradigm are closely related terms, and many authors use them interchangeably. The useful question is not which definition is universally correct, but how the terms are being used in your methodological tradition.
Read Guide →Research worldview and research paradigm often refer to closely related philosophical orientations, but their meanings depend on the methodological framework being used. Learn why the terms overlap and when the distinction actually matters.
Read Guide →Every study involves assumptions about knowledge and inquiry, but that does not necessarily mean every article, thesis, or research project must explicitly declare a paradigm. The important question is whether identifying one helps explain and justify how the study produces knowledge.
Read Guide →Research methods do not usually belong permanently to one philosophical paradigm. The same interview, survey, statistical model, or observation can serve different forms of inquiry depending on what the evidence is assumed to represent and what the researcher intends to learn from it.
Read Guide →Researchers can sometimes work with more than one philosophical perspective in the same study. The challenge is not merely using multiple labels but explaining whether the perspectives are compatible, complementary, intentionally in tension, or operating at different levels of the inquiry.
Read Guide →