Literature Synthesis Research

Our reviewers often note that contributing authors to this journal have a tendency give short shrift the background literature on which we build our field. Too frequently, return papers requesting revisions highlight central issues already been part of publication record. And all too receive research create new scales for measuring constructs reliable tools, validated instruments, and data can be compared results. For past two years, I’ve collaborating with colleagues undertake configurative review what says about museums working at intersection science, technology, engineering math (STEM) social problems challenge societies, thanks support from U.S. National Science Foundation. This journal, publisher, non-profit I lead, Institute Museum Library Services, group private donors supported work emerging museum professionals similar studies Curator archives through professional development program (see issue 63.4 journal). Both these activities revealed rich tradition innovation. At same time, also found much is framed as isolated quietly answer question without situating in context scholarly practice. characterized humanities discipline, but are truly transdisciplinary We draw across full breadth systemic methods uncover meaning form. think wide range examples illustrate diversity field: people study improved safety archivists, techniques restoring or preserving material culture, strategies breeding flora fauna so they protect biodiversity depend, innovations science help us better know how serving cultural heterogeneity makes society strong. To fully serve field, entire peer-reviewed enterprise needs turn eyes toward reconciling present publications those who came before us. By increasing efforts publish synthesis work, offer future researchers more stable ground their own innovations. accomplish aspiration, many comments received falls my just completed. Literature not comprehensive list published given topic. A good an appraisal has past. It represents critical inquiry into known set studies, knowledge was assembled, may missing path knowledge. turned Systemic Reviews, some wonderful thinking value aggregation reviews, terms reference seek existing literature. As short-cut literature, highly recommend Gough et al. (2012) introduction reviews. One interesting findings disaggregation Not only almost every discipline’s publications, seldom do articles graduate-level accessed public repositories. Moreover, there vast trove online grey includes rigorous representative brought focus publication. appears suffer wealth resources, now available platforms, little way maps guides bring resources together. What learned, Curator-Knology workshop interactions reviews inherently political. scientific discipline. Rather, appear hybrid field draws epistemic traditions paths result, engage intense debates over truth claimed based methodological preference But advance understanding. They merely reveal politics distract. Post-positivism, constructivism, interpretivism, pedagogies well-established studies. Auto-ethnographies provide insight individuals come use lives, observations due. move forward, it seems time invest greater triangulation between different paradigms laid foundation, appreciate cultures. seeks contributions explicitly look charitable rather than mired debate. systematic replicable, even when conducted view redress wrongs harms. describe iterative process discovery others work. In recent acknowledge one could reconcile disagreements regarding constitutes informal STEM learning setting understand political valence methodologies. My perspective assumes any venue afford learning, auto repair shop street. believe compare by sampling procedures where body places emphasis might mean aggregate learning. shed light replicate disciplinary biases systematically exclude. The engaging accompanying debate illustrated don’t conduct collaborative review. While ourselves common vision found, dialogue emerged debates. experience encouraged me out types journal. And, importantly, call editing other journals publishing type results cannot due conflict interest. gained process, forward syntheses will contribute. editorial team committed works basis fair review, whether agree thoughts heartily disagree ideas. John Fraser, Editor ([email protected]) psychologist President & CEO Knology. He co-Prinicipal Investigator Addressing Societal Issues STEM, project funded Foundation (Grant DRL-1906556). Any opinions, findings, conclusions recommendations expressed author necessarily reflect views