 |
 |
Surely it all depends on whether they give information about possible mechanisms and issues! Sent from my iPhone Alan Taylor Flinders University. eDevelopment Solutions. Mobile 0412 032 576 On 30 Jun 2017, at 8:26 pm, Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: These have a valuable place within the realist synthesis method. HOWEVER it is important to distinguish between use of these papers for generating programme theory (for which they are valid) and empirical testing of the theory for which they are not. Subsequently they may also have an explanatory role in helping to understand what might be going on. So essentially there is a distinct place for appropriate use of these papers. Best wishes Andrew Lead Author of Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd Edition by Sage Publishing (Publication Date: May 2016] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Andrew Booth BA MSc Dip Lib PhD MCLIP Reader in Evidence Based Information Practice School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street SHEFFIELD S1 4DA Tel: 0114 222 0705 Fax: 0114 272 4095 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> My Publications: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22booth+a%22+AND+(scharr+OR+sheffield+OR+%22related+research%22) On 30 June 2017 at 11:20, Anna Richmond <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear all I am performing a realist synthesis and my search has obtained around 150 papers after title and abstract screening that seem as they may help me refine/refute my programme theory. However, on a brief scroll through, many are commentaries, review articles or opinion papers etc. I just wondered what the usefulness of these types of non-empirical articles to a realist synthesis? Is there a place for them or not? Thanks Anna Richmond