IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jdevef/v9y2017i1p82-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which standards from which disciplines? A test of systematic review for designing interdisciplinary evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Aogán Delaney
  • Peter A. Tamás
  • Hilde Tobi

Abstract

Evidence-based development suggests empirical choice of evaluation methods. Systematic review (SR) is increasingly used in development but, to our knowledge, has not informed methods selection. This article tests SR for methods selection for evaluation in health and conflict studies. The review comprised a reproducible literature search, inclusion protocols, quality assessment, data extraction and qualitative aggregation. The study finds that adopting even some aspects of SR for methods selection to be useful and an improvement. The usefulness of SR is constrained by the paucity of empirically grounded methodological recommendations, inconsistent citation and reporting practices and difficulties surrounding multidisciplinary quality assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Aogán Delaney & Peter A. Tamás & Hilde Tobi, 2017. "Which standards from which disciplines? A test of systematic review for designing interdisciplinary evaluations," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 82-100, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jdevef:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:82-100
    DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2016.1160419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/19439342.2016.1160419
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/19439342.2016.1160419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevef:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:82-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJDE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.