Systematic reviews aim to use formalised and explicitly described methods. However, studies show that systematic reviews pose challenges which can only be resolved using expert judgement that is resistant to explicit formulation. The expertise required to make such judgements can be understood as practical knowledge or phronesis, and ...
Systematic reviews aim to use formalised and explicitly described methods. However, studies show that systematic reviews pose challenges which can only be resolved using expert judgement that is resistant to explicit formulation. The expertise required to make such judgements can be understood as practical knowledge or phronesis, and is based on lived experiences rather than following clearly defined rules. This study used qualitative methods to investigate the phronesis of expert searchers in the development and conduct of searches for studies for systematic reviews. In particular, the study focused on two ‘supplementary’ search methods: forward citation searching and web searching. Data collection used semi-structured interviews with 15 expert searchers and the analysis used a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. The findings describe five habits of phronesis when searching for studies: Outcome-oriented; persistent; adaptive; critically engaged and holistic. The study brings attention to the use of expert judgement when searching for studies for systematic reviews.
