GRASP
Systematic reviews in the Social Sciences - what HDR students need to consider
February 18th, 2026, by
As a Research Engagement Librarian working primarily with researchers in the social sciences, I am often asked about literature reviews: how to search for content, how to structure a review, and which type of review is most appropriate. In recent years, I have noticed a growing interest in systematic reviews from HDR students in disciplines such as business and education. Unfortunately, most of the guidance and training materials available are in the health sciences, which can make it difficult for non-health researchers to know how, or whether, these approaches apply to their own work.
This post brings together some of the key questions I’ve encountered, the answers I’ve found (and in some cases, the lack of clear answers), and a selection of resources that may be useful for HDR students considering tackling a systematic review.
Systematic reviews have long been a staple of health science research. They are a rigorous and structured research method that use transparent, pre-defined protocols to minimise bias and provide comprehensive summaries of studies addressing a specific research question.
To increase my understanding of systematic review methodologies, I began exploring the training and resources available. I was particularly interested in whether the well established health sciences approach to systematic reviews differs from the methods used in the social sciences and humanities.
As expected, much of the material I encountered was health focused, with examples drawn almost exclusively from the health sciences. One exception was the self-paced, free online course Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis, developed by the Campbell Collaboration and the Open Learning Initiative. This course is aimed specifically at social science researchers. In Part 2 (a forthcoming blog post), I will provide an overview of that course and share some of my key learnings.
Is my systematic review really a systematic review?
One of the conversations that I have with HDR students concerns their choice of doing a systematic review and their understanding of what it is and whether they are in fact doing a systematic review, a systematic literature review or a scoping review. In many cases social science students are not really engaged in a systematic review, and this view has been supported by the authors of the online course that I completed.
In the wrap-up section of the Campbell Collaboration online course, it was noted that research has shown that many published systematic reviews are either poor quality or non-systematic. It solidified my view that in Social Science research it is important that we understand exactly what a systematic review is, and whether it is the most appropriate methodology to use.
What is a systematic review?
Before considering whether a systematic review is an appropriate method for a particular project, it is important to be clear about what a systematic review is — and how it differs from other types of literature reviews.
HDR students often ask whether a systematic review is simply another name for a literature review. One view is that a systematic review is a type of literature review that aims to minimise researcher bias by following a clearly defined and transparent process (Source: Monash University).
At the same time, current approaches to literature reviews have become increasingly complex. They are often seen as a synthesis of research on a specific topic or within a particular discipline, and have been described as a building block of academic research activities (Snyder, Literature review as a research methodology, 2019).
I think that a robust, transparent, and replicable literature review is the foundation of academic research. However, I also believe that the term ‘systematic review’ has frequently been applied too loosely to literature reviews that do not qualify as such. This has led to confusion among HDR students who may identify their work as a systematic review but struggle to reconcile their approach with the methodological expectations described in the literature.
The Campbell Collaboration’s Systematic Review course frames systematic reviews as a distinct form of research because they “apply scientific principles and methods to the process of finding, assessing and synthesising results of existing studies”.
They further characterise systematic reviews as a “secondary form of analysis of data, because they use existing studies as their primary units of analysis”. They describe the key components of systematic reviews as having:
- Clear objectives allow reviewers to address a central research question or a set of closely related research questions.
- Explicit eligibility criteria specify in advance the kinds of studies that will and will not be included.
- Comprehensive coverage includes evidence from all studies that meet the review’s eligibility criteria.
- Transparent procedures are fully explained to readers.
- Replicable procedures can be repeated by others.
- Critical appraisal involves a structured assessment of methodological qualities or related risks of bias in included studies.
- Synthesis of evidence from multiple studies produces an overall summary of trends and variations in a body of evidence.
- Steps to minimize bias and error are used at each stage in the review process in order to enhance fairness and accuracy.
How do I choose which type of literature review to use?
If many reviews described as “systematic” do not fully meet these criteria, the next logical step is to consider how HDR students can more effectively align their research questions with the most appropriate type of review methodology.
The systematic review is only one of many different methods used and the method you choose will depend on your research question or topic. The most effective way of aligning a research question with the right review type is to clearly define the purpose, scope and how you intend to apply the findings.
The e-book “Understanding Review Types in Research” is useful in describing the different types of review tools to use when synthesising evidence in research. It is written by the Covidence team and published in 2025.
What is particularly valuable is the description for each type of review and how it is used in different disciplines. There is a recognition that not all reviews serve the same purpose, and in Chapter 2 there is a guide on how to match the research question to a review type.
Can you include qualitative studies in a systematic review?
Another common area of confusion for HDR students — particularly in the social sciences — concerns the types of evidence that can be included in a systematic review.
When I started this quest, I was under the impression that quantitative studies were the only type of studies that were included in a systematic review. I now realise that a systematic review can be done on qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods studies.
If you are looking to do a systematic review on qualitative evidence, there are several resources that can provide additional information. Once again the health sciences are well represented, for example Chapter 3 of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis has a detailed overview of dealing with qualitative evidence synthesis (Source: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, 2024 edition).
Where to from here?
This post has explored why confusion often arises when health focused models are applied outside the discipline. Clarifying what constitutes a systematic review, and how it differs from other review types, is essential if HDR students are to choose methods that genuinely align with their research questions. The next step is to engage with discipline appropriate guidance and training that supports informed, methodologically sound decision making.
In part 2 I will share my learnings from completing the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis online course. Although time consuming, it gave me an insight into the world of systematic reviews and informed some of the views expressed in this blog post.
References and Resources
The Covidence blog has a post about the differences between a systematic review and a literature review as well as some commentary around Systematic Literature Reviews.
The Curtin Library Research Toolkit: Systematic and Scoping Reviews section includes a table outlining the differences between Systematic Reviews and Literature Reviews.
Covidence, 2025; Understanding Review Types in Research, Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Covidence-ebook_understanding-review-types.pdf
Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z. (Eds.) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2024. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276
Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9780470754887
Snyder, Hannah (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, Volume 104, 2019, Pages 333-339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Valentine, J.C., Littell, J. H. & Young, S. (Eds.), Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A Campbell Collaboration online course. Open Learning Initiative, 2023. Available from https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis
Please make any anonymous comments/ feedback, or suggestions for further posts at this link. If you would like to get in touch, or write a post for the Ideas Hub blog, please email karen.miller@curtin.edu.au
Photo by Max Böttinger on Unsplash