Advancing the Knowledgebase in Sport-Related Research: The Case for Systematic Research Reviews

Abstract

This article examines the role that systematic reviews can play in better understanding the status of knowledge in sport-related disciplines. The rationale for and procedures used in conducting various types of reviews will be discussed. Advantages and disadvantages of each approach will be presented and examples of reviews from the contemporary sport-related literature are provided throughout the article. 78 © Kent State University 1 Fitzgerald and Lyberger: Advancing the Knowledge Base Published by Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries, 2013 Fitzgerald & Lyberger The need for and importance of primary research studies is undoubtedly obvious to most sport-related researchers. That is, there is a need to empirically investigate informal observations that are made of social phenomena in the discipline. However, the need for and understanding of systematic research reviews and syntheses is often less clear. Although published discussions detailing both the rationale for and importance of systematic reviews date back almost 40 years (see, for example, Chalmers, Hedges, & Cooper, 2002; Cook, 1992; Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Glass, 1976; Grant & Booth, 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 1986), many researchers unfamiliar with these discussions do not fully understand the value of systematic reviews as they relate to advancing the scholarship and knowledgebase in a discipline. As noted by Light (1984): The need for research synthesis can only be realized when one understands that in order for the gains of scholarship to be cumulative, there must be a link between the past and future research. Often the need for a new study is not as great as the need for the assimilation of already existing studies. Thus the latter is a prerequisite for the former. (pp. 2-3) The need for systematic research review and synthesis is even more clearly understood in light of common limitations related to single, primary research studies. The overwhelming majority of primary research studies typically lack high degrees of external validity, or generalizability, stemming from the study of specific subjects within specific contexts and settings and following a specific set of procedures (Cook, 1992; Wood, 2000). Furthermore, many primary research studies investigating the same topic, and even considering the same set of research questions, often report findings that are not consistent across the set of studies (Light, 1984; Weed, 2005). Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, these limitations tend to be further exacerbated by an important statistical limitation that appears to be inherent in many primary research studies---a lack of statistical power due to insufficient samples size (Wood, 2000).