Abstract
In their article, Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the Exploratory Case Study Method, Ogawa and Malen (1991) have done an excellent job of showing how multivocal literature reviews can be done rigorously using the framework of the exploratory case study method. They address the traditional academic concerns of bias, error, control, and validity. They have done an outstanding job given their basic assumption-namely, that rigor is the most important standard to apply in judging a literature review. If one begins with a different standard, as I do, then the result is somewhat less outstanding. In my work-program evaluation and policy analysis-utility supplants rigor as the first and most important criterion for judging research, including literature reviews. What I shall do in this response is highlight the methodological implications for multivocal literature reviews, making the utility criterion primary and rigor secondary. In this way, I shall address what seems to me to be the central question posed by Ogawa and Malen: What standards should apply to multivocal literature reviews?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
