Background
Systematic review and synthesis
Conversation analysis
Background to the review of future talk
Methods
Findings: step-by-step guide
Stage 1: Articulate purpose and audiences, then articulate review question and scope
Stage | Description of the process | |
---|---|---|
1
|
Articulate purpose and audiences, then review question(s) and scope
| Discuss then articulate the review’s purpose and the audience(s) for its findings |
Articulate review question(s) and scope – define the topic, phenomenon or domain of interest through engagement with literature and deliberative discussions | ||
2
|
Specify eligibility criteria
| Some criteria apply to all reviews: |
Studies must rely on fine-grained analysis of audio / audio-visually recorded naturalistic interaction | ||
Not only interactional data but also its analysis pay explicit attention to the topic, phenomenon or domain of interest | ||
Devise other criteria, including about settings and language, according to needs of the individual review | ||
3
|
Search for studies
| Identify potential sources of publications including electronic databases, specialist bibliographies, and knowledge amongst the review team and its contacts |
Design, test and refine word groups for database searches | ||
Search sources and record results | ||
Scan identified publications, make inclusion decisions based on eligibility criteria and definition of scope | ||
For difficult cases, read in detail and discuss within the review team to make decisions | ||
4
|
Describe characteristics of included studies
| Unidimensional quality appraisal is not possible for this kind of evidence, instead record characteristics of data, settings, participants, analytic approach, and analytic depth in order to specify studies’ contribution to the review |
Design customised templates for collecting this information | ||
5
|
Data extraction
| Design customised data extraction template |
Complete extraction for each study | ||
Collect relevant data extracts from each study | ||
6
|
Collate and synthesise data
| Read completed data extraction forms |
Organise studies into logical categories | ||
Organise and combine findings into logical categories | ||
Consult wider literature in relation to practices identified | ||
Consult with end users | ||
Identify gaps in the evidence | ||
Derive implications for the review audience(s) | ||
7
|
Sensitivity and subgroup analyses
| Retrospectively assess the contribution of different sets of findings or sets of publications to the review |
8
|
Reporting
| Consult review advisors and representatives of intended audiences |
Draw on established guidance for the reporting of systematic reviews (including 'PRISMA' guidelines) | ||
Include tables summarizing study characteristics and study findings |
In the Review of Future Talk, the final definition of the scope in terms of 'talk about sensitive future matters' was as follows
-
In the domain of individual persons (rather than, e.g. the Earth’s climate)
-
Spanning those that are uncertain to certain, contingent or not
-
That may or will happen in relation to individual persons, and are oriented to - or orientable to - in the specific context as negative or as having potential negative implication(s)
-
That may or will happen some time after the current interactional episode
-
Studies where talk about future sensitive matters is inherent to the activity examined in the research, and also those where it is adjunctive and occasional
-
Studies of talk about future sensitive matters whether or not talk includes or aims at making plans or decisions about future actions in relation to individuals’ care and lives
-
Studies where analysis examines talk that is exclusively focused on possible future actions in relation to currently existing troubles (as is found in many studies of advice giving)
Stage 2: Specify eligibility criteria
Stage 3: Search for studies
3a) Identify potential sources of publications, search sources
3b) Scan identified publications and make final selection for inclusion
Stage 4: Describe characteristics of - rather than appraise - included studies
Characteristics recorded for studies in the Review of Future Talk
-
Size of overall dataset in minutes / hours, and number of interactions
-
Number of episodes from the overall dataset upon which analysis relies
-
Number of episodes from the collection that appear in the publication
-
Number and description of sites
-
Number and description of institutional contexts (e.g. hospital ward, outpatient clinic, family conversation)
-
Whether practice(s) is/are observed in more than one individual/dyad
-
Whether practice(s) is/are observed in more than one group (e.g. do both doctors and patients use it)
-
Predominantly examine more than only one party’s turns; i.e. attend to sequence?
-
Examine data in fine-grained detail?
-
Examine more than just the topical/semantic content; i.e. does it attend to aspects of grammatical, pragmatic, and/or prosodic content?
-
Include examination of aspects of the sequential environment in which practice(s) occur(s)?
-
Include examination of aspects of turn and/or sequence design?
-
Include examination of interactional effects and consequences?
-
Include examination of atypical cases?
-
Support central analytic claims by direct references to data/extracts?
-
Use established analytic findings as ‘tools’ in the analysis?
Stage 5: Data extraction
Data extraction categories used in the Review of Future Talk
-
Phenomenon (in brief)
-
Phenomenon in author’s own words
-
Research question for this finding (if applicable)
-
Number of episodes pertaining to this finding
-
Archetypal sequence
-
Features of the talk in which the phenomenon is produced – i.e. aspects of the sequential/interactional context in which it arises
-
What are the implications of these environmental features?
-
Sequence and/or turn design features of the phenomenon
-
What are the interactional effects of these design features?
-
In sum, what is the overarching function of the phenomenon?
-
Author-proposed implications
-
Any other implications
-
Reviewer’s notes