‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review?

Abstract

The article presents a critique of the discourse of ‘systematic review’ in education, as developed and promoted by the EPPI‐Centre at the University of London. Based on a close reading of the exhortatory and instructional literature and 30 published reviews, it argues that the approach degrades the status of reading and writing as scholarly activities, tends to result in reviews with limited capacity to inform policy or practice, and constitutes a threat to quality and critique in scholarship and research. The claims that are made for the transparency, accountability and trustworthiness of systematic review do not therefore, it is argued, stand up to scrutiny. The article concludes that systematic review is animated, not just by dissatisfaction with the uncertainties of educational research (a dissatisfaction that it shares with the ‘evidence‐informed movement’ with which it is associated), but by a fear of language itself.