Ization: theory identified theory deductively identified theory inductively synthesized theory aggregatively synthesized theory interpretive described theory as identified described theory as as synthesized compared theory as identified and synthesized identified constructs–inductively identified constructs–deductively synthesized RDX5791 web constructs aggregatively synthesized constructs interpretively described constructs as identified described constructs as synthesized described relationships between constructs compared constructs as identified and synthesized Operationalization: methods assessed operationalizations for transparency assessed operationalizations (op’s) for validity assessed op’s for reach described op’s as identified described op’s as synthesized compared op’s as identified as synthesized synthesized op’s aggregatively Recommendations specify clear commonly defined key constructs study commensurability/interchangeability of methods study validity of indirect measures prescribed standards for research practice prescribed standards for reporting research prescribed theory definition/classification Issues bias in prevalence of method use novel contributions to lit are under-represented database searches are not discriminating resources arbitrarily constrained study found article as sole research unit to be inadequate instability of language use uneven reporting Rationale for study increase comparability doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071.t002 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Driscol Halfors Castleden Liquete j.jebo.2013.04.005 describe the methods used in primary research. Deductive approaches are desirable in that their reliance on clearly identifiable features in the text (e.g. constructs as named by authors) produces reliable and efficient descriptions of texts. Authors’ possible inconsistency in language use, however, makes it possible that these reliable descriptions are not valid. Inductive approaches to describe methods start with open coding. While this method is robust in its sensitivity to the characteristics of the individual texts reviewed, they may lack both the reliability and transparency that are thought traditionally to be hallmarks of systematic review. As indicated in the rows of Table 2 that identify induction and its synthetic products, the method we tested in our review was designed to correct for instability in authors’ use of language while remaining rigorous, replicable and transparent. The review method we use is a form of inductive and aggregative methods-synthesis, which we will call `construct-centered methods a.Ization: theory identified theory deductively identified theory inductively synthesized theory aggregatively synthesized theory interpretive described theory as identified described theory as as synthesized compared theory as identified and synthesized identified constructs–inductively identified constructs–deductively synthesized constructs aggregatively synthesized constructs interpretively described constructs as identified described constructs as synthesized described relationships between constructs compared constructs as identified and synthesized Operationalization: methods assessed operationalizations for transparency assessed operationalizations (op’s) for validity assessed op’s for reach described op’s as identified described op’s as synthesized compared op’s as identified as synthesized synthesized op’s aggregatively Recommendations specify clear commonly defined key constructs study commensurability/interchangeability of methods study validity of indirect measures prescribed standards for research practice prescribed standards for reporting research prescribed theory definition/classification Issues bias in prevalence of method use novel contributions to lit are under-represented database searches are not discriminating resources arbitrarily constrained study found article as sole research unit to be inadequate instability of language use uneven reporting Rationale for study increase comparability doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071.t002 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Driscol Halfors Castleden Liquete SART.S23506 Plummer ’12 Schultz Plummer ‘PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,6 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus FieldsTaken together, reviews of the methods used in primary research in the field of climate impact studies suggest that those who wish to aggregate evidence should first test whether the primary research of interest to them is undertaken using a myriad of inconsistently described methods. Taking the next step, proper description of the possible heterogeneity of methods used requires reviewers to correct authors’ inconsistent use of language. The reviews presented in Table 2 used inductive and deductive approaches to j.jebo.2013.04.005 describe the methods used in primary research. Deductive approaches are desirable in that their reliance on clearly identifiable features in the text (e.g. constructs as named by authors) produces reliable and efficient descriptions of texts. Authors’ possible inconsistency in language use, however, makes it possible that these reliable descriptions are not valid. Inductive approaches to describe methods start with open coding. While this method is robust in its sensitivity to the characteristics of the individual texts reviewed, they may lack both the reliability and transparency that are thought traditionally to be hallmarks of systematic review. As indicated in the rows of Table 2 that identify induction and its synthetic products, the method we tested in our review was designed to correct for instability in authors’ use of language while remaining rigorous, replicable and transparent. The review method we use is a form of inductive and aggregative methods-synthesis, which we will call `construct-centered methods a.
