Evidence syntheses in educational technology research: What is not published in English is not visible? A tertiary mapping review
Svenja Bedenliera✉, Katja Buntinsb, Melissa Bondc, Marion Händeld, Victoria I. Maríne
- aFriedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg Erlangen Germany
- bUniversity of Duisburg Essen Essen Germany
- cUniversity College London London UK
- dAnsbach University of Applied Sciences Ansbach Germany
- eUniversity of Lleida Lleida Spain
- ✉Corresponding author
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
Abstract Evidence syntheses, such as systematic reviews, aim to summarise the current state of research in a field, often using the publication language of a study as a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. However, this has serious implications for capturing evidence from a wider range of geographical areas, and the potential for linguistic bias. In order to explore this issue, a trilingual tertiary mapping review of 446 evidence syntheses within the field of educational technology (EdTech) and published in English, Spanish and German was undertaken, analysing the frequency of multi‐ and monolingual evidence syntheses, reasons for language choice by research teams, and the composition of research teams in multi‐ and monolingual evidence syntheses. Items were included if they were a form of evidence synthesis with an explicit method section, indexed within ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, Dialnet, FIS‐Bildung, or Google Scholar, education‐related, and published between 1983 and May 2022. The results showed that only eight languages were considered in published syntheses, only five languages were used to construct search strings, most evidence syntheses included research published in English without explaining why, and multilingual research team composition did not predict multilingual evidence syntheses. The findings suggest the need to address publication languages not only as a formal criterion but as an integral aspect of methodological approach, influencing the content and scope of syntheses in educational research.
TL;DRThe results showed that only eight languages were considered in published syntheses, most evidence syntheses included research published in English without explaining why, and multilingual research team composition did not predict multilingual evidence syntheses. (Semantic Scholar)