Ous doubt on the assumption that research reports accurately reflect research practices. In summary, we consider the value of our inductive approach to be demonstrated. Deductive jasp.12117 study of our articles, in which authors’ labels are accepted at face value, would have held us hostage to the vagaries of authors’ terminological choices. This same instability, however, makes us uncertain whether authors’ descriptions, even when corrected, adequately represent their practice. It is useful to combine empirically-guided and expert-guided analysis and synthesis in systematic review of articles for theory, but this approach may benefit from AZD-8055 supplier having more than one content expert on the team. A purely expert-guided review makes the analysis vulnerable to some combination of expert biases in interpretation, authors’ inconsistent use of language and uneven depth of reporting. A purely empirically-guided approach may be unworkable as, if our articles were at all indicative, authors’ theoretical sections often include far more constructs than they define, operationalize or use in the studies they report and articles appear to be accounts whose necessary partiality is in part shaped by social norms known to experts. In response to these two constraints, we accepted authors’ reported framework as an initial hypothesis. We then successfully structured an analysis that combined bottom-up identification of the components of a framework with expert correction of those identifications based on the technique of refutational synthesis. For example, we initially distinguished between three uses of the term `adaptive capacity’ (AdCap). Quoting from our technical report [3], subsequently the subject-matter expert rejected this split, acknowledging that although definitions differed, the degree difference was not sufficient to warrant treatment as distinct constructs: AdCap B and C emphasize household level adaptation rather than the vague “system” of A and they also point more toward AdCap as a practice than a quality. However, fpsyg.2017.00209 they are not fundamentally incompatible with AdCap A. Similarly, with the case of the Vulnerability as Expected Poverty framework and its variants, the lead researcher originally classified these as distinct. However, neither a split nor a merger could be unambiguously confirmed nor disproved based U0126 web solely on the empirical presence of constructs. As it was not possible to draw a conclusion based on the evidence, we accepted the subject matter expert’s recommendation that the variations were better classified as a single framework exhibiting a core approach. One legitimate concern with use of an expert is that experts’ interpretations are informed by their personal backgrounds. Their clarity of vision, in short, may be one of several equally plausible, but mutually incompatible views. ForcingPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,13 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsexperts to exercise judgment at the level of inductively identified components of frameworks may stop them from relying on heuristic assessments based on the labels used by authors. However, the same biases may operate at the level of constructs and operationalizations. Though we had neither the time nor the resources required to do so, we strongly encourage systematic reviewers to work with a range of experts. It is appropriate to describe articles in terms of constructs, construct definitions, sub-constructs, relationshi.Ous doubt on the assumption that research reports accurately reflect research practices. In summary, we consider the value of our inductive approach to be demonstrated. Deductive jasp.12117 study of our articles, in which authors’ labels are accepted at face value, would have held us hostage to the vagaries of authors’ terminological choices. This same instability, however, makes us uncertain whether authors’ descriptions, even when corrected, adequately represent their practice. It is useful to combine empirically-guided and expert-guided analysis and synthesis in systematic review of articles for theory, but this approach may benefit from having more than one content expert on the team. A purely expert-guided review makes the analysis vulnerable to some combination of expert biases in interpretation, authors’ inconsistent use of language and uneven depth of reporting. A purely empirically-guided approach may be unworkable as, if our articles were at all indicative, authors’ theoretical sections often include far more constructs than they define, operationalize or use in the studies they report and articles appear to be accounts whose necessary partiality is in part shaped by social norms known to experts. In response to these two constraints, we accepted authors’ reported framework as an initial hypothesis. We then successfully structured an analysis that combined bottom-up identification of the components of a framework with expert correction of those identifications based on the technique of refutational synthesis. For example, we initially distinguished between three uses of the term `adaptive capacity’ (AdCap). Quoting from our technical report [3], subsequently the subject-matter expert rejected this split, acknowledging that although definitions differed, the degree difference was not sufficient to warrant treatment as distinct constructs: AdCap B and C emphasize household level adaptation rather than the vague “system” of A and they also point more toward AdCap as a practice than a quality. However, fpsyg.2017.00209 they are not fundamentally incompatible with AdCap A. Similarly, with the case of the Vulnerability as Expected Poverty framework and its variants, the lead researcher originally classified these as distinct. However, neither a split nor a merger could be unambiguously confirmed nor disproved based solely on the empirical presence of constructs. As it was not possible to draw a conclusion based on the evidence, we accepted the subject matter expert’s recommendation that the variations were better classified as a single framework exhibiting a core approach. One legitimate concern with use of an expert is that experts’ interpretations are informed by their personal backgrounds. Their clarity of vision, in short, may be one of several equally plausible, but mutually incompatible views. ForcingPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,13 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsexperts to exercise judgment at the level of inductively identified components of frameworks may stop them from relying on heuristic assessments based on the labels used by authors. However, the same biases may operate at the level of constructs and operationalizations. Though we had neither the time nor the resources required to do so, we strongly encourage systematic reviewers to work with a range of experts. It is appropriate to describe articles in terms of constructs, construct definitions, sub-constructs, relationshi.