1. Literature Review Ethics … if it’s in the public domain, what’s the problem?..

2. Traditional reviews overview of literature in the field, relevant to research topic or questions stand-alone or backdrop to focused study may include all sorts – eg research ‘evidence’, theory, accounts of experience, think pieces, policy etc ‘evidence’, theory, accounts of experience, think pieces, policy etc may include published and ‘grey’ literature usually (in our case) to inform some applied purpose

3. Systematic reviews focused on tightly defined research question(s) mainly empirical research comprehensive coverage of relevant work judge research quality and relevance; weight messages accordingly conventionally to tell us ‘what works’

4. Some ethical reflections on: Purpose Purpose Sources Sources Conduct Conduct Use Use

5. Utilitarian ethic Greatest good of the greatest number… The worth of an action rests in its overall utility….. Ends justify means. John Stuart Mill Jeremy Bentham

6. Act in each case as you would in all…. Treat others as ends not means….. Do as you would be done by. Kantian ethic Immanuel Kant

7. Review Purpose To be not just interesting but useful Useful in an aggregative way – greater than the sum of parts, for the greater than the sum of parts, for the greater good? good?But: Who sets the review question agenda – whose greater good counts? Is the product only as good as the process? process?

8. Sources Acknowledge and fully reference all If not in the public domain, ensure permission is obtained from author(s) author(s)

9. Review conduct – the Kantian case for systematic review? Traditional reviews are more concerned with ends than means – how you arrive at your ends than means – how you arrive at your synthesis is academically open to scrutiny, synthesis is academically open to scrutiny, but ethically up to you but ethically up to you Systematic reviews require that all empirical research is given the benefit of equally research is given the benefit of equally consistent scrutiny, to judge its worth. Good consistent scrutiny, to judge its worth. Good science is accountable and fair. The end is science is accountable and fair. The end is only as good as the means… only as good as the means…

10. Systematic review conduct – some conundrums Privileging ‘science’, empirical research and ‘what works’ is an ethical stance – for the and ‘what works’ is an ethical stance – for the greater good of whom? greater good of whom? Ethical conduct demonstrated is a recognised standard for judging research quality – but tends standard for judging research quality – but tends to take low profile to take low profile Is it justifiable to highlight some (eg minority) research voices over others, for reasons of research voices over others, for reasons of values not rigour? values not rigour? What do we do with research that tells us what we don’t want to hear? we don’t want to hear?

11. Use (or misuse) of reviews How can we make systematic reviews accessible to all who need to know? How can we ensure that messages from the many are made relevant to the particular (what works for whom, in what context?) Reviews are commonly commissioned for a policy purpose…. How (far) can the reviewer ensure this is for the greater good?

12. Portrait of an ethically sound literature reviewer