The variety and use of different methods for systematic reviews has increased in Europe over the last decades, not least when it comes to synthesis of qualitative research. In education, this development has included a shift in focus from aggregative reviews to configurative reviews. Configurative approaches have been promoted as more suitable for educational research. It has also gained popularity among stakeholders as a tool for developing teaching into an evidence-based profession. Aggregative reviews summarize the findings of similar primary studies to answer a specific research question. It may use techniques such as meta-analysis to measure the impact of an intervention. However, aggregative approaches are not appropriate when confronted with a complex body of research. In contrast, configurative reviews are designed to organize findings of studies aiming to offer a meaningful picture of what research is telling us. It may use techniques such as meta-ethnography to synthesize different strands of research. However, according to recent studies there seem to be inconsistency between how ‘brokerage agencies’ – the organizations that conduct systematic reviews – present their undertakings and the kind of methods they use. Their websites and manuals provide examples of how to proceed with a configurative review, but studies show that their databases are dominated by reviews generally focusing on questions about effects and ‘what works’. The aim of this study is to explore this ‘non-use’ of configurative reviews. Is this tendency to not practice what you preach a rhetorical grip made to silence critics or is it prompted by the growing influence of outsourcers and financiers interested in significant effect-sizes? This study draws on data from multiple sources and analyses of websites, method manuals, publications and interviews with representatives of brokerage agencies in Europe; The EPPI-Centre, The Campbell Collaboration and The Danish Clearinghouse.

Bohlin, I. (2010). Systematiska översikter, vetenskaplig kumulativitet och evidensbaserad pedagogik. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 15(2), 164–186. Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (Red.). (2012a). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage. Hammersley, M. (2004). Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. I G. Thomas & R. Pring (Red.), Evidence-based practice in education (s.133-149). Buckingham: Open University Press. Levinsson, M. (2013) Evidens och existens. Evidensbaserad undervisning i ljuset av lärares erfarenheter. Doktorsavhandling. Institutionen för didaktik och pedagogisk profession, Göteborgs universitet