There is a growing interest in conducting Systematic Reviews in education for both research purposes and evidence-based policy making. Education research is a critical domain that grants us valuable insights into the intricate processes of learning and teaching. Within this dynamic field, researchers employ a diverse array of methods and approaches to investigate a wide spectrum of educational facets, ranging from the dynamics of classroom environments and teacher-student interactions to the far-reaching consequences of education policies and practices on student outcomes (Creswell & Poth, 2019). Education research is typically divided into qualitative and quantitative paradigms, with mixed-method research forming a distinctive paradigm of its own. This integrative approach offers unique perspectives on social reality, distinct ontological and epistemological foundations, and specialized methodologies. Despite its value, synthesizing qualitative research evidence in systematic reviews presents significant theoretical and methodological challenges throughout the process, from formulating research questions to making evidence claims. In education, where variables are complex and outcomes are deeply contextual, synthesizing qualitative studies has long been a shared challenge. Unlike quantitative meta-analyses, qualitative synthesis cannot rely on straightforward effect size calculations (Borenstein, 2009). However, qualitative syntheses provide profound insights, revealing not just whether a practice succeeded but why it did, offering valuable perspectives on educational contexts. Yet, the variability in how qualitative studies are conducted and reported complicates their synthesis (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2006). While there's a prevailing belief that qualitative research can be systematically reviewed and synthesized, distinguishing methodically conducted qualitative research from those lacking rigor remains a necessity. Furthermore, a consensus on various aspects of the research process and its reporting still eludes the field (Garside, 2014). Qualitative systematic reviews in Education provide valuable insights into the characteristics of knowledge claims made within the field. These reviews are designed to synthesize and analyse qualitative research studies to generate comprehensive and nuanced understandings of educational phenomena. Within the context of a systematic review, this process takes on added significance. Here, it is not only essential to deliberate upon the review methodology but also scrutinize the studies that have been incorporated into the review and dissect the resultant findings (Gough et al., 2017). This interconnected triplet – the research question, research methods, and research data – forms the linchpin of constructing knowledge claims within the purview of qualitative systematic reviews in Education. The research question, central to this study, shaped and guided the entire heuristic process:
What are the characteristics of the knowledge claims made in qualitative systematic reviews in the field of education, and how do the authors of these reviews support them?

Building on this foundation, the research project is organized into two distinct phases:

Phase 1: Systematic Review of Reviews.
Conduct a systematic review of existing qualitative systematic reviews in the education field, focusing on subjective experiences, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of students and teachers.

Phase two: Framework Development and Application.
Develop and apply a comprehensive conceptual framework by integrating Toulmin's Argumentation Model (Toulmin, 1958) with Gough's Fitness for Purpose of an Evidence Claim Framework (Gough, 2022). This framework is used to analyse the systematic reviews in the purposive sample, aiming to identify their methodological characteristics and reporting practices.

During the current third year of my PhD, I focused particularly on the second phase, dedicating significant effort to refining and applying the conceptual framework to evaluate the evidence claims in qualitative systematic reviews effectively.

This two-phase approach ensures a systematic exploration of knowledge claims and their underlying support mechanisms within qualitative systematic reviews in education. Phase one: Systematic Review of Reviews. An iterative protocol guided the review process, including defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, structured searches to identify relevant reviews, and a formal data extraction process. The screening followed PRISMA guidelines, with results documented using the PRISMA Flow Diagram (Page et al., 2021). The study considered only systematic reviews focused on qualitative studies exploring the subjective experiences of students, teachers, and parents in primary and secondary education settings. An initial search of the ERIC database was conducted, guided by the PCC framework (Pollock et al., 2023): Population (Students and teachers); Concept (Subjective experiences - beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, opinions, and experiences); Context (Formal educational environments from primary to secondary education). Search results were managed using Zotero and Rayyan, where duplicates were removed. Records were screened against the following inclusion criteria: Systematic reviews reporting methods for synthesizing primary research; Primary studies using qualitative methods to explore subjective experiences; Systematic reviews employing qualitative synthesis methods; Participants within primary or secondary school settings (grades 1–12); Research topics broadly related to education or learning. Out of 335 identified studies, 28 met all criteria after initial screening. Following full-text reviews, 25 studies were ultimately included for analysis. Phase two: Framework Development and Application. This phase involves constructing and applying a comprehensive conceptual framework to evaluate the 'fitness for purpose' of evidence claims in qualitative systematic reviews from the purposive sample. The framework integrates Toulmin's Model of Argumentation and Gough's Fitness for Purpose Framework, informed by a coding scheme that interrogates the systematic reviews through the following categories: - Values: importance of the topic; justifications for the topic; method justification. - Theoretical Constructs: framework selection and justification. - Claim: central and supporting claim/s in the systematic review. - Grounds (Evidence): sources and synthesis of evidence underpinning the claims. - Warrant (Reasoning): how evidence supports claims through reasoning. - Backing and Qualifier: review of additional support provided, such as references to prior research or theories. - Rebuttal: acknowledgment of limitations, gaps, or counterarguments in the systematic reviews analysed.

The aim of this PhD project is to provide a structured and comprehensive conceptual framework that can aid the reading and assessment of the fitness for purpose of evidence claims made in systematic reviews of qualitative research in the field of education. Through the integration of Toulmin's model of argumentation and Gough's fitness for purpose framework, the study will provide insights into the methodological rigour and reporting practices of qualitative systematic reviews. Specifically, the framework will provide a systematic approach to analysing the logical structure, evidence base and contextual relevance of claims. Expected outcomes include a deeper understanding of how qualitative evidence claims are constructed, supported and framed in systematic reviews. This understanding is expected to highlight strengths and gaps in current practice, promote transparency and enhance the credibility of qualitative systematic reviews. In addition, the framework is expected to serve as a practical tool for researchers, reviewers, and policy makers to critically evaluate evidence claims and ensure their alignment with intended purposes. Ultimately, this work aims to contribute to the broader field of evidence-based education by improving the evaluation of qualitative systematic reviews, promoting more robust knowledge synthesis processes, and supporting the development of evidence-based policies and practices in education.

Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In L. V. H. H. Cooper &. J. C. Valentine (Eds. ). (A c. Di), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (1–Book, Section, pp. 221–235). Russell Sage Foundation. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2019). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publication. Garside, R. (2014). Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 67–79. Gough, D. (2022a). Appraising Evidence Claims. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072 Gough, D. (2022b). Appraising Evidence Claims. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072 Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). SAGE. Maeda, Y., Caskurlu, S., Kenney, R. H., Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2022). Moving qualitative synthesis research forward in education: A methodological systematic review. Educational Research Review, 35, 100424 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., (et al.) (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, (et al.) (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer publishing company. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. University Press.