Systematic reviews have become a flagship output in educational sciences—highly cited and increasingly expected as the route to evidence-informed decisions. Yet education-focused meta-research shows that many published “systematic” reviews still fall short on core standards (risk of bias safeguards, transparency, reproducibility), raising the question of how systematic they truly are (Fromm et al., 2025). Within this dynamic field, researchers employ a diverse array of methods to investigate a wide range of educational facets, from classroom dynamics 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 specialised methodologies. Despite its value, synthesising 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, synthesising 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 synthesised, distinguishing methodically conducted qualitative research from those lacking rigour 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 synthesise 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 on the review methodology but also to scrutinise the studies incorporated into the review and dissect the resultant findings (Gough et al., 2017). This interconnected triplet – the research question, research methods, and research data – serves as the linchpin for 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, this study is organised 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

This two-phase approach ensures a systematic exploration of knowledge claims and their supporting mechanisms in 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 Rayyan, where duplicates were removed. Records were screened against the following inclusion criteria: Systematic reviews reporting methods for synthesising 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: acknowledgement of limitations, gaps, or counterarguments in the systematic reviews analysed.

A comparative qualitative analysis of six purposively sampled qualitative systematic reviews was conducted through a structured codebook. Across this sample, all reviews clearly framed their topics and established their importance by anchoring them to broader educational, social, and/or policy concerns. The cross-case analysis, however, identified a persistent opacity in the internal logic of evidence claims. Three components proved most frequently implicit and unevenly developed: claim framing, warrant, and rebuttal. Claim framing was relatively explicit in reviews with more practical or programmatic aims, while reviews characterised by stronger theoretical density or political/critical positioning often embedded conclusions within layered narratives without clearly signalling whether claims were intended as conceptual reframing, practical guidance, or normative critique. Warrants, the inferential reasoning connecting synthesised evidence to conclusions, were consistently under-articulated across all six cases, with authors frequently relying on thematic convergence, recurrence, or theoretical resonance as tacit justification rather than making reasoning steps explicit. Rebuttals were handled inconsistently: some reviews acknowledged limitations and contestation, while others largely omitted alternative interpretations, feasibility constraints, or boundary conditions for use. Overall, these results show that the evaluability and usability of evidence claims depend not only on procedural “rigour”, but on transparent communication of (a) what kind of claim is being made, (b) how evidence is warranted into that claim, and (c) under what conditions the claim holds or may be challenged. The study contributes an integrated framework for reading and appraising evidence claims beyond checklist notions of quality, and an empirically grounded map of recurring strengths and epistemic blind spots, surfacing a key tension between conceptual richness and argumentative transparency.

- 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 (Book, Section, pp. 221–235). Russell Sage Foundation. - Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2019). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth edition., 1 online resource). SAGE Publication. - Fromm, Y. M., Martin, F., Gezer, T., & Ifenthaler, D. (2025). Best Practices for Conducting Systematic Reviews: Perspectives of Experienced Systematic Review Researchers in Educational Sciences. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09819-9 - 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. (2022). Appraising Evidence Claims. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072 - Gough, D. (David A. ), Oliver, S. 1955-, & Thomas, J. 1983-. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition.). SAGE. WorldCat.org. - Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (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, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (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. 1922-2009. (1958). The uses of argument. University Press.