Keeping Research Current
Using Living Literature Reviews in Educational Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/irspbl-11054Keywords:
Academic coaching, Living literature review, Undergraduate student success, Engineering education, AI in researchAbstract
Our previous systematic literature review on academic coaching interventions (Campbell & Mogashana, 2024) highlighted key features of effective approaches for undergraduate students but also revealed the challenge of keeping research syntheses up to date. Living literature reviews (LLRs) offer a solution by providing a continuously updated synthesis of new evidence. In this paper, we examine whether LLR methodologies can be effectively applied to academic coaching research, particularly when incorporating qualitative studies. We begin with an overview of systematic reviews and their limitations before introducing the LLR approach and its potential benefits for educational research. We then outline the methodological steps required to transition from a static systematic review to a dynamic LLR, detailing search strategies, inclusion criteria, and data management techniques. Implementation challenges—such as workload, methodological consistency, and publication concerns—are discussed alongside practical workarounds. Finally, we explore the role of AI tools in automating aspects of LLRs, including data extraction, citation tracking, and workflow optimization. By addressing these considerations, we aim to provide researchers with a roadmap for integrating LLR methodologies into education research, ensuring that evidence remains current, transparent, and accessible.
References
Akl, E. A., Khabsa, J., Iannizzi, C., Piechotta, V., Kahale, L. A., Barker, J. M., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., & Skoetz, N. (2024). Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ, 387. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079183
Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., Schünemann, H. J., Agoritsas, T., ... & Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038
Campbell, A. L., & Mogashana, D. (2025). Assessing the effectiveness of academic coaching interventions for student success in higher education: A systematic review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(4), 1325-1347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2417173
Clancy, M. (2024). What is a living literature review? Open Philanthropy. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/what-is-a-living-literature-review/
Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., ... & Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010
C, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine, 11(2), e1001603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths and multiple methods. Review of Education, 4(1), 84-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3068
Iannizzi, C., Akl, E.A., Anslinger, E., Weibel, S., Kahale, L. A.,Aminat, A. M., Piechotta, V., & Skoetz, N. (2023). Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews 12, 238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x
Living Evidence Network. (2019). Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode, December 2019. https:// community. cochrane. org/ sites/ default/ files/ uploads/ inline- files/ Transform/ 201912_ LSR_ Revised_ Guidance. pdf
Millard, T., Synnot, A., Elliott, J., Green, S., McDonald, S., & Turner, T. (2019). Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Systematic Reviews, 8, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5
Murad, M. H., Wang, Z., Chu, H., Lin, L., El Mikati, I. K., Khabsa, J., Aki, E. A., Nieuwlaat, R., Schuenemann, H. J., & Riaz, I. B. (2023). Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 28(5), 348-352. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/28/5/348.abstract
Noyes, J., Harden, A., Ames, H., Booth, A., Flemming, K., France, E., Garside, R., Houghton, C., Pantoja, T., Sutcliffe, K., & Thomas, J. (2023). Cochrane-Campbell handbook for qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/cochrane-campbell-handbook-qualitative-evidence-synthesis
Paul, J., Khatri, P., & Kaur Duggal, H. (2023). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, Why and How? Journal of Decision Systems, 33(4), 537–550. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700
Shojania, K. G., Sampson, M., Ansari, M. T., Ji, J., Doucette, S., & Moher, D. (2007). How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(4), 224-233. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179
Thomas, J., Noel-Storr, A., Marshall, I., Wallace, B., McDonald, S., Mavergames, C., ... & Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011
Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(1), 57-59. PMC3024725. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3024725/
WIlson, D. B., Pigott, T., Welch, V., Stewart, G., Hennessy Emily, A., & Dewidar, O. (2023). Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR): 2023 update. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSPX
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
