This rrl guide rrl guide 1 define your scope focuses on literature related to your research question and available evidence. By clearly outlining the boundaries of your review, you ensure that the work is manageable, credible, and useful for decision makers.
A well defined scope prevents unnecessary breadth and keeps the review centered on relevant studies, methods, and contexts. The following sections walk through practical steps, examples, and common questions to help you apply this approach effectively.
| Element | Description | Example | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research Question | The specific problem or phenomenon the review addresses | Impact of remote work on productivity in tech SMEs | High |
| Time Frame | Publication years included | 2018 2024 | Medium |
| Geography | Regions or countries covered | North America and Western Europe | Medium |
| Document Type | Types of literature considered | Peer reviewed articles, systematic reviews, policy reports | High |
| Population or Unit | Target entities such as individuals, organizations, technologies | Employees in organizations with fewer than 250 staff | High |
Define Your Research Question
A precise research question anchors the rrl guide rrl guide 1 define your scope and directs your search for literature. It clarifies what you are examining and why it matters, enabling focused inclusion and exclusion decisions.
Formulate the question using clear variables, context, and outcomes. For instance, instead of a broad topic, specify how a policy change affects SME innovation in a particular sector within a defined period.
Set Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria are essential parts of the rrl guide rrl guide 1 define your scope. They determine which studies enter the review and which are left out, reducing bias and improving transparency.
Link criteria directly to your research question, covering study design, language, sample characteristics, and methodological quality. Document these rules in a protocol or preregistration to support reproducibility.
Map Literature by Source and Type
Identifying relevant sources and document types ensures comprehensive yet bounded coverage in your rrl guide rrl guide 1 define your scope. Different sources offer varied depth, perspective, and reliability.
Select databases, repositories, and gray literature channels aligned with your field. Balance academic journals, conference proceedings, reports, and policy documents while recording the rationale for each source.
Apply Time and Geography Boundaries
Setting time and geography boundaries is a core step in the rrl guide rrl guide 1 define your scope. These limits keep the review feasible and relevant to your context.
Choose dates that reflect when key theories, policies, or technologies emerged. Limit geography to regions where the phenomena operate similarly or where data quality and accessibility are reliable.
Document and Communicate Scope Decisions
Transparent documentation of scope decisions supports review credibility and enables replication. Describe how each boundary was determined and reference theories or frameworks guiding these choices.
Key Takeaways
- Begin with a clear, focused research question tailored to your context.
- Define inclusion and exclusion criteria that directly reflect the research question.
- Select document types and sources that provide reliable and relevant evidence.
- Apply consistent time and geography boundaries and record the reasoning.
- Use small panels and preregistration to minimize bias and improve transparency.
FAQ
Reader questions
How detailed should my inclusion and exclusion criteria be?
Detail each criterion in unambiguous language, specifying population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design where relevant. Clear criteria enable consistent screening and help readers assess rigor.
What if relevant literature spans many countries and time periods?
Prioritize boundaries that align with your research question and data quality, then justify any exclusions. You may use tiered approaches or separate subquestions to address broad coverage without compromising focus.
How do I handle disagreements during scope setting?
Use a small panel to independently apply criteria, followed by discussion to resolve differences. Recording decisions and rationales supports transparency and strengthens the credibility of the scope.
Should I update the scope after starting the review?
Treat the scope as fixed after preregistration or initial documentation, with any changes explicitly reported and justified. Ad hoc expansions risk scope creep and reduce confidence in the synthesis.