The evidence claims in the systematic reviews of qualitative studies in education: a framework for reading and understanding

The present thesis arises from recognising a persistent challenge and an area requiring deeper understanding. While qualitative systematic reviews in education produce important and often influential claims, they rarely make explicit the reasoning processes that underpin them. The transitions from study findings to synthesis themes, from synthesis to claims, and from claims to policy recommendations are often left implicit or underspecified. This opacity undermines both the credibility of reviews and their usefulness for decision-making. The thesis develops and applies an integrated conceptual framework for analysing evidence claims in qualitative SRs to address this gap. This framework combines two complementary traditions: Toulmin, (1958) Model of argumentation and Gough (2021) Fitness for purpose of an evidence claim framework. Toulmin’s model sheds light on the logical structure of arguments, breaking them down into the various components that constitute reasoning: claims, data, warrants, qualifiers, and rebuttals. Gough’s framework contextualises these elements in terms of their intended purpose, audience and context of use. Together, these two models enable a dual focus on both the internal coherence of argumentation and the external relevance of evidence claims. The research design involves selecting a purposive sample of qualitative systematic reviews in education, analysing them through the integrated framework, and reflecting on what this reveals about how evidence is constructed and communicated. By doing so, the thesis contributes in three main ways: 1. Methodological innovation: offering a tool for the critical appraisal of qualitative systematic reviews that goes beyond existing quality checklists. 2. Theoretical insight: advancing understanding of the epistemological and argumentative dimensions of synthesis in education. 3. Practical relevance: it provides researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a tool for targeted evaluation of the readability and applicability of the evidence claims that underpin their claims. Ultimately, this project is motivated by the conviction that systematic reviews are not neutral containers of knowledge but argumentative practices that shape what is recognised as evidence. By making these practices more visible and reflexive, qualitative synthesis in education can better serve both scholarly inquiry and democratic decision-making.