Ggregation’.MethodsIn this section, only those methods which are relevant for coding and analysis of constructs are reported. This corresponds to two of research questions posed in jasp.12117 the commission from CCAFS, namely: 1. How is vulnerability defined? 2. How is vulnerability operationalized? These questions examine how research is done rather than the results reported. To grasp this operationally, we used the term theoretical framework which we then decomposed into three components: constructs; construct definitions; and relationships [27, 28]. We defined a construct as a conceptual representation of a phenomena, which can be divided into sub-constructs or abstracted to higher-order constructs or to theory. A construct definition was a bounded delineation of what phenomena the construct represents (and what it does not represent). Construct relationships were elements which link constructs together in such a way as to give structure to a framework. Further, while a theoretical framework structures research, it is implemented through a methodology. We used operationalization to represent the act of generating data to empirically represent or measure a construct, including both the intermediate steps of conceptual decomposition and the final act of measurement. Of these, construct is the most important and functions in our method as the organizing unit of analysis. In our review we identified author-reported constructs, construct definitions, relationships, and operationalizations inductively. We then stratified reviewed articles deductively, in order to improve reliability and feasibility, using a pre-defined taxonomy of theoretical frameworks. After Ixazomib citrate chemical information sorting into this deductively applied taxonomy, author-reported constructs, theoretical frameworks and operationalizations SART.S23506 were analyzed for commensurability, sorted as required, and synthesized into an analyst-generated set of frameworks. Data extraction for each article followed the steps summarized below. These steps were executed using a data extraction form (S1 Table), using coding functions in the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo, and with a coding framework for categorization of theoretical frameworks (S2 Table). A flow chart of the review process can be found as Fig 1.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.purchase AM152 0149071 February 22,7 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus FieldsFig 1. Review Process. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071.gPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,8 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fields1. Read the abstract, introduction, and theoretical framework sections until a research question (RQ) is identified. Apply a code `Research Question’. 2. Within the RQ, identify and code each construct. 3. Re-read the theoretical framework and then identify and code all additional constructs that relate in some way to those in the RQ. 4. Add all identified constructs to the article-specific construct table. 5. For each construct, return to the article and identify a definition for that construct. Code, then copy and paste definitions into the construct table, filling in `Not defined’ for those constructs without definitions. 6. Return to read the abstract, introduction, and theoretical framework sections. Wherever a relationship is specified or hypothesised between constructs, apply codes denoting vertical, horizontal, or associated/causal relationships as appropriate. 7. Read the abstract.Ggregation’.MethodsIn this section, only those methods which are relevant for coding and analysis of constructs are reported. This corresponds to two of research questions posed in jasp.12117 the commission from CCAFS, namely: 1. How is vulnerability defined? 2. How is vulnerability operationalized? These questions examine how research is done rather than the results reported. To grasp this operationally, we used the term theoretical framework which we then decomposed into three components: constructs; construct definitions; and relationships [27, 28]. We defined a construct as a conceptual representation of a phenomena, which can be divided into sub-constructs or abstracted to higher-order constructs or to theory. A construct definition was a bounded delineation of what phenomena the construct represents (and what it does not represent). Construct relationships were elements which link constructs together in such a way as to give structure to a framework. Further, while a theoretical framework structures research, it is implemented through a methodology. We used operationalization to represent the act of generating data to empirically represent or measure a construct, including both the intermediate steps of conceptual decomposition and the final act of measurement. Of these, construct is the most important and functions in our method as the organizing unit of analysis. In our review we identified author-reported constructs, construct definitions, relationships, and operationalizations inductively. We then stratified reviewed articles deductively, in order to improve reliability and feasibility, using a pre-defined taxonomy of theoretical frameworks. After sorting into this deductively applied taxonomy, author-reported constructs, theoretical frameworks and operationalizations SART.S23506 were analyzed for commensurability, sorted as required, and synthesized into an analyst-generated set of frameworks. Data extraction for each article followed the steps summarized below. These steps were executed using a data extraction form (S1 Table), using coding functions in the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo, and with a coding framework for categorization of theoretical frameworks (S2 Table). A flow chart of the review process can be found as Fig 1.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,7 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus FieldsFig 1. Review Process. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071.gPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,8 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fields1. Read the abstract, introduction, and theoretical framework sections until a research question (RQ) is identified. Apply a code `Research Question’. 2. Within the RQ, identify and code each construct. 3. Re-read the theoretical framework and then identify and code all additional constructs that relate in some way to those in the RQ. 4. Add all identified constructs to the article-specific construct table. 5. For each construct, return to the article and identify a definition for that construct. Code, then copy and paste definitions into the construct table, filling in `Not defined’ for those constructs without definitions. 6. Return to read the abstract, introduction, and theoretical framework sections. Wherever a relationship is specified or hypothesised between constructs, apply codes denoting vertical, horizontal, or associated/causal relationships as appropriate. 7. Read the abstract.
