INTRODUCTION:
Scoping reviews are widely used to map evidence1; however, their application often prioritizes descriptive synthesis while overlooking the symbolic, epistemic, and political dimensions of knowledge production. This limitation is particularly evident in fields marked by cultural disputes and marginalized epistemologies. In response to global calls for more inclusive and reflexive research methodologies, this study proposes the Cultural Studies–Oriented Scoping Review Model (CS-SR Model), designed to preserve methodological rigor while expanding analytical sensitivity to power relations, representation, and epistemic justice.

METHODS:
The CS-SR Model is theoretically grounded in Cultural Studies (CS) and methodologically anchored in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework2. Each stage of the review process, including research question formulation, search strategy, study selection, data compilation, and synthesis, is analyzed through the Expanded Circuit of Culture (ECC)3-4. The ECC embeds reflexivity into the review process and enables systematic examination of discursive constructions, epistemic hierarchies, and symbolic disputes within scientific literature.

RESULTS:
The proposed model demonstrates how scoping reviews can move beyond content mapping to interrogate how scientific narratives are produced, authorized, and contested5. By expanding inclusion criteria, diversifying search strategies, and incorporating symbolic and discursive markers into data compilation, the CS-SR Model reveals patterns of epistemic exclusion, mechanisms of legitimation, and recurrent absences that conventional reviews tend to obscure. This approach deepens the interpretive scope of evidence synthesis by interrogating how knowledge is constructed and legitimized, strengthening analytical sensitivity to truth regimes, power dynamics, and epistemic injustice6.

CONCLUSIONS:
The CS-SR Model constitutes a methodological innovation for public health research, particularly in areas characterized by epistemic plurality and decolonial challenges. By repositioning scoping reviews as critical and reflexive practices, the model contributes to more inclusive ways of producing and engaging with knowledge, fostering approaches to health attentive to cultural, symbolic, and epistemological complexity.