Untitled

Erzberger, Christian; Prein, Gerald

doi:10.1023/a:1004249313062

Cited by 173 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of the methodological challenges from our exemplar overviews were tabulated, and overview authors considered levels of complementarity [17, 18] between the recognised areas of debate and the methodological challenges identified from our exemplar overviews, applying categories of “agreement” (the methodological challenges identified within the exemplar overviews is in agreement with the findings of Ballard [3]), “dissonance” (the methodological challenges identified within the exemplar overviews differs from, or conflicts with, the findings of Ballard [3]) or “silence” (the methodological challenges identified within the exemplar overviews were not addressed within the findings of Ballard [3, 17, 18]. One author applied the initial categorisation, which were then appraised by the other authors and any areas of disagreement highlighted.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.MethodsMethods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.ResultsMethodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews.Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.ConclusionsOverviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One can also look for a more comprehensive theory, which is able to account for both the results of the first component and the deviating results of the second component. This is a form of abduction (Erzberger and Prein 1997). …”

Section: Point Of Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides researchers with knowledge of how to design a high quality mixed methods research study. To design a mixed study, researchers must understand and carefully consider each of the dimensions of mixed methods design, and always keep an eye on the issue of validity. We explain the seven major design dimensions: purpose, theoretical drive, timing (simultaneity and dependency), point of integration, typological versus interactive design approaches, planned versus emergent design, and design complexity. There also are multiple secondary dimensions that need to be considered during the design process. We explain ten secondary dimensions of design to be considered for each research study. We also provide two case studies showing how the mixed designs were constructed.

show abstract

“…The use of method triangulation is justified with the fact that one method can often not embrace the full complexity of a research object, and that through the mutual control of the methods, limitations of single methods can be recognised and compensated (Lamnek, 1988, p. 234). It provides a tool for cross validation (Erzberg and Prein, 1997), or at least an alternative to validation (Flick, 2002, p. 227), and it allows the achievement of broader and more profound insights (Lamnek, 1988, p. 234). The comparability of the evaluation studies was maximised in that they took place within the same legal and discursive context of Swiss river revitalisation and in the same period (2009)(2010)(2011).…”

Section: Research Design Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

How much does participatory flood management contribute to stakeholders' social capacity building? Empirical findings based on a triangulation of three evaluation approaches

Buchecker

Menzel

Home

2013

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent literature suggests that dialogic forms of risk communication are more effective to build stakeholders' hazard-related social capacities. In spite of the high theoretical expectations, there is a lack of univocal empirical evidence on the relevance of these effects. This is mainly due to the methodological limitations of the existing evaluation approaches. In our paper we aim at eliciting the contribution of participatory river revitalisation projects on stakeholders' social capacity building by triangulating the findings of three evaluation studies that were based on different approaches: a field-experimental, a qualitative long-term ex-post and a cross-sectional household survey approach. The results revealed that social learning and avoiding the loss of trust were more relevant benefits of participatory flood management than acceptance building. The results suggest that stakeholder involvements should be more explicitly designed as tools for long-term social learning

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 173 publications

References 8 publications

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design

How much does participatory flood management contribute to stakeholders' social capacity building? Empirical findings based on a triangulation of three evaluation approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About