Challenges in Approaching Metasynthesis Research

Abstract

The overall aim of this study was to contribute to the development of metasynthesis through an analysis of the challenges involved. The study grew out of the critique of qualitative metaresearch raised by current developers of metamethodologies. Different views on the application of methodologies have emerged in the literature, contributing to confusion and ambiguity concerning the challenging questions of what, why, how, and who in metasynthesis research, which might increase the risk of misunderstanding. The roots of metasynthesis research are seen as multifaceted and influencing the development of the methods in different directions. The primary worth of metasynthesis is theoretical and/or methodological development (synthesis) combined with the potential for reflection: going beyond and behind the studies (meta). Metasynthesis research has also the potential to raise questions of research collaboration, culture, and language.

Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment

“…Meta-study involves critical interpretation of existing qualitative research (6). Before synthesis can take place and a new interpretation obtained, three analytical phases are completed-"meta-theory, meta-method, and meta-data analysis" (24).…”

New mothers’ struggles to love their child. An interpretative synthesis of qualitative studies

“…Meta-ethnography includes a systematic search of articles that report on qualitative studies about one’s topic of interest and is suited to the synthesis of a small number of studies. It scrutinizes the articles’ various sections for insights into the research topic and the context in which these insights arose (Bondas & Hall, 2007; Nicoll, 2016). Then, in creating the final synthesis, we were guided by Van Manen’s approach to hermeneutic phenomenological writing (Saevi, 2013; Van Manen, 1997), which stresses an ongoing exploration of the words and phrasings that capture the felt sense of the lived experience in the best way.…”

Which standards from which disciplines? A test of systematic review for designing interdisciplinary evaluations

“…2012). In the social sciences, SRs are now also used to make sense of and manage the 'information explosion', separate wheat from the chaff, identify gaps in an evidence base, confirm, refute, develop or modify bodies of theory, and increase the standard of research in the field (Bondas and Hall 2007;Campbell et al 2003;Langer and Stewart 2014;Major and SavinBaden. 2012;Noblit and Hare 1988;Wallace et al 2004;White and Waddington 2012).…”

“…There has been significant work on qualitative synthesis methodologies (for some examples see Bondas and Hall 2007;Campbell et al 2003;DixonWoods et al 2007;Dixon-Woods et al 2006b;Higginbottom et al 2012;Major and Savin-Baden 2012). We required an analysis method that was reproducible, one that supported conclusions about the real-world practices described in the texts reviewed, and one that brought forward contextual information as that would be relevant to determining when a recommended method would no longer be appropriate.…”