Is meta‐synthesis turning rich descriptions into thin reductions? A criticism of meta‐aggregation as a form of qualitative synthesis

Abstract

Meta‐synthesis of qualitative research can be an important way to consolidate and grow nursing knowledge and theory. However, from recent readings of such works in the nursing literature, one can observe that there is increasing use of meta‐synthesis being used as a way to simply aggregate qualitative research findings in a manner claimed to be similar to quantitative meta‐research while also remaining compatible with the qualitative research tradition. The aim of this paper is to discuss whether this meta‐aggregation form of research has a sound epistemological foundation and should be considered a viable form of meta‐synthesis. The conclusion drawn is that meta‐aggregation falls short of being a sound method and is not compatible with the qualitative research philosophy. It is also concluded that meta‐aggregation should not be seen as a form of qualitative meta‐synthesis. Meta‐synthesis is best understood as a way to re‐interpret, compare and translate disparate qualitative studies using different conceptual apparatus into a consolidated knowledge of fundamental importance to nursing care practitioners. To conclude, aggregating qualitative research tends to turn rich descriptions into thin abstractions that are of little use to nursing practice knowledge and does not advance nursing science.

What are the attitudes of health professionals regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in oncology practice? A mixed-method synthesis of the qualitative evidence

“…The qualitative evidence comes from studies conducted in diverse health service contexts, including multi-centre studies. As such, the general concerns about de-contextualisation and over-extrapolation in qualitative meta-synthesis required careful consideration in the process of synthesis and analysis [59,60]. We purposefully selected a strategy that involved an iterative cycle of engagement with the extracted data as part of the analysis process and was grounded in an approach successfully used with a large data set of qualitative studies [24].…”

Attitudes and perceptions of people with a learning disability, family carers, and paid care workers towards cancer screening programmes in the United Kingdom: A qualitative systematic review and meta‐aggregation

“…However, the definitions used within the systematic search were aimed to be all encompassing of PwLD. In addition, the JBI approach of meta‐aggregation has been scrutinised, with it being noted that aggregation is not possible . However, this review has shown that aggregation is possible and suggestions have been made to improve learning disability practices.…”

Is meta‐aggregation a viable method for qualitative evidence synthesis? A reply to the commentary by Lockwood et al.

“…I am appreciative that Lockwood et al () have written to raise questions about my earlier paper (Bergdahl, ) and clarify their perception of the Joanna Briggs Institute version of Meta‐Aggregation (JBI‐MA) as a subset of the umbrella term ‘qualitative evidence synthesis’. Because they clearly see qualitative studies as evidence, and synthesis as a higher order function in the production of high quality evidence, in that light, meta‐aggregation seems one possible option.…”