Metasynthetic Madness

Abstract

From its origins in the 1990s, the qualitative health research metasynthesis project represented a methodological maneuver to capitalize on a growing investment in qualitatively derived study reports to create an interactive dialogue among them that would surface expanded insights about complex human phenomena. However, newer forms positioning themselves as qualitative metasynthesis but representing a much more technical and theoretically superficial form of scholarly enterprise have begun to appear in the health research literature. It seems imperative that we think through the implications of this trend and determine whether it is to be afforded the credibility of being a form of qualitative scholarship and, if so, what kind of scholarship it represents. As the standardization trend in synthesis research marches forward, we will need clarity and a strong sense of purpose if we are to preserve the essence of what the qualitative metasynthesis project was intended to be all about.

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

“…Each of these forms of narrative review (along with other specialist approaches to combining primary studies in qualitative research30, 31) reflects an explicit lens that is expected to shape the understandings that will arise from the review process, through analysis and synthesis processes that may be highly systematic. Narrative reviews also include a number of more generic styles such as integrative32, 33 and critical,34 the former being the approach generally taken by narrative reviews in clinical journals.…”

Parents’ experiences of neonatal transfer. A meta‐study of qualitative research 2000–2017

“…An asset of this meta-study is that it informs our understanding through its critical discursive analysis of theory and method. Previously, researchers who applied meta-study procedures tended to aggregate rather than critically reflect on the matters (Frost, Garside, Cooper, & Britten, 2016;Thorne, 2017) thus making the meta-study more of a technical enterprise than a valuable source of meta-knowledge (Thorne, 2015). In the process of this meta-study, we kept in mind that Paterson et al' (2001) meta-study involves deconstructing of theories, methods, and data to help readers better understand why these matters are prominent in the literature.…”

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

“…They further report that 13% of the studies did not have an approach that suits the research aim. Part of the critique is that not all authors try to achieve a synthesis in spite calling their attempts meta-synthesis and citing source literature on meta-synthesis and meta-ethnography (Thorne, 2017).…”

“…These authors like to classify meta-aggregation as a kind of meta-synthesis. Other authors, such as Thorne (2017), question if the aggregative approaches, as described by Pearson et al (2011), Pearson, Wiechula, Court, andLockwood (2005), Pearson (2013) andLockwood et al (2015), can be regarded as a form of meta-synthesis. The aggregative version of meta-research is said to have been developed to mimic quantitative research, while being compatible with qualitative research tradition .…”

“…Synthesizing qualitative research through meta-synthesis can be an important way to consolidate and grow nursing knowledge and theory. However, on the basis of recent readings of such works in the nursing literature, there is a need for critically reviewing the increasing use of something calling itself meta-synthesis that is essentially a way to 'aggregate' qualitative research reports (Britten, Garside, Pope, Frost, & Cooper, 2017;Thorne, 2015Thorne, , 2017 in order to produce 'evidence' for practice (Lockwood, Munn, & Porritt, 2015;Pearson, Robertson-Malt, & Rittenmayer, 2011). Some authors consider meta-aggregation as being different from meta-synthesis.…”