Qualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda

Abstract

In an era of pressure toward evidence-based health care, we are witnessing a new enthusiasm for qualitative metasynthesis as an enterprise distinct from conventional literature reviews, secondary analyses, and the many other scholarly endeavors with which it is sometimes confused. This article represents the reflections of five scholars, each of whom has authored a distinct qualitative metasynthesis strategy. By providing the reader a glimpse into the tradition of their various qualitative metasynthesis projects, these authors offer a finely nuanced examination of the tensions between comparison and integration, deconstruction and synthesis, and reporting and integration within the metasynthesis endeavor. In so doing, they account for many of the current confusions about representation and generalization within the products of these inquiries. Through understanding the bases of their unique angles of vision, the reader is invited to engage in their commitment to scholarly integrity and intellectual credibility in this emerging methodological challenge.Keywords: qualitative metasynthesis; research integration; research synthesis I n an era of pressure toward evidence-based decisions and best practice models, the qualitative health research community is witnessing a new species of inquiry in the emerging form most often referred to as qualitative metasynthesis

Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings

“…Qualitative metasummary results are by themselves valuable end-products of a systematic review, and they can serve as empirical foundations for the use of more interpretive qualitative research synthesis methods. Qualitative metasummary reflects a quantitative logic whereby higher frequency findings are taken to be evidence of the replication that is both foundational to validity in quantitative research and to the claim of having discovered a pattern or theme (Sandelowski, 2001) or ''preponderance of evidence'' (Thorne, Jensen, Kearney, Noblit, & Sandelowski, 2004, p. 1362 in qualitative research. Qualitative metasummary entails treating research reports as indexes of the studies conducted, and the research findings in these reports as indexes of the experiences of the persons who participated in those studies (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007).…”

EĞİTİM DENETMENLERİNİN MESLEKİ GELİŞİM, TÜKENMİŞLİK ve İŞ DOYUMUNA İLİŞKİN BİR META-SENTEZ ÇALIŞMASI

“…Meta-sentez, yorumlayıcı bilim, nicel veya nitel Bahar-2014 Cilt:13 Sayı:49 (31-54) www.esosder.org Spring-2014 Volume:13Issue:49 36 araştırmalar ile tutarlı yöntemleri kullanarak bilginin gelişmesi yönünde, aynı veya benzer konudaki araştırma bulgularını toplayan ve analiz eden bir genel yaklaşımdır (Campbell, Pound, Pope, Britten, Pill, Morgan ve Donovan, 2003:637;Finfgeld, 2003:894;Sandelowski, 2006:10;Zimmer, 2006:312;Gewurtz, Stergiou-Kita, Shaw, Kirsh ve Rappolt, 2008:302;Poggenpoel ve Myburgh, 2008:61). Bu yöntem, her bir orijinal çalışmanın bir yapısal çözümünü, dönüşümünü ve bu çalışmaları yeniden inşa sürecinden geçirerek karşılaştırma, dönüştürme, analiz ve sentez süreçlerini içermektedir (Thorne, Jensen, Kearney, Noblit ve Sandelowski, 2004:1343Zimmer, 2006:312;Nebel, 2008).…”

Dry Port Development: A Systematic Review

“…A systematic review provides consistent data from a collection of data dispersed across a large variety of researches [9]. The systematic review of the literature methodology follows five-steps which includes: (i) problem definition; (ii) selection of journals; (iii) selection of studies; (iv) critical evaluation; and (v) synthesis ( [15]; [9]; [12] and [16]). First, problem definition, it is a delimitation of the subject area or topic.…”